As development has ramped up in the area, borough and township meetings have become the battleground for debate between developers and residents.

While many point out that they are not against development, they are also quick to mention they believe the regulatory process that’s in place to ensure such development is safe and has minimal impact on nature and existing infrastructure is too loose. Too often, residents argue, it feels like nothing can be done to stop development as long as the rules are being followed. Those rules, they believe, are not enough to ensure preservation.

This has certainly been the case in Adams Township, where each supervisor and planning commission meeting often sees scores of residents voicing opposition to the most recent PRD, or planned residential development.

In recent months, the frustrations have been focused on stormwater drainage plans in these developments, with many reporting a noticeable change in the amount of flooding they’re seeing. Some have experienced property damage.

Last month, township supervisors took a step to show that they too have concerns.

They issued a cease-and-desist order against the developers of Cypress Fields, a housing development on Davidson Road. It came after a period of heavy rain that resulted in localized flooding in that area. Residents turned out in force to express concerns and share stories of flooding they believed tied directly to that development.

Supervisors believed by stopping the issuance of permits to the project, it would spur more urgency in rectifying stormwater concerns.

On Tuesday, supervisors retracted that order, with the developer citing specific steps he had taken to rectify concerns. Assurances were also given that continued action would be taken to ensure another cease-and-desist would not occur again.

Tuesday’s meeting also saw supervisors issue another, similar cease-and-desist order to the Woodland Trace housing development. Residents shared similar reports of flooding, with runoff flooding some basements.

Supervisors agreed to the order, giving the developer two weeks to address concerns and report back with a remedy for the situation.

Obviously, the message is being received loud and clear that while development in the township is a fact of life, it will be done so under the watchful eye of not only residents, but also local government.

Supervisors should be commended for using the processes available to them to address concerns. The concept of a cease-and-desist, as employed in these instances, is clearly not meant to discourage development or throw unnecessary wrenches into projects.

Instead, it simply allows the township and developers to hit the pause button and take a closer look at the impact development is having on the area. It’s an extra box to check to make sure requirements are being followed, and a sort of reset to examine if expected disturbances are playing out the way they were anticipated.

We encourage other municipalities to consider using similar action in areas of concern.