Residents group grants continuance in zoning board matter pending the outcome of its court appeals.
Patch Staff
|Updated Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 8:09 am ET
BUCKINGHAM TOWNSHIP, PA — A developer seeking to build a warehouse in the township but was denied by the board of supervisors in July tried unsuccessfully to quash a zoning appeal by the grassroots group, No Buckingham Warehouse, on Monday night.
No Buckingham Warehouse and its lawyer, H. Peter Nelson, appeared before the zoning board ready to argue its appeal of a determination by the township's zoning officer that what the developer was proposing back in July was a truck terminal and not a warehouse.
While the township denied plans for the 150,000 square foot warehouse in July citing more than 20 reasons, the grassroots citizens group has taken court action to ensure the denial is upheld in court. They are worried that the township's denial will not hold up during the appeals process.
As part of that process, No Buckingham Warehouse filed its appeal seeking a determination from the zoning board to take to the Court of Court of Common Pleas to bolster its case in Doylestown.
No Buckingham Warehouse argues that the projected 90 anticipated tractor trailer trips per day (representing over 23,000 truck trips per year) clearly shows that the proposed building was not being constructed for warehouse storage, but as a truck terminal.
Find out what's happening in Doylestownwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Land development attorney Ed Murphy, representing J.G. Petrucci, the equitable owner of the property bordered by Cold Spring Creamery Road, Stony Lane, Burnt House Hill Road and Landisville Road, asked the zoning to quash the appeal. Murphy, however, found no support on the zoning board to prevent the appeal from moving forward.
Craig Smith, the township's lawyer suggested “a stay” of the appeal pending a decision by the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas on whether the township’s rejection of the plan for 20 plus reasons is valid.
“If it is, we will be spending a lot of time and money on something we don’t need to be doing," said Smith of the zoning board appeal. "And if it turns out the court finds the turn down of the plan wasn’t valid, at that point you can go to the zoning board and decide what the use is. If we did that then this would be a real issue because it would be determinative as to whether this proposed use is allowed in this district.
"Right now it’s purely superfluous," he said. "These are protective actions taken just to have Mr. Nelson's clients to have the ability to fall back on this in the unexpected case that a judge finds that the township's turn down of this application was not valid. To go through all this now seems over lawyered and a waste of time and money."
Nelson said what Smith is saying makes sense and is the quicker, cheaper way to go, but he questioned what happens if the court rules in Mr. Murphy's favor and upholds his appeal.
"All the sudden we're going to spend a lot more time and money coming back here and going through this whole thing and then bringing that back to court and then re-litigating whether or not the denial should be upheld or thrown out," said Nelson.
Smith said the township is willing to stipulate that "Mr. Nelson's bases are covered by either holding this (the appeal) in abeyance or reserving him the right, if he needs to, that if it turns out our denial was insufficient, then this issue would be preserved."
After some discussion, Nelson agreed to grant the zoning board a continuance in order to meet with Smith and Murphy to see what they can come up with that will preserve the rights of his clients with regard to the zoning appeal.
"Mr. Nelson is concern that by not moving forward with this appeal he'll be waiving his clients' rights," said Smith. "What we're saying as a township is that we would agree to stipulate that he doesn't waive those rights and he doesn't have to come before the zoning board to preserve those rights. He will still have those rights in court in Doylestown."
During the talks with the other two lawyers, Nelson said he'll be looking for a consolidation of the court cases and language that holds the zoning board appeal in abeyance.
"If that's the case, we'll deal with the county court cases and we won't be coming back before the zoning board unless the court rules in Murphy's favor and we have to come back here (to the zoning board)," he said.