Battle over complex continues

Battle over complex continues

W. Vincent board split on Ludwig's Corner Zoning Ordinance

By Michael P. Rellahan, Staff Writer

November 16, 2002

WEST VINCENT -- A battle over a proposed apartment complex in Ludwig’s Corner is likely to continue despite a blow suffered by the project’s opponents at a recent zoning hearing board meeting.

On Thursday, the board split 2-2 over whether a zoning ordinance allowing apartments on land behind the Ludwig’s Corner Fire Company had been improperly passed by the township supervisors last December.

The challengers to the ordinance -- who have argued that the apartments would sully the reputation and property value of the surrounding countryside as well as create havoc in the community -- had to collect at least three votes to have their procedural challenge go ahead, said zoning board Solicitor Patrick C. O’Donnell.

Only four members of the board were able to vote on the matter because member Karl Brachwitz, who as a former supervisor had voted on the ordinance allowing the apartments, disqualified himself from voting.

Opponents had argued that because there were changes in the ordinance from the time it was initially drafted and advertised and when it was formally voted on by the supervisors, it should be considered null and void.

But although zoning board members agreed that changes had been made, two -- Chairman Hanno Sprangler and member Ken Frame -- said they did not believe the changes made were substantial enough to invalidate the ordinance.

"There is no question that changes were made," said Sprangler on Friday. "But I felt the changes were not so drastic to constitute a new ordinance. Besides, all of the changes between the first draft and the final version were made before the public hearing on the issue."

He believed that anyone who wanted to could have attended that public meeting, held Dec. 26, and found out the specifics of the ordinance.

On the other side, board member Jane Gaffer said she believed the changes had in fact been of a nature that would have called for a new advertisement before the ultimate vote.

"I thought that the procedures of the (Pennsylvania) Municipal Planning Code had not been sufficiently followed," she said Friday. "I thought that there had been substantial changes made to the ordinance" -- particularly the inclusion of a "ridge line" issue -- "between the initial advertisement and passage."

She was joined by member Larry Shontz.

Dwight Yoder, the attorney representing Residents for Smart Development, which opposed the ordinance, said his clients may have been defeated but were not yet beaten.

"Certainly they were disappointed. I’m disappointed," he said. "We thought that the law was pretty clear" and that the ordinance didn’t follow the proper steps to approval.

"We have to look at this and decide where we go from here," Yoder said. "The group is very committed and plans on moving forward. We don’t think this is best for the township."

Because the opponents have raised other questions concerning the apartment complex, however -- that it constitutes spot zoning, for one -- another session on the matter is planned for Dec. 10.

But whether or not that session will go forward is in question itself. Attorneys for the apartment complex’s developer have argued that the challenge to the ordinance which allowed the apartments should be dismissed outright because it was not filed on time.

Normally, ordinance challenges must be filed within 30 days of the passage of the ordinance. The current challenge was not filed until weeks after the ordinance passed, well outside the time limit.

O’Donnell said he will now research the issue of whether the challengers will be allowed to go forward with their other complaints. He said he expected both sides to argue the case at the board’s next meeting, and the members would then vote on the matter again.

Because of the time limit question, the board did not technically vote on Thursday, but O’Donnell said he would consider the sum of each member’s positions a decision on the matter.

Developer David Della Porta’s proposed apartment complex, consisting of eight four-story buildings 45 feet in height on Nantmeal Road, has been vehemently opposed by neighbors of the tract and other township residents. Throughout the township, signs with the word "Why" have sprung up, questioning the need for the apartments and the way the ordinance was enacted.

Della Porta and township officials claim the plan allows the municipality to preserve a higher percentage of open space, which will be donated to the township.

Della Porta first approached the township with a plan to develop the property, known as the Griffith tract, with single-family homes. But after being encouraged to go back to the drawing board, Della Porta came up with a plan for 216 luxury apartments on 18 acres of the property, leaving approximately 100 acres as open space.

The only problem was the plan was not permitted under the zoning. In December, the supervisors approved the ordinance that would make way for Della Porta’s development.