Route 222 warehouse developers file second lawsuit
Maidencreek Township is being sued for the second time in months by the developers of a proposed 930,000-square-foot warehouse, this time for failing to control the conduct and process of conditional use hearings as required by state law.
The lawsuit, filed Feb. 17 in Berks County Court, references a series of hearings in which developer and property owner Maiden Creek Associates aims to prove the warehouse plans at Route 222 and Schaeffer Road meet certain conditions for land use in the township’s regional commercial district.
Conditional use approval is needed before township supervisors can decide on final plan approval.
The suit claims that by permitting hours of crossexamination, township supervisors allowed the hearings to become out of control and unproductive.
The hearings began in late November and are slated to continue through late March and beyond.
The suit references the cross-examination of Chris Williams, the developers’ traffic engineering expert, during a January hearing when a residents’ group opposing the warehouse spent nearly three hours combing through details of a March traffic impact study.
It claims the questioning was “inappropriate, irrelevant, beyond scope, or used to present the opposition party’s case,” complaints that the developers’ attorney Gregg Adelman voiced during the January hearing.
At that time, Adelman threatened township officials with legal action if they continued to allow the lengthy questioning without limiting its scope or scheduling additional hearings to expedite the process.
Those complaints are solidified in the suit, which says that by failing to schedule more hearings — despite repeated requests by the developers — the board violated state rules requiring that conditional use applicants be given sufficient time to present their case within 100 days of the initial hearing.
The most recent hearing Feb. 27 also featured a lengthy cross-examination of Williams.
The next hearing is scheduled for March 27, roughly four months from the initial hearing date.
At the hearing in January, township solicitor Eric Frey said the board wouldn’t set any limits on residents’ ability to ask questions.
“These are laypeople, not attorneys; we’re not going to limit their time,” Frey told Adelman at the time. “We have to consider their (residents’) due process rights to ask the questions they want to ask.”
Maidencreek residents have since defended their right to question the developers.
“Something is seriously wrong with the developers’ data, and we have the right to question it,” resident Cliff Panneton wrote in a Feb. 9. letter to the Reading Eagle. “We were not filibustering. We were seeking the truth.”
The developers claim their right to due process is being impeded by the supervisors’ choice to permit the lengthy questioning.
“As this is a matter of ongoing litigation, the amount of comment that the township will offer publicly will be limited. The board will continue to follow the guidance of its professionals, its ordinances, state regulations, and statutes as we work toward the best interest of the residents.” — Stated in the release
The suit requests the court require the supervisors to schedule enough hearings for the developers to conclude their case by March 10 — the 100 day mark — or appoint an independent hearing officer to oversee and schedule the remaining proceedings.
If Maidencreek cannot give developers time to complete their case by March 10, the suit requests the court approve the conditional use application on March 11.
The supervisors issued a press release saying that township leaders would review the claims made in the suit and respond appropriately, “As this is a matter of ongoing litigation, the amount of comment that the township will offer publicly will be limited,” the release said. “The board will continue to follow the guidance of its professionals, its ordinances, state regulations, and statutes as we work toward the best interest of the residents.”
The developers filed a complaint in January claiming the township’s noise ordinance makes it virtually impossible to build on the proposed warehouse site and is therefore illegal.
Maidencreek officials gave no updates on that suit.