Threat Timeline


Timeline of Preservation Efforts

 
  1979 Development first proposed for the farmland. Historic York, Inc. and Springettsbury Township with the funding and assistance of the PA Historical and Museum Commission ~PHMC) conduct a small excavation on the eastern portion of the farm. Proves to be part of Camp Security. Development does not proceed, and the township proposes to buy the land for a park.
 
  1979-1992 Development of the western portion of the farmland. It becomes part of a large residential neighborhood. Only remaining parcels not developed in area are the remainder of the original farmland and the adjacent farm to its east.
   
  July 1999 First draft of a new development plan completed by engineer.
 
  September 1999 Sewerage & stream crossing permits filed with the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). After notification from DEP, the Bureau for Historic Preservation at the PHMC (BHP) notifies the engineer that their agency wants access to property to conduct an archaeological investigation, given that the site of Camp Security is located on the property. Historic York, Inc. becomes aware of threat to Camp Security.
 
  October 1999 BHP informed by Historic York, Inc. that a US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permit is needed for the development's wetland impacts and stream crossings (roadway and utilities). Corps receives permit application October 25. This initiates the need to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (106). Lead reviewer of the permit for the Corps asks for assistance from Corps archaeologist. Developer notified by BHP by letter dated October 28 that he is now responsible for any required archaeological investigations. Springettsbury Township Historic Preservation Committee begins to follow the permitting process for the Hunters Crossing Development. They had named the site as one of the historic resources of greatest significance to the township. Economic Development Director of Springettsbury Township informs Historic York, Inc. that he intends to enforce Section 309(E) of the Subdivision l Land Development ordinance, which requires that a survey of known significant archaeological sites be done in a manner prescribed by the PHMC.
 
  November 18, 1999 Consultation Meeting held by Corps to discuss permit application with the developer and his engineer. BHP, Historic York, Inc., local historian, and Township officials also present. Developer and his engineer try to argue that the site located on the property is not Camp Security and that it was completely excavated in 1979. Size of Corps permit area discussed. Avenues to avoid Corps permitting also discussed, including bridging the road and utilities, and the size of the wetlands impacts. Site visit conducted by Corps to confirm location and size of wetlands on property. Wetlands too large to be avoided, and not properly delineated on development plan. The developer agrees to conduct another delineation and provide revised plans to the Corps.
 
  January 2000 The developer receives written notification from the Corps, dated January 20 of the following: "Because of the nature of the waterways impacts, they have defined the entire development as the permit area. Therefore, results of an archaeological investigation on the 'extremely significant archaeological site' of Camp Security are needed to proceed with permitting. Recommended that site should be avoided and donated or sold to a preservation organization. Attached scope of work for the archaeological investigations detail a high level of effort, equivalent of a very thorough Phase II archaeological investigation (testing) in Pennsylvania."
 
  February 2000 The developer gets bids for the archaeological investigation. He begins to argue that the permit requirements constitute a "taking". Historic York, Inc. and local historian officially listed as Consulting Parties in the Section 106 process for this project.
 
  March 9, 2000 Consultation meeting held to discuss archaeological investigations and wetlands impact s with the developer. The developer, his engineer, his attorney, the army Corps, Historic York, Inc., local historian, and township officials also present. The developer states that he has hired an archaeological consultant. Parties agree to scale back initial work to a lower level of effort equivalent to a Phase I archaeological investigation (survey) in Pennsylvania. This work is designed to delineate the known site, Camp Security, and find any other sites on the property. The developer is informed that additional archaeological work will probably be needed, if Camp Security cannot be avoided. He agrees to fund only the Phase I survey. In addition, he presented several development/wetlands mitigation options to the Corps at the meeting.
 
  Late March 2000 BHP and Historic York, Inc. comment on several revised scopes of work for the archaeological investigations. Neither party comments on final version of the scope of work ~written by the Corps.
 
  April 2000 The developer receives written notification by the Corps dated April 19, that Corps involvement cannot be avoided using any of the development options, and the Corps must conduct the archaeological investigations.
 
