Gilmore residents fear future of town
GILMORE – Some residents in Gilmore, a patch town in Cecil Township that formerly held a coal mine, fear their small community will turn into an industrial site for Marcellus Shale waste.
A neighboring piece of residential-zoned property, owned by Weavertown Environmental Group, is currently a gravel lot with concrete barriers around the perimeter, and the company said it has no immediate plans to change that.
But it’s the fear of what’s to come that troubles families on Slatemore Drive.
“We don’t want a business up here in front of our house,” Greg Hall said. “We don’t want to see the eyesores and the junk sitting over there.”
Weavertown Environmental, established 33 years ago, primarily transports and treats Marcellus Shale waste and cleans up any spills that occur. Locally, the company is based in Cecil and Houston, but has operations across Pennsylvania and in Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky.
Donald Fuchs, owner of Weavertown, said he purchased the former North Star Coal property in Gilmore a few years ago and did not realize it was rezoned as R-3 residential property when he brought in roll-off boxes, causing residents to complain.
Greg and Cristy Hall said the loud truck traffic became a nuisance.
“He ended up having a whole residual waste dumpster stationed there, probably close to around 200 dumpsters,” Hall said. “And they ran out of our street 24/7, up and down our little alley.”
Fuchs said the boxes were removed a month after he was made aware of the zoning discrepancy. He then purchased the two houses closest to the site along Millers Run Road, one of which he claimed was in “deplorable” condition. Contractors tore down all but half of one of the homes, which Fuchs plans to repair.
Mary Plumley, one of the former residents, claims she and her family were forced out of their home because the company trucked in waste products.
“The whole back was hazardous waste, and it was in our backyard,” Plumley said. “(Fuchs) is just pushing everybody out, and it’s declining everybody’s property value, and he doesn’t care.”
Fuchs contends everything he has done was on his property and completely legal.
He said he would request a zoning change and go through the township process if he wanted to use that property for industrial business.
Bruce Bosle, zoning director, said Weavertown is not violating the township’s zoning law because it does not fall under the definition of a contractor storage area – any land used to store construction equipment, materials or company vehicles.
“This is more of a civil issue between the property owners than it is any municipal violations,” Bosle said.
Residents said they are frustrated with the township’s response, and they’ve started calling police when issues arise. Police Chief Shawn Bukovinsky said police responded to five calls since Aug. 15 – most recently Saturday – primarily dealing with property line disputes. Police officers did not find Weavertown workers to be trespassing.
Bukovinsky said there also was a verbal confrontation Aug. 18 between a Weavertown subcontractor and Gilmore residents, but no one was charged.
Fuchs said he is being forced to put up a fence along the property line due to the disputes with neighbors. He received a zoning permit for the fence Wednesday.
“In my heart of hearts, in the honest to God truth, putting it up is making me sick because it isn’t a bad looking piece of property,” he said.
Neighbors told a different story, arguing Fuchs made a “gentleman’s agreement” and allowed them to keep items on his property for the time being. But last week, Weavertown subcontractors bulldozed company property next to a home owned by Kim and DJ Rash and damaged their remote control race track.
Fuchs said he offered to replace the piping.
“It’s my property,” Fuchs said. “All I’m doing is cleaning up the junk.”
Property disputes aside, Hall said he and his neighbors will fight any changes that would allow an industrial site in Gilmore.
“It’s his right, it’s his property,” Hall said, “but not for business. We want it to be kept residential property.”