BARRYVILLE, NY — The permitting process for several projects in the Town of Highland has become gummed-up.

The Camp FIMFO project, a $40 million-plus project to renovate Kittatinny Campgrounds into a family-style resort, remains in limbo after a June decision from the National Park Service (NPS), which struck down a key part of that project’s identity. 

And a wine shop proposed by local residents Eve Fisher and Andrew McGrath has experienced several months of delays before the town’s planning board, with a decision on that project still to come.

Applicants for both projects have claimed to face a drawn-out, unclear process for getting projects from concept to reality.

“We’re trying to come to you to discuss and figure out what we need to do to open this business… but it’s been three months, and now we’re going to go another month,” said McGrath. “That’s really problematic for us from a business perspective.”

Zoning rules and regulations

The wine shop proposed by Fisher and McGrath uses a preexisting cottage and doesn’t involve construction; the only addition is a small expansion of the parking lot.

It’s before the Highland Planning Board for administrative reasons, not because there’s construction that needs to be permitted. Any proposed use of a building in the Town of Highland (except for use as a single-family home) requires site-plan approval by the planning board. The cottage used by Fisher and McGrath is being used as a commercial property after some time without such use - according to Fisher, the building used to house the business "Barryville Realty," but that business had been shut down for a while - and the building’s renewed use means it needs new site-plan approval.

Fisher and McGrath first appeared before the planning board in April. As of the June meeting, the planning board still has not granted them a permit. 

A consultant hired by the town to review the project presented at the June meeting saying that the property falls short of the area’s minimum-lot-size requirements. The applicants are disputing that requirement, but the existence of the dispute meant the planning board couldn’t rule on the project in June. 

The applicants pushed to get the question settled at the June meeting.

“[If] we come back next meeting, and then there’s still a conversation that goes on because of how we read this space agreement, you’re going to say we need a variance,” said the wine shop’s consultant, Michael Packer. 

“Being strung along month after month, financially it’s very grating,” said McGrath.

Norm Sutherland, chair of the planning board, told them the planning board didn’t have a choice.

“I’ll do the best we can to get everything straightened out between [the consultants], said Sutherland. “We really can’t go any farther until we get this straightened out.”

Upper Delaware regulations

In postponing a decision on the wine shop, Sutherland said as well that the planning board needed to wait for the Upper Delaware Council (UDC) to approve its review.

The UDC, with representatives from the towns and townships along the Upper Delaware, reviews projects within the river corridor that require site-plan approval or a special-use permit, passing its recommendations up to the NPS for a final determination whether the new project is in substantial conformance of the River Management Plan, the document that guides recommendations by the UDC and decisions by the NPS. Because Highland’s zoning requires site-plan approval for a majority of uses, those uses—like the wine shop—fall under the UDC’s review and possible determination by the NPS. 

The applicants urged the planning board not to wait for the UDC. So did the UDC itself, in a letter sent to the planning board and read at the start of the June meeting.

“It is just a small business, and they’ve been kind of at this for a few months,” said Kerry Engelhardt, the UDC’s resources and land use specialist. She requested the UDC send a letter to the planning board saying it was likely to find the project in substantial conformance and reminded the board it didn’t have to wait for the UDC, “just because [the business is] going to lose the summer the longer this goes on.”

Sutherland disagreed: the board waited for the UDC for other projects, he said, and it had to treat all projects equally.

When pressed, Sutherland said, “You might think that we’re bad people up here, but we get paid the same as the people in the audience. [I’m done] talking about it, because you’re gonna make me mad.”

Camp FIMFO

The most high-profile project under review by the planning board—Camp FIMFO—is by no means equal to the proposed wine shop. The latter involves minimal alteration to its surroundings; the former is a $40 million-plus project, the impacts of which are a matter of active debate among permitting agencies and advocates.

The NPS recently determined that the scale of the project’s keystone—the 200-plus park-model RVs that will replace tent campsites—puts it out of conformance with the River Management Plan. As reported by the River Reporter, the determination rests on a few factors, including that the RVs will be left permanently on-site and thus count as permanent structures; the RVs have individual water and sewer systems; and the RVs will change the character of the neighborhood. 

The applicants for Camp FIMFO have requested that the planning board move forward without waiting for the UDC/NPS review. The project got its UDC nod last September, but while the NPS had a 45-day deadline from then for its own decision, it didn’t make that decision until June.

“[The NPS] had very clear guidelines about how they were supposed to participate in the program. They have ignored those, and now they’re asking everyone to start the process over because they haven’t participated in it,” said Daniel Ruben, an attorney representing Camp FIMFO.

The NPS position has been that the application was incomplete, and didn’t provide enough information for its ruling. It has been in monthly contact with the applicants since September, requesting additional information.

For Ruben, that’s not participation in the process.

“They’re supposed to sit down with all the participants,” he told the River Reporter. “Their role in the process is to advise these local municipalities on how to protect the river in accordance with the River Management Plan, not to dictate what these local municipalities do with the local process.”

The Town of Highland planning board does make its own rulings, separate from the UDC/NPS process. But it’s the UDC that acts in an advisory role, to towns and the NPS alike; the NPS has regulatory power within the corridor. 

When asked what would happen if the town approved the project past the NPS’ disapproval, superintendent Lindsey Kurnath left the park service’s potential response open.

When asked by the River Reporter about the possibility of litigation as a response, Ruben said, “Litigation is always on the table. We will do what it takes to preserve our rights, and if the NPS doesn’t want to participate and we have to bring them to the table through litigation, absolutely.” 

The UDC has urged the NPS to negotiate with Camp FIMFO, with some members disagreeing with the park service’s decision, saying how much of an economic boon Camp FIMFO would be to the area and cautioning about the NPS trampling on private property rights.

For its part, the NPS has stuck to its position that the project as it currently stands does not conform with the River Management Plan. 

Transparency and opposition

Hanging over the process are lingering doubts about its openness.

A petition launched by advocacy group Know FIMFO called upon the Highland Planning Board to reject any secret meeting planned for the Camp FIMFO project.

The NPS did ask the UDC to set up a meeting with members of the Highland Planning Board and the Camp FIMFO applicants. But the planning board and the applicants both turned that meeting down before the petition went out, wanting said meetings to happen openly.

For their part, several officials involved in the planning process have called for greater transparency from the Know FIMFO group.

The Know FIMFO group doesn’t have a spokesperson, as it is a collective of concerned citizens more than it is an individual’s effort, said Maya van Rossum, who is partnered with the group as the Delaware Riverkeeper. 

In addition, said Van Rossum, the aggressive tone used by officials involved in the process has made the individual members of Know FIMFO afraid of tying themselves to the cause. 

Meetings with FIMFO and other projects on the agenda have inflamed passions, with both members of the public and planning officials using pointed language. Public officials, including Sutherland and several members of the Upper Delaware Council, have had contentious moments with members of the public speaking out at meetings. Additionally, public officials have taken heat from exasperated members of the public.

Editor's note: This article has been updated as of 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 12 to add that the cottage used by Fisher and McGrath had previously been used as the business Barryville Realty.