  May 2000 Phase I survey conducted at the property by the developer's archaeological consultant. Location of a part of Camp Security confirmed, including the identification of terracing associated with the prison camp. Far northern end of property to be developed not included in this survey.
 
  Late May 2000 Nominated by Historic York, Inc., Camp Security named to Preservation Pennsylvania's annual list of threatened historic places, Pennsylvania at Risk 2000.
 
  May/June 2000 Reviewing archaeologist, for this permit, application appointed by the Corps.
 
  May 31, 2000 Meeting at site between the Corps' archeologist, BHP, the developer's archaeological consultant, and the developer to discuss results of Phase I survey. Other consulting parties not invited. Based on their surface finds, the archaeological consultant defined an approximately 5.5 acre site boundary where they believe that subsurface features are present. There is discussion at this meeting that the preferred option would be preservation of the site rather than additional excavations. However, the Corps and BHP both indicate that they need to review the report before any final decisions can be made on a treatment strategy.
 
  June 1, 2000 In a memo faxed to the developer from the Corps archeologist, the developer is asked to present the Corps with four preservation options, which range from preserving the whole site to preserving only a small portion of it, based upon discussions from the May 31st meeting. This memo is copied to BHP and consulting parties, who immediately disagree with all four options, as none adequately mitigate the adverse effect of the development on the site, nor address the other archaeologically sensitive areas outside the developer's archaeological consultant surveyed site boundary.
 
  June 8, 2000 Management Summary letter completed by the developer's archaeological consultant, outlining the results of their fieldwork. A site boundary is defined which does not encompass all the archaeologically sensitive areas on the property. The report states that the site is the only Revolutionary prisoner-of-war camp still known to be intact, that it is a unique and fragile historical and archaeological resource of National significance, and that it clearly meets the eligibility requirements of the National Register of Historic Places.
 
  June 15, 2000 Consultation meeting held to discuss results of Phase I archaeological investigations with the developer, his engineer, his archaeological consultant, Corps, BHP, Historic York, Inc., local historian, and township officials. BHP reviewer joined by his superiors. All parties agree to the National significance of the site and to its National Register eligibility. The developer and his consultants present four plans, which preserve part of the site as delineated by his archaeological consultant. Their option of choice preserved only two house lots centered on the terraces. The Corps, BHP, Historic York. Inc. and local historian, disagree with both the delineated site boundary and the recommendations. These four parties agree that the site boundary needs to be larger to encompass all the known archaeologically sensitive areas on the property. The Corps explains that their archeologist did not have the authority to make decisions, he was just an advisor. BHP explains that they did not agree to any treatment strategy at the May 31st meeting, only that preservation was preferable to excavation. The developer and his consultants want a decision made at the meeting. Neither the Corps nor BHP agrees on an official mitigation plan, at the meeting. BHP indicated that the entire center section of the property of would have to be preserved, and all the archaeologically sensitive areas outside the undeveloped area may need further work.
 
  July 2000 Friends of Camp Security formed by some members of Springettsbury Township's Historic Preservation Committee and several other York County residents. Township officials try to push an open space plan as a compromise, as they believe this would allow more of the site to remain undeveloped. Petition against the Development signed by approximately 500 York residents. Economic Development Director successful in getting approval for the township to pay for an open space sketch plan for the developer.
 
  July 6, 2000 BHP Director speaks to the township Board of Supervisors about the significance of the Camp Security site at a meeting open the public.
 
  July 25, 2000 Site visit at Camp Security arranged by BHP. Attended by the Corps, BHP, Historic York, Inc., the Friends of Camp Security, township officials, concerned local businessmen, township residents, staffers from local senator's and congressman's offices, the York County Farm & Natural Lands Trust, the York County Parks and Recreation Department, Preservation Pennsylvania, and two National Park Service archaeologists. Consensus of archaeologists present is that the site probably has National Landmark status.
 
