East Union Township and Service Electric Cablevision Inc. each asked Schuylkill County Court on Thursday to overturn the grant of a special exception to the Pittsburgh limited partnership that wants to develop a commercial cargo airport in the Hazleton area.
In their appeals, the township and Service Electric each argued that the county Zoning Hearing Board exceeded its authority and made a legally incorrect decision Aug. 3 when it voted to award the special exception to Gladstone Partners LP to build the airport.
"Granting the special exception application was erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, an abuse of discretion and contrary to law," the appeal reads in part.
The township and Service Electric asked the court to reverse the board and deny the request for the special exception, which Gladstone Partners would need to proceed with its plans. The decision would force Gladstone to file any new action with the township, which has consistently opposed the idea.
Gladstone applied for the special exception in 2009 after announcing plans to build the airport in 2007.
The airport would cover 4,500 acres in East Union and Kline townships, Schuylkill County, and Hazle Township, Luzerne County. The airport, most of which will be in East Union Township, also would have 13,000-foot runways.
In asking the court to reverse the board's decision, the township argued that the board had no jurisdiction to hear the case and that, if it did, it decided it incorrectly by improperly finding some witnesses credible and not others.
The board should not have heard Gladstone's case because the township's zoning ordinance was pending when the partnership made its application, according to the township's appeal. Under the state Municipalities Planning Code, the pending ordinance requires an applicant in a zoning case to go before the municipality in such a case, the appeal reads in part.
"Gladstone frustrated the purposes for which the (doctrine) exists to protect municipalities from the establishment of nonconforming uses on the eve of a zoning change," according to the township's appeal.
Furthermore, Gladstone did not provide to the county a survey, parking plan and other necessary information, failed to obtain a license from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and should have sought a use variance instead of a special exception because it originally sought to have a business park along with the airport, that appeal reads in part.
Gladstone eliminated its proposal for a business park while making its presentation to the board.
East Union also alleged that Gladstone did not prove that the airport:
- Will not harm property values in the area
- Will be compatible with the area's character
- Will have adequate parking
- Conforms with all legal requirements
- Will be operated to protect public health, safety, welfare and convenience.
"The proposed use would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare," the township's appeal alleges.
Also, East Union alleged that the board erred in not accepting the testimony of the township's and Service Electric's witnesses as credible. Those witnesses had testified that the region's infrastructure would not be able to handle the proposed airport, the application is insufficient to support Gladstone's case and the development could affect Service Electric's signals.
Service Electric's allegations closely followed those of the township. Additionally, it alleged that the board erred when it failed to find that the airport would interfere with its signals.