Cecil special zoning district challenged
An attorney representing Southpointe Golf Club, Maureen Sweeney, interviews her expert witness, Mike Swisher, who helped develop the Southpointe plan in 1985, Monday night in front of Cecil Township Zoning Hearing Board.
Cecil Township solicitor Christopher Voltz, left, cross-examines John K. Trant Jr., of Strategic Solutions LLC, about his testimony on behalf of Southpointe Golf Club Monday night in front of Cecil Township Zoning Hearing Board.
Cecil Township Board of Supervisors Chairman Tom Casciola, left, answers questions from solicitor Chris Voltz Monday night.
CECIL – A special zoning district for Southpointe is being challenged in court and before the Cecil Township Zoning Hearing Board.
In a hearing Monday, the board heard testimony that the amendment prohibits land usage downgrades and requires a percentage of neighbors to give approval on redevelopment. The appealing applicants, Southpointe Golf Club, argue it would prevent the organization from subdividing the course to allow for a 2-acre plot near the Iceoplex for a proposed children’s learning center.
Attorneys for the golf club argued the special zoning district amended May 2 discriminates against the club and prevents any further development and renders plans for redevelopment of its property as “sterile.” Cecil officials already planned for further potential amendments and advertised an Aug. 1 hearing on the issue and the application of Hope Learning Center following the regular board of supervisors meeting.
“The amendment improperly singles out the applicant’s property that creates a permanent freeze to a single use (recreation) and cannot change to anything within the residential or industrial categories without 100 percent approval from everyone nearby, which is 160 people,” said attorney Maureen Sweeney, of Blumling & Gusky, who is representing the club.
Cecil Township Board of Supervisors Chairman Tom Casciola testified an applicant could request rezoning before the board and the 100 percent referendum requirement is solely for developed lots; 51 percent petitions would pass muster for board submission and consideration for new development.
Zoning board member Anthony Menosky asked during the hearing “when has a zoning ordinance ever had a referendum?” Sweeney responded, treating his question as accidental testimony.
“You’re reading my mind. It’s not permitted by the Pennsylvania constitution or municipal planning code and that’s why this is a substantively invalid ordinance. The MPC does not allow the board to delegate its powers and duties by referendum to residents,” Sweeney said.
One of Sweeney’s expert witnesses, John K. Trant Jr., president of Strategic Solutions, LLC, said the ordinance created a “one-way ladder up” for permitted uses by right.
“An applicant can move up to commercial or residential, but residential can’t move down and so on. There is no objective language that would help determine where a development could go in terms of usage and restriction,” Trant said.
Attorney Phillip Binotto, who is also a resident on Ironside Drive, represents three of the homeowners associations in Southpointe.
“I believe the supervisors … looked at the comprehensive plan for one of the best communities in the nation … (and) recognized the investment of the taxpayers of this community (with the golf course and homes). My neighbor’s house is for sale. Under the old ordinance, there was a loophole where I could buy that property and open up an industrial operation. The supervisors had the foresight to close that loophole to preserve the character and integrity of this ‘live-work-play’ community,” Binotto said.
Solicitor Chris Voltz said the township is well within its rights to format such changes and the zoning ordinance is valid.
“This is to protect residents from further changes to already-developed land,” Casciola said, “and that’s a big, important difference because you believe things won’t change when you buy a house; that things will stay the same as when you bought the property.”