TodayJudge's decision on Southampton (Cumberland) zoning will be appealed
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Add This
Article RatingA legal challenge to Southampton Township's 2004 zoning ordinance was dismissed as invalid by a Cumberland County Common Pleas judge in July.
However, the verdict was appealed to Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Court, by three of the original four appellants.
Township Supervisor Tom Ginnick says the legal furor will likely be a "moot point" in any event, since the recent adoption of a new comprehensive plan positions the township to develop a new zoning ordinance.
"Our intent is to pass another zoning ordinance and repeal the old one," he said.
The land use appeal opposing the township's zoning ordinance was filed in December, 2004 by four parties -- Robert J. and Jeannette E. Kasper, Clarence and Mary P. Toigo, Lane I. Thrush and the Shippensburg Area Development Corporation -- following the Nov. 22 adoption of the township's first-ever zoning ordinance.
The Kaspers are not part of the appeal.
Robert Kasper said Monday, "The appeal is not in my best interest." Kasper has requested an audience with the three supervisors, presumably to discuss his request -- first initiated in July's meeting -- to rezone his property along Walnut Bottom Road.
Judge Edward Guido dismissed the land use appeal July 24 in an 8-page ruling, rejecting 6 points made by Charles Suhr, attorney for the appellants.
The appeals contentions were that:
* The ordinance was not prepared by the township planning agency as required by the state's Municipalities Planning Code.
* The township planning agency did not submit recommendations and explanations to township supervisors as required by the MPC.
* The township did not submit a copy of the final ordinance to the Cumberland County Planning Commission as required by the MPC.
* An attested copy of the ordinance was not field in the county law library as required by the MPC.
* The township failed to properly advertise the ordinance after making substantial changes.
* The zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the township's comprehensive plan.
Guido rejected most of the arguments as invalid, but acknowledged there is substance to the claim that an attested copy of the ordinance was not filed at the county law library.
He said the only attested copy of the ordinance filed at the library arrived nearly a month after adoption of the ordinance.
However, Guido contends the appellants were not harmed by that failure since the ordinance was available for review at other public places prior to adoption.
Guido cited case law requiring procedures be "followed strictly." However, he went on to say the strict adherence to procedure is to insure that the public can be made aware of changes in law.
The precedent indicates that if that purpose is fulfilled, strict compliance may not be necessary.
Suhr disagrees.
He says the case is "a technical case about what procedures were met."
Suhr contends Guido erred in his interpretation of the provision for filing at the law library, and that the issue of providing a copy of the ordinance to the county planning commission was never addressed in Guido's ruling.
Supervisors Ginnick and James Gruver defended the expenditure of $41,000 in township funds to defend its ordinance.
"I think our zoning ordinance is good," Gruver said. "Our basic idea was to protect the township and agriculture. We'll continue to try to protect our residents.
Pointing out that comment from township residents support the ordinance and that only one of the appellants -- the Toigos -- are township residents, Ginnick said, "I think it was money well-spent."