  Late July 2000 Group of concerned local businessmen get together to save the Camp Security site. They begin working with Historic York, Inc., the Friends of Camp Security, the York County Farm and Natural Lands Trust, Preservation Pennsylvania, and concerned township residents to raise the funds to buy the property proposed for development. Local state senators and congressmen voice their support for the preservation of the Camp Security site to this group of businessmen. Historic York, Inc. takes the position that only complete preservation of the property will be adequate to save the Camp Security site. Partial preservation will not be appropriate treatment for such a significant site with interpretive potential. In addition, location within a housing development will not provide the buffer needed around archaeological resources to assure their protection.
 
  September 15, 2000 Presentation of open space plan to township Board of Supervisors. They approve the concept of the plan, and agree to change several subdivision ordinances to allow for its construction.
 
  Late September 2000 Draft report on the Phase I archaeological survey for the development submitted to the Corps. No change made to recommendations from June 15th meeting. Site boundaries not justified. Other artifact scatters identified during the survey not adequately described or evaluated. Recommended that a small portion of the site be preserved and that a detailed history of the site be written and publically presented in an on-line format. BHP, Historic York, Inc. and local historian also provides comments on the report to the Corps.
 
  October 4, 2000 Archaeological Conservancy visits site and states their interest in participating in its preservation, with the stipulation that it be open for archaeological excavations. They begin working with the local group of businessmen formed in late July.
 
  November 2000 Corps comments on report dated October 2nd that was sent to the developer with a letter dated November 21st. The Corps officially determined site eligible for the National Register under Criterion D in the letter. The Corps found the site boundary to be inconclusive and the report to be deficient in its discussions of National Register eligibility. Corps refused to make a finding of effect until their comments were addressed and the report revised.
 
  January 2001 Redesigned development plan submitted to Springettsbury Township. This plan of 77 houses follows the open space sketch plan presented in September 2000. One of three open space lots to be owned by the homeowners association encompasses 5.3 acres of the Camp Security site, all within the developer's archaeological consultant's site boundary. Camp Security nominated by Historic York, Inc., to the National Trust for Historic Preservation's 2001 list of America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places.
 
  February 2001 Final Report on the Phase I archaeological survey for the development submitted to the Corps. The developer's archeological consultant refused to revise the report, rather attached their comments on the Corps comments as an appendix. Site boundary not changed or justified. Recommendations unchanged. BHP, Historic York, Inc. and local historian forwarded copies for their review. Developer requests permit or reply before March 5, 2001. Corps tells Historic York, Inc. that they have no mandated time frame for reviewing permit applications. He also believes they will make a determination of adverse effect by the development on the Camp Security site. He asks for the other parties' comments ASAP, so the Corps can integrate them into their response. In a letter dated February 14 to the township Historical Committee, the BHP details their problems with the Phase I survey conducted for the developer in May 2000.
 
  February 15, 2001 Development Preliminary Plan presented to township Planning Commission. The required Environmental Impact Statement is found to be inadequate by their consulting engineer. Several concerned parties speak against the development and on the significance of the site, including Historic York, Inc. They table any decision on the project until their March meeting.
 
  March 2001 Developer tells BHP that he will redesign his plan to avoid the Corps permit. He attempts to initiate the 90 day schedule for the PHMC to conduct archaeological investigations on the property (i.e. the Act 70 process). BHP tells him a notice must come from DEP to initiate the 90 period. The developer and his consultants ask the Corps if the wetlands impacts could be reduced to change the permit from a joint to a general permit, which is under state authority. Corps tells him it is not possible without complete avoidance of the stream and wetlands, even during construction activities.
 
  April 2001 Group of concerned citizens with the Farm and Natural Lands Trust make an offer to buy the property from him. The offer includes about $1,000,000 cash and significant tax credits. The developer refuses the offer. In a letter dated April 10, 2001, the Corps notifies the developer that he has 60 days to address their comments to the Phase 1 Archaeological Survey Report, or his permit application will be revoked. Although they have other comments, their principal concern is with the site boundary. They state that it has not been justified by his archaeological consultant, as portions of the property that contain archaeological deposits that are associated with the camp have not been included. Also, the requested wetlands mitigation plan and conservation easement have not been submitted for review.
 
