The hearing on a proposed Conoy Township ethanol plant is closed, but a decision on whether to allow the $100 million facility to be built on the eastern shore of the Susquehanna River is nearly two months away.

Township supervisors expect to announce their decision March 13.

At stake is a proposed corn-to-ethanol distillery, which Lancaster Biofuels wants to build on a 65-acre tract between the river and Route 441. If built, it would be the first ethanol plant in Pennsylvania.

Ethanol is being touted by the federal government as a fuel additive that will reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. Opponents argue that ethanol reduces fuel efficiency and takes more energy to produce than it's worth.

During closing statements Wednesday, attorney Elizabeth Witmer, representing A&R Nissley and Nissley Vineyards in Bainbridge, urged supervisors "to look again at your own (zoning) ordinance. You have a very stringent ordinance."

The key issues surrounding the plant are air pollution, noise and odor, she said.

"Those are the things that affect quality of life for everyone who lives here." she said. "Those are the things that people needed to hear about in order to feel good about this application. Those are the three things that this applicant never addressed."

An independent review of the application showed a significant amount of missing information on potential emissions and odor, Witmer said.

"It's deficient in the initial burden of proof," she said. "I urge you in the strongest possible terms to turn this application down."

Caroline Hoffer, representing Lancaster Biofuels, said in her closing that the site adjoining the Lancaster Solid Waste Authority plant already is zoned for industrial uses, including the storage and sale of fuel products.

"It is not a question before you if ethanol is good or isn't good, or if politically we should support ethanol or not," Hoffer said. "And your zoning ordinance does not require that we bring in an expert on every aspect of our application."

All industrial uses have potential environmental impacts, she said.

"This is not unique to ethanol," Hoffer said. "You have many industrial uses along this corridor that are also producing these impacts."

She said, "We believe that we have proposed, in our application and in the materials that have been provided, very stringent standards that this applicant will be held to."

Earlier in Wednesday's hearing, Jill Nagy, special counsel for the township, submitted several pieces of evidence, including an emergency-response plan for the site and confirmation from local emergency-response agencies on that plan, a review by Hanover Engineering and a final draft of the environmental impact report, completed by the consulting firm ENSR and dated Jan. 22.

Witmer objected to the ENSR report's inclusion.

She said the final draft of the report is "not solely based on the application and testimony, but also on additional information and responses provided by Lancaster Biofuels to ENSR."

Witmer said it is "an attempt to bootstrap additional information by the applicant into this hearing. To the extent that this information was provided outside of this hearing … it should not be considered by the board."

She said she is not moving to strike the report from the record, but disputes the weight it should be given by supervisors in making a decision.

Nagy said comparisons to earlier drafts of the ENSR report will show that "nothing of substance changed in the report."

Township solicitor Matthew Creme said supervisors have "not seen or read that report at this time."

He recommended the board defer action on the objection until a later date.

Lancaster Biofuels also fielded a final witness: Timothy Yohe, a registered civil engineer with Buchart-Horn, who described the revised site and landscape plan for the plant.

The new plan incorporated several changes to the November draft of the plan that was previously submitted to board, including improvements to Route 441, better-defined setbacks along property lines, realignment of the railroad loading and unloading area and improvements to the emergency access road off Route 441.

"I'm concerned about the applicant's slapdash approach to the hearing," said Joyce Nissley, co-owner of Nissley Vineyards, beginning just over 30 minutes of public comment.

The economic benefits that have been touted at previous meetings will help Lancaster County, she said, but for the most part will not affect Conoy Township. And, based on a community survey, she said, "the people here do not want an ethanol plant."

"It's someone else's turn to sacrifice for the benefit of the county," Nissley said. "Get your grungy fingers out of our cookie jar."

Hellam Township, York County, resident Jerry Franek said ethanol "is a scam on the American taxpayer, and our children will wonder how we allowed ourselves to be so hoodwinked."

Michael Grove of Marietta said, "I don't think we have enough long-term information on health impacts."

Barbara May of Millersville, called ethanol "an environmental and economic disaster waiting to happen" and said Lancaster Biofuels has given the township "a smooth, superficial sales pitch."

Warren Evans, of Hellam, said "the health and safety of Conoy Township residents will be compromised" by the plant. Are the economic benefits, he asked, "worth the negative impacts on property values and quality of life" in the township?

Judy Nissley, also a co-owner of Nissley Vineyards, closed the comments by stating, "I don't like ethanol. I don't like the fact that the U.S. government spends billions of dollars subsidizing ethanol when that money should be spent investigating means to make the U.S. independent of foreign oil.

"Make sure that, if you vote to approve their application, they do the job right."

Conoy Township supervisors set a Feb. 22 deadline for submission of written comments and proposed conditions on the plant.

The board intends to make a decision at its March 13 meeting, which will be held at 7:30 p.m. at the Bainbridge Fire Hall.

E-mail: tknapp@lnpnews.com