Opposition to a proposed mixed-use development in Pine Creek Township reached a boiling point Tuesday evening as residents packed the municipal building to express what many described as their central concern: the project simply “ain’t supposed to be there.”
The development, a 64-unit residential and retail complex planned for a stretch of open land along Route 412, has been met with mounting resistance from locals who say the proposal violates an unspoken but widely understood rule about the area.
“That’s just not where that goes,” said lifelong resident Earl Jennings, gesturing vaguely toward the site during public comment. “Anybody can see that.”
Jennings’ statement was met with murmurs of agreement throughout the room.
A Site, Questioned
The land in question consists of a broad, gently sloping field bordered by woods on one side and a two-lane road on the other. It has remained largely undeveloped for as long as most residents can remember.
According to township records, the parcel is zoned for the type of development proposed. It sits within an area identified years ago for potential growth.
Residents say that designation never sat right with them.
“It’s been empty because it’s supposed to be empty,” said local resident Connie Miller. “That’s the whole point of it.”
When asked why the land was designated for development if it wasn’t meant to be developed, Miller shrugged.
“Paper says a lot of things,” she said.
The Developer’s Case
Developer Thomas Kline presented his proposal to the township planning board earlier this month, emphasizing its alignment with zoning regulations and long-term growth plans.
“This project meets all requirements,” Kline said. “It’s exactly the kind of development the township planned for.”
Residents were unmoved.
“You can plan all you want,” said Jennings. “Doesn’t mean it belongs there.”
Kline attempted to explain how the project would bring new services, housing options, and tax revenue to the area.
“It’ll change the character of the place,” said Miller. “That’s the problem.”
Folk Logic Holds
Throughout the meeting, residents returned repeatedly to the idea that certain places have inherent purposes that defy documentation.
“That land’s been sitting there forever,” said one attendee. “You don’t just decide one day it’s something else.”
Another resident compared the situation to putting a gas station in a living room.
“Sure, you could probably make it work,” he said. “But why would you?”
Planning board members listened attentively as residents elaborated on their objections.
Board Chair Steve Rollins asked whether specific impacts, such as traffic or noise, were of concern.
“It’s not about that,” said Jennings. “It’s about right and wrong.”
Officials Seek Specifics
Several board members attempted to guide the discussion toward actionable concerns.
“We need to understand the issues,” said board member Linda Kowalski. “What exactly worries you?”
Residents responded with variations of the same explanation.
“It don’t belong there,” said one.
“That’s not what that spot’s for,” said another.
Kowalski pressed further.
“But why?” she asked.
There was a pause.
“It just ain’t,” said Jennings.
Experts, Unconsulted
Land-use experts say this type of opposition is common, particularly in rural and semi-rural communities.
“There’s often a strong sense of place that isn’t reflected in zoning maps,” said Dr. Harold Greene, a sociologist who studies rural development.
Greene said residents frequently rely on what he called “folk zoning.”
“It’s an unwritten understanding of what goes where,” he said. “And it can be very powerful.”
Asked whether such logic holds legal weight, Greene said it does not.
“But it holds emotional weight,” he said. “Which can be just as influential.”
Development Fatigue
Residents say their resistance is fueled in part by a sense that development has been creeping closer over time.
“First it was over there,” said Miller, pointing across the road. “Now it’s right here.”
Several attendees said they worry that approving this project would set a precedent.
“Next thing you know, they’ll be building something else,” said one resident.
Rollins noted that the township has a comprehensive plan designed to manage growth responsibly.
“Plans change,” said Jennings. “Land don’t.”
The Meeting Drags On
As the meeting stretched into its third hour, residents continued to reiterate their core argument.
“This ain’t a place for that,” said one man, echoing previous comments.
The developer attempted to respond, but was frequently interrupted by residents speaking over him.
“You can’t put that there,” said someone from the back of the room.
Kline eventually stopped trying to counter the objections.
“I hear you,” he said.
Residents nodded, satisfied.
Board Deliberates
When the board entered deliberation, members acknowledged the strength of public opposition but struggled to articulate how it should influence their decision.
“They feel very strongly,” said Kowalski.
“They do,” Rollins agreed. “But we need something concrete.”
“What’s more concrete than that?” asked another board member, gesturing toward the audience. “They don’t want it there.”
The board agreed to table the decision pending further review.
Residents applauded.
A Temporary Victory
Outside the municipal building, residents expressed cautious optimism.
“They heard us,” said Miller. “That’s what matters.”
Jennings was less certain.
“They always say they’ll look into it,” he said. “Then it ends up there anyway.”
Still, he remained confident in the logic of the opposition.
“It’s just common sense,” he said. “You don’t put stuff where it ain’t supposed to be.”
What Comes Next
The planning board is expected to revisit the proposal next month after reviewing additional materials.
Kline said he remains hopeful.
“We followed the rules,” he said. “We’ll continue to work with the township.”
Residents say they’ll be back.
“I’ll be here every time,” said Jennings. “As long as they keep trying to put it there.”
Editor’s Note
The Pine Creek Township Planning Board did not specify what additional criteria it would use to evaluate the proposal beyond zoning compliance and public sentiment.