  April 19, 2001 The development Preliminary Plan presented for a second time to township Planning Commission. The required Environmental Impact Statement has not been revised, and many environmental issues remain unresolved. Only the required traffic study has been submitted, as it was prepared for another nearby project the developer had already had approved. Several concerned parties speak against the development and on the significance of the site, including Historic York, Inc. They vote unanimously to DENY the Hunter Crossing plan, due to the numerous issues that need to be resolved, the number of state and federal permits still not issued, and the extreme significance of the historic site to be impacted.
 
  Late April 2001 The developer begins telling various parties that he will redesign the project to avoid Federal permitting. The Corps assures the developer that Federal jurisdiction will not be removed until a new development plan has been submitted, with a statement indicating that it is a viable development. If any temporary ~ impacts are needed for construction, his agency will require a permit.
 
  May 2001 Development plan redesigned to avoid all impacts to wetlands and streams. This 105 lot plan leaves a small portion of site within an approximately 2.5 acre open space lot at its center. Many of the lots are not accessible from any proposed roadways. This new plan sent to both the Corps and DEP. This plan received by DEP on May 4. They are concerned about its impacts to the two archaeological sites shown on the plan. DEP confirms to Historic York, Inc. that the developer made two submittals to them in 1999 and 2000 during the period that the Corps had jurisdiction over the project. These submissions were made using another development name. Descendants of a prisoner and a guard at Camp Security meet, bringing the story of Camp Security to the 21st century.
 
  May 10, 2001 The Corps officially releases jurisdiction of the project in a letter to the developer. As part of this action, the developer signs a letter stating that he will create a new open space plan preserving the bench areas and a large contiguous area around them of approximately 5 acres.
 
  May 24, 2001 Springettsbury Township Supervisors approve an extension to make a decision on the Development Plan until June 28. They also grant two waivers previously approved for the second roadway slope at intersections and cul-de-sac length. The vote on the waivers was initially split. Following a misinterpretation of State Ethics Code by the township's solicitor and manager, the board voted unanimously to approve the waivers. Eleven people spoke at the meeting voicing their concern with the development's impact to Camp Security. Organizations represented include Historic York, Inc. Friends of Camp Security, Sons of the American Revolution, Neighboring Residents, and local historians.
 
  Late May 2001 The developer extends the current option with the current owners another three to six months. Fifth graders at a local Elementary School write letters in support of the preservation of the Camp Security site. The students' letters are copied to both York newspapers, who each run feature articles including excerpts from the letters. The articles generate additional local support for the preservation of Camp Security
 
  June 2001 Camp Security not named to the National Trust's 11 Most Endangered list for 2001. At two meetings open to local residents and the general public, the Friends of Camp Security launches formal membership, publicity and fund raising campaigns.
 
  August 3, 2001 The developer submits a new preliminary plan to Springettsbury Township, removing all previous plans from review. This plan includes 112 house lots and 17 additional future lots in the approximately 2.5 acre open space lot at the center of Camp Security. Other open space lots are located on the edges of the property and do not encompass any of the identified area of the Camp Security site. The township's deadline to make a decision on this plan is set for October 30, 2001.
 
  August 16, 2001 The developer circulated a color version of plan with lots 63 thru 74 removed and the townhouse lots renumbered (leaving 100 house lots). A Board Member questions the developer's claim that the Corps will not retake jurisdiction. The developer and his engineer testify that Windsor Township approved the road two years ago. This fact questioned by Springettsbury Township's Engineer, who states that if the road is not approved by Windsor Township, the plan has a fatal flaw.
 
  August 20, 2001 Residents of adjoining neighborhood in Windsor Township attend their Board of Supervisors meeting to voice concern over the planned road from the development. The Board agrees to draft letter to Springettsbury stating that the developer does not have approval for the road from Windsor Township and he will need to resubmit for their review.
 
