Cecil hears challenges to zoning, cell tower
CECIL – The attorney representing Southpointe Golf Club grilled Cecil Township supervisors for nearly two hours Monday in an attempt to cross-examine them over a Special Development District zoning amendment planned for Southpointe.
The board didn’t answer direct questions from attorney Robert Blumling, at the advice of solicitor Christopher Voltz, because a legal challenge on the issue has been filed in court. At the of heart of the zoning challenge is the golf club’s ability to subdivide its land and use it for purposes other than recreation.
A zoning board hearing is scheduled for July 18 on the issue of whether Southpointe Medical Associates can proceed with building a facility under the proposed changes.
Blumling said the board’s adoption of new ordinances in May equates to discriminatory spot zoning through written amendments and not map changes. And he accused the board of adopting experimental, unprecedented measures by forcing future applicants to consult and receive approval from surrounding landowners under a conditional use application.
“You want to give landowners the ability to vote on land matters, which the planning commission can’t even do. This has never happened in Pennsylvania,” Blumling said.
Samuel Kamin, an attorney for the Southpointe Property Owners Association, said the ordinance accomplishes the mixed-use residential and commercial development as reflected by the township comprehensive plan. Cheryl Bayne, of Ironwood Drive, said she supported the amended ordinance and was concerned that allowing a reversal would affect property values and community identity.
In other business, the board heard a challenge from Colin Otis, of Hahn Road, who opposes the installation of a cellphone tower near his backyard. Otis said he is a radio frequency researcher and uses a high-frequency antenna in his basement to study tracking technology abilities for future implementation of self-driving vehicles and drones.
Applicant Crown Castle’s attorney, Robert Wratcher, said “if (signal interferences) are the issues, then the Federal Communications Commission should be deciding this, not this board.”