ADAMS TWP — A number of township residents encouraged supervisors Monday to consider taking more steps to manage the influx of urban — specifically housing — development.

Gene Montiny said he spoke to township leaders a few meetings ago, asking if they could do something to “control” development.

Supervisor Chairman Russell Ford said at that time he didn't want to deny residents the right to sell their property, according to Montiny.

“That was fine,” Montiny said. “I totally, 100% agree with that.”

Montiny said what he wanted to know was if the township could limit “slash-and-burn” developing.

Montiny defined “slash-and-burn” development as work done by ripping out every tree and bulldozing the land.

“I know that's the cheapest way to build a house,” Montiny said. “I just want to know ... if it's possible (that) we can do some kind of control.”

Resident Tim Stack said he has applied to put his property in an agricultural security area.

According to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, agricultural security areas protect farmland from non-agricultural use. Landowners must submit a petition to township supervisors to establish an agricultural security area.

“Any specific or general reasons why there would be a problem getting into the (agricultural security area)?” Stack asked the supervisors.

Ford said the board wasn't prepared to comment on that, but would review Stack's application.

“Let us look into it,” Ford said. “We can come back and give you an answer.”

Ford said the board of supervisors “understands and hears” what residents say about developments. He also said the board didn't want to get into debates with residents during township meetings.

“We don't want to hold anybody back from their comments or their thoughts,” Ford said. “But we also need to be transparent and open with everyone.”

Ford told Montiny to that end, he doesn't know if all residents feel the way Montiny does about controlling developments.

Ford also indicated the discussion of development in the township can be polarizing.

He said after sending out a public notice about a bear sighting in the community park last week, he witnessed some backlash.

“It turned into, 'If you wouldn't be approving so many (Planned Residential Developments), the bear would have somewhere to go,'” Ford said. “That's ridiculous.”

Ford said he isn't pro- or antidevelopment, just “pro-rights-of-somebody-can-own-their-property.”

Supervisors suggested residents direct their comments to the planning commission.