  Late August 2001 HYI officially questions the Corps release of jurisdiction, as the new plan is different from the one submitted to them in May 2001, and violates several of the conditions of their May 10, 2001 letter.
 
  September 2001 FOCS distributes their first newsletter. A 30 minute video entitled "Mysteries of Camp Security" is created and aired on local TV several times during September and October. The developer submits latest Preliminary Plan to Windsor Township. It is tabled at their Planning Commission meeting on September 20, 2001. Corps reviews new plan and confirms their release of jurisdiction, as the developer has agreed to place conservation easements over wetland areas within seven residential lots.
 
  September 20, 2001 Preliminary Plan considered for a third time by the Springettsbury Township Planning Commission. With one Board Member absent, there are only four members present to vote. Commission members happy with concept of open space plan leaving parkland around the house lots. They agree it is the best overall concept they have ever seen submitted to the township. They refuse to consider approval of the future lots located within open space as part of the current development plan. FOCS have their lawyers make their presentation. Many others speak in favor of preservation of the Camp Security site. Two members vote to approve the plan and two members vote to deny the plan. This split vote means that no recommendation of either approval or denial is made by the Planning Commission.
 
  October 2001 Farm and Natural Lands Trust submit grant application to the PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. They request $1,000,000 to purchase the farm and save Camp Security from development. Bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that will allow the National Park Service to study Camp Security and consider it as a part of the National Park System. Windsor Township Planning Commission recommends approval of the road from the new development into the existing development.
 
  October 11, 2001 The development's Preliminary Plan brought before the Springettsbury Township Board of Supervisors. The future lots located within the open space lot centered on the terraces have been removed from the plan. Executive Director of the PHMC, makes a presentation that presses the significance and rarity of the Camp Security site, and offers the PHMC archaeological field school to do further studies of the site. After questioning by the Supervisors, the developer refuses to hold up his development plans for one year to allow for the PHMC to do this work in 2002. The lawyers for both the Friends of Camp Security and the developer make presentations with conflicting arguments on 1) the adequacy of the plan's environmental impact statement and 2) on whether a 2-2 vote would be a denial or approval of a plan. Numerous other parties stood up and spoke in support of preservation of Camp Security through denial of the plan. Following statements by each Supervisor, two voted to approve and two voted to deny the plan. (The developer's father recluse himself from the vote.) The Township Solicitor determined that a 2-2 vote was a denial of the plan. Those who voted to approve stated that the plan met the ordinances. Those who voted to deny stated that the plan did not appear to meet all of the requirements of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance.
 
  October 15, 2001 Windsor Township Board of Supervisors denies access to the development from the existing neighborhood, as no one attended their meeting to present the plan.
 
  November 2001 The developer files two suits in York County Court against Springettsbury Township and each of its Supervisors for denial of the development plan. In the first suit, he claims 1) that they failed to render a decision and notify him within the time frame mandated by state law and 2) that a tie vote is an approval of a plan. In the second suit, the developer claims that the township supervisors had no legal justification for denial as the plan met all of the township’s zoning, subdivision and land development ordinances, and left him with no allowable use of the land.
 
  December 19, 2001 Springettsbury Township Planning Commission reviews the developer’s new plan to subdivide the Tract into two parcels- one for them to retain and one for him to buy for future development. Although it is only a briefing item on their agenda, they unanimously vote to approve this subdivision plan.
 
  January 2002 FOCS becomes a party in the developer’s suit against the township with approval of their Intent to Intervene. This will stop Springettsbury Township and the developer from settling out of court without their involvement. Camp Security placed on a list of Revolutionary War places to be inventoried and assessed by the Battlefield Protection Program of the National Park Service. Its director gives his support for preservation of the site. The developer officially refuses to allow the PHMC access to the property to conduct archaeological investigations or to conduct their field school. His reason was that his purchase of the property was eminent, and that the PHMC could hinder his development plan. PHMC responded that they did not know what the urgency was to build a development in Springettsbury Township. FOCS nominate the site to the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s 2002 list of America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places.
 
