After two hearings and a restrictive conditional-use approval, Club Leaf & Bean seeks a new venue to hear its proposal for a Seven Fields cigar bar: the Court of Common Pleas.

In an appeal filed with the Butler County courts May 11, the club's attorneys argue that borough council's nine-item conditional-use approval was “an error of law, not supported by substantial evidence and constitutes an abuse of discretion.”

Megan Turnbull, solicitor for Seven Fields, could not be reached for comment. Kenneth Foltz and Julia Wu, attorneys for the cigar club, also could not be reached.

The club applied as a retail establishment under the borough's zoning ordinances, having originally tried and failed to have the council amend its ordinance to include for-profit businesses under the “private club” definition. Currently, only nonprofits may use that designation.

Among the conditions contested by the club are a limitation on the hours of the business, a mandate that the club must be open to the general public at all hours it is open, and a ban on the on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages unless an employee is present.

In a document accompanying the decision that included the results of fact finding and legal conclusions, the borough argued that the division of customers into different areas based on membership did not meet the zoning ordinance's definition of a retail establishment, which includes businesses selling goods and services directly to the “general public.”

“Certain aspects of (the)applicant's proposal clearly meet the ordinance's definition of a 'Retail Business Establishment,'” the document states, “but (the) applicant has not established that its proposed use, in its entirety, is a 'Retail Business Establishment.'”

But the business argues the conditions were smoke and mirrors designed to keep out a business that council did not want in the borough under the guise of conditions on use.

In its appeal to the court, Club Leaf & Bean argues that the conditions were unrelated to the zoning ordinance and “are so onerous as to preclude the use of the premises.”

Council invoked a section of the state's municipal planning code to impose conditions “reasonably related to a public interest” as well as an apparent doctrine that municipalities place conditions on use that might improve public safety, rather than reject an application.

“It has long been the law of Pennsylvania that where adverse effects on the public health, safety or welfare from the grant of a conditional use can be ameliorated by appropriate conditions, then such conditions should be imposed instead of denying the conditional use outright,” the borough's decision states.

The business, on the other hand, argued that not only would the business not adversely affect the community's “health, safety and welfare,” but also that the conditions imposed would not protect them regardless.

The business seeks no monetary damages, but asks that seven of the nine imposed conditions — excepting two that prohibit discrimination and the use of illegal or banned substances — be struck from the order.