Har Haven granted one-year occupancy

| 07 Sep 2016 | 05:05

By Anya Tikka
— Har Haven, the new occupants of the former Mount Haven Resort, was given a temporary certificate of occupancy to last one year.
After that time, the certificate may be either renewed or revoked, depending on what happens in the meantime, said Dingman zoning officer Chris Wood in his report to the township.
Wood found that the proposed use of the Mount Haven property by Har Haven, "though different in some ways, (is) basically similar to that conducted by the Filone family," which had formerly owned Mount Haven.
Har Haven LLC’s president, Nathan Birnhack, speedily replied in writing to a detailed list of questions Wood had sent him about the use of the property. Wood said he issued the certificate only after much deliberation.
The sale of Mount Haven has caused an uproar among township residents worried about how the property will be used. Many residents aired their safety and health concerns in a heated township meeting last month.
Dingman Supervisors' Chair Thomas Mincer is also the attorney for Har Haven and so has recused himself from all discussion of the property. The decisions to be made about Har Haven are left to the two other supervisors, Vice-Chair Dennis Brink and Kerry Welsh, and Wood as zoning officer.
Township officials say they want to listen to everyone’s concerns while also cautioning that the sale was a business deal they have no power to regulate.

What is a 'camp'?

Birnhack's address is listed as Lakewood, N.J., the same location as the School for Children with Hidden Intelligence (SCHI) Camp that has led residents to wonder if the property will function as a camp or as a resort.
“Issuance or denial of a certificate of use will be based solely on the provisions of the Dingman Township zoning ordinance, the past use history, the proposed future use and applicable case law," Wood wrote.
Wood will have to work out the meaning of "past use," since the township's ordinances don't clearly define what is a "camp" and what is a "resort."
The two questions Wood highlighted are:
Is Har Haven’s proposed use of the property consistent with the previous use of the property?
If yes, would Har Haven’s permitting of the School for Children with Hidden Intelligence use of the property be consistent with the previous use?
Wood wrote that the ordinance places Har Haven in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district, which does not list resorts as a permitted use.
“Large resorts” as defined by the ordinance refer to facilities that can sleep more than 100. Large resorts are permitted only in the CP (Conservation and Parks) district, Wood stated.
Har Haven does not fall into the large resorts category.
Wood said Har Haven’s written response says the new owner will:
Operate the restaurant as an event venue and provide dining services for various large group functions consistent with the former Mount Haven’s use as a banquet venue
Keep the various sleeping accommodations, with room occupancy limited to ten days per guest visit, consistent with the former Mount Haven’s use of transient occupancy
Har Haven intends to restrict the use of the property, including the dining facilities, sleeping accommodations, and other amenities, for four to six weeks annually for the exclusive use of the School for Children with Hidden Intelligence, Wood's report says.
If SCHI chooses to call Har Haven a “camp,” Wood stated, it does not necessarily create a new use for the property — as long as SCHI restricts its use of the property to "typical rural resort activities."
And any group that stays at Har Haven must meet all Pennsylvania child safety laws. "SCHI would not be an exception," Wood stated.
To ensure the use remains a resort, the motel portion must remain open to guests for at least183 days in a calendar year, Woods said in his report. Har Haven has to operate the facility "as described in the written comments that were provided to the Dingman Township," he stated.
A link to the full documentation may be found on Dingman Township’s website: dingmantownship.org.

Related story:

"Supervisors: We must stick to law on Mount Haven": http://bit.ly/2cb4i4J