  January 22, 2002 Springettsbury Township Board of Supervisors unanimously approve the developer’s subdivision of the Tract into two parcels. One week later, the developer buys the 47 acre property for $520,500.00.
 
  February 2002 Camp Security inventoried and assessed by the Battlefield Protection Program of the National Park Service. The surveyors, graduate students at the University of Delaware, compared Camp Security to Valley Forge. They agreed that Camp Security is the most threatened site they have surveyed in the Mid-Atlantic region and one of the most significant as well. Friends of Camp Security prepares their second newsletter and sends it to their membership, Historic York members and other interested persons.
 
  March 2002 The archaeologist and Director of the Center for Cultural Resources at Valley Forge National Historical Park, gives talk on Revolutionary War camp sites at Penn State York on March 19. During presentation, he compares the hut evidence found at Valley Forge to what could be expected at Camp Security. In support of its preservation, he indicates that it may be even more significant that Valley Forge.
 
  March 2002 Article “A Battle over a Revolutionary War Prison Camp” in the Today's News section of Preservation OnLine on March 20, 2002. (Preservation OnLine is the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s on line magazine.)
 
  April 2002 DCNR 2002 grants announced on April 8, 2002. Camp Security not on the list. HYI and FOCS assured by DCNR that the Farm & Natural Lands Trust grant application was still under consideration and could be awarded funds later in the year with the next round of grants. President of FOCS, The FOCS attorney and a Board Member of Preservation Pennsylvania, Legislative Assistant for local politician, give presentation to the Springettsbury Township Board of Supervisors at their April 11 meeting to update them on the progress to preserve Camp Security. The Senior Program Officer for the Northeast Region of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, supports Camp Security for his organization’s 2002 11 Most Endangered List.
 
  June 2002 Camp Security not named to the National Trust’s 11 Most Endangered list for 2002.
 
  July 2002 In his ruling on the developer’s first lawsuit, The judge finds in favor of the Springettsbuiy Township Board of Supervisors. In the written ruling dated July 9, 2002, the Judge finds that the developer has no claims to a deemed approval of the development plan.
 
  July 2002 Judge Blackwell hears Oral Arguments on Land Use Appeal.
 
  August 2002 Developer Tim Pasch appeals Judge Brillhart’s decision to Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
 
  December 2002 Judge Blackwell remands matter of the Land Use Appeal back to Springettsbury Township for “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”.
 
  January 2003 During a special Supervisor’s meeting, “Findings and Conclusions” are given by the two dissenting Supervisors. No further testimony or discussion is allowed.
 - Judge Blackwell’s order in Land Use Appeal allows the developer to file an amended appeal with subsequent answers and replies within a 50 day period.
 
  March 31, 2003 Arguments heard in the Commonwealth Court with reference to the Mandamus Action Appeal filed by Mr. Pasch.
 
  April 29, 2003 Judge Blackwell, again hears oral arguments with regard to the Land Use Appeal. The Judge requests that the parties involved submit their proposals on the language she should use in drafting an order relating to the Appeal. This is to be completed within two weeks.
 
  May 2003 The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court overturned the County Court's decision that dismissed the developer's Mandamus lawsuit.
 
  August 2003 Springettsbury Township and the Friends of Camp Security filed separate appeals to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Friends of Camp Security is represented by Michael V. Nixon, J.D., a Historic Preservation attorney, on a combined pro bono and reduced fee basis.

The developer also filed a cross appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. A decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as to whether to allow the appeal isn't expected until late 2004. If appeals are accepted, the decision would not be expected from the Supreme Court until at least another year after that, sometime 2005-2006.
 
  September 2003 The York County Judge hands down her decision in the Land Use Appeal. She had remanded the matter back to the Township in December 2002 and in January 2003 the Township Supervisors clarified their denial decision. Both supervisors reiterated their reasons for denial citing the Township's Land Development and Subdivision Ordinances which allow them to deny a plan if it has not adequately met the requirements with regard to historical issues. The Judge however, ruled that the Supervisors by virtue of the tie vote must therefore approve the developer's subdivision plan as originally submitted with the four conditions identified in the motion that resulted in the tie vote.
 
