PENN TWP — The attorney for a local company that owns a 107-acre parcel along Route 8 is challenging a year-old amendment to the township zoning ordinance that she said would preclude residential development along parts of the highway.

A public zoning hearing will be held March 30 at the Penn Township Municipal Building to take testimony from the landowner, Pacific Coast Partners, on its challenge last month to a chapter in the ordinance regarding residential development.

Pacific Coast Partners is owned by Brayman Construction of Clinton Township.

The land owned by the company is on the east side of Route 8, across from Mars Bank and adjacent to LakeVue North Golf Course.

Rebecca Black, the attorney who filed the challenge of behalf of Pacific Coast Partners, said Wednesday her client believes the changes to Ordinance 173, as presented, would restrict development on her client’s property.

She said her client has not approached the township about a prospective development on the property because of what the client considers unreasonable restrictions.

“We cannot comply based on the changes they’ve already made,” Black said. “There is very little we can do on that property with the changes that were made.”

She said the restrictions in the amended ordinance effectively preclude any developer from proposing a housing development along Route 8 in the “RE zoning district.”

The main issue, Black said, is the requirement for lots in a residential development to be a minimum of 12,780 square feet, which she said is almost a half-acre.

Such a large lot typically attracts very high-end homes, which would not fit on her client’s property because it is near auto repair, commercial and other businesses.

“Nobody really wants to buy a luxury house for $650,000 when they are right off Route 8,” Black said. “It just isn’t appropriate for that area. That’s our position.”

The lot-size requirement included in the amendment also prevents her client from considering a development with town homes, she said.

She said the restrictions do not apply to some neighboring properties because they are not in the RE zoning district.

Clinton Bonetti, township land use administrator, could not be reached Wednesday regarding the township’s reasoning for amending the zoning ordinance.

In minutes from a March 2022 hearing to allow testimony on and discuss the amendment to the ordinance, Laura Ludwig from HRG Engineers stated the replacement of language in Chapter 12 of Ordinance 173 to “planned residential development” meets all state municipal code requirements.

The minutes go on to say some of the guidelines include cluster mailboxes, a swimming pool, buffer yards, maintaining existing features, a homeowners association requirement, and other requirements.

The minutes also state that Anthony DaDamo, representing Pacific Coast Partners, questioned the changes to the RE zoning district.

“He stated that it would be difficult to develop the property with large parcels due to development costs today,” according to the minutes. “He stated that there is heavy commercial property use near the RE zone and will not allow for beneficial development.”

DaDamo ended his statement at that hearing by saying the RE zone requirements should equal the R1 zone, according to the minutes.

Township supervisors chairman Sam Ward then asked DaDamo for a specific letter asking what Pacific Coast Partners is requesting, the minutes state.

When asked Wednesday the reasoning for amending the ordinance, Ward said he feels it is inappropriate to comment on the issue until after the March 30 hearing.

No residents commented at the March 2022 meeting, according to the minutes.

The hearing on March 30 will allow testimony by any Penn Township resident.

When asked Wednesday the reasoning for amending the ordinance, he said he feels it is inappropriate to comment on the issue until after the March 30 hearing.