  October 2003 The developer filed an appeal of the County Judge's Land Use decision seeking to do away with the four conditions. At the same time the Springettsbury Township Board of Supervisors, in compliance with the court order, vote to approve the preliminary plan with the four conditions. The developer files a new Mandamus Suit and Land Use appeal as he did in 2001. He also filed a Federal Civil Rights suit against the Township and the two supervisors who voted "no" to the plan in the tie decision in 2001, claiming $20 million in alleged damages.
 
  November 2003 The Dechert Law Firm of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania agrees to represent the Friends of Camp Security in these new matters on a pro bono basis.
 
  December 2003 The Pennsylvania House of Representatives, on introduction by local District Representative Keith Gillespie, pass a unanimous (199-0) resolution urging the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch to exercise all their power and authority consistent with Article 1 Sec 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (Environmental Rights Amendment of 1970) to preserve Camp Security. Currently, the Pennsylvania Senate is preparing to introduce and vote on a companion resolution, identical to the House Resolution.
 
  January 2004 Springettsbury Township Board of Supervisors approves the developer's final subdivision plan with conditions as ordered by the County Court.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, in consultation with the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office requested that he developer conduct more thorough archeological survey s of the property. As of this date the developer has not indicated whether he would comply.
 
  February 2004 Windsor Township whose approval is necessary under the conditions of Springettsbury Township's approval tables the plan for Hunter's Crossing for a second time. The plan will reportedly come back on the agenda in early March.
 
  February 5, 2004 FOCS files an appeal of the Springettsburry Township Board of Supervisors' final approval of the developer's plan in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Pennsylvania.
 
  March 15, 2004 The Windsor Township Board of Supervisors gives preliminary approval of the developer's plan.
 
  April 14, 2004 FOCS files an appeal of the Windsor Township Board of Supervisors' preliminary approval of the developer's plan in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Pennsylvania.
 
  June 21, 2004 The Windsor Township Board of Supervisors gives final approval of the developer's plan.
 
  July 21, 2004 FOCS files an appeal of the Windsor Township Board of Supervisors' final approval of the developer's plan in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Pennsylvania.
 
  June 2, 2005 Camp Security is named to the National Trust's 11 Most Endangered List for 2005.
 
  2008 Representatives from Friends of Camp Security met in Harrisburg with local Representative Keith Gillespie and other government officials in attempt to promote awareness and find a solution to the preservation of Camp Security.
 
  September 2008 State and local preservation groups, along with representatives from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and FOCS legal counsel begin meeting in an attempt to find a way to move forward with the preservation efforts.
 
  August 2009 Volunteers help with a small archeological dig immediately surrounding the Schultz House owned by Historic York. The Schultz House was formerly the home of Beatrice Rowe. The Rowe property was part of the original Brubaker property taken for the Camp site.
 
  Fall 2009 The Conservation Fund of Pennsylvania joins the Preservationists in an effort to find a way to secure the site.
 
  2010 The former Rowe property becomes availabe for purchase and with the help of the Conservation Fund, negotiations begin.

A 2.1 million dollar deal for the purchase of the Rowe Property leads to fund raising efforts from State and local agencies as well as private donors.
 
  May 2011 The Rowe property is purchased and transferred to Springettsbury Township for preservation.
 
  December 2011 Negotiations begin by the Conservation fund with the developer for the purchase of the original preservation effort.
 
  May 2012 The Conservation Fund enters into a "bridge loan" in order to securet he developer's parcel. Funding efforts begin to reimburse The Conservation Fund for the purchase.
 
  2013 As fundraising efforts continue, an awareness event is planned to occur as a private reception on April 19th and public viewing on April 20th. On display at the York County Heritage Society will be original documents pertaining to the Camp, artifacts uncovered during the 1979 dig and enlargements of photos taken from a manuscript in which prisoner/escapee Sgt. Roger Lamb depicts life at Camp Security.

Prev: Current Threat