Penn Plaza developer files appeal on rejected proposal
The developer behind the controversial Whole Foods Market and apartment redevelopment at the former Penn Plaza site in East Liberty is firing back at the city planning commission for rejecting the proposal.
Pennley Park South Inc., which also owns the 7-acre property, filed an appeal Tuesday in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court challenging the decision, describing it as “unabashedly political.”
The developer charged that the commission “utilized a framework of imaginary criteria” in justifying its rejection of the amended preliminary land development plan rather than sticking to the objective standards set forth in the city’s zoning code and in a rezoning approved by city council last year for the site.
In applying such a “non-existent imaginary standard,”
commission members “have engaged in illegal ... activity that greatly exceeds any legal authority that has been granted to them,” according to the appeal filed by Jonathan Kamin, attorney for Pennley Park.
“In every scenario, every developer, every person in business, is entitled to know the city’s bodies are going to follow the law. Here we have an application that completely complies with the law and it was turned down merely because the planning commission didn’t like it. That’s not an acceptable basis for a denial,” Mr. Kamin said in an interview.
The appeal is the latest salvo in the battle over the land, the site of the former Penn Plaza apartments, where more than 100 residents — many of them older and with low incomes — were displaced last year to make way for the redevelopment.
In rejecting the proposal last week, the commission cited what it perceived as a lack of community engagement as well as concerns about other aspects of the plan, including a reconfigured Enright Parklet. There also were complaints about the lack of affordable housing in the plan.
But in its appeal, Pennley Park South maintained that its proposal complied with city zoning requirements and the rezoning approved by city council. The amended plan was filed to include a larger park, to address community concerns, and conditions placed on the redevelopment by council, Mr. Kamin said.
Pennley Park also stated that it had held more than 35 meetings with various community groups, interested parties and city administrative staff to take input and gather information before the planning commission vote.
At the meeting last week, commission chairwoman Christine Mondor had challenged such statements, saying that the only full-blown public session occurred “the day before you presented to us.”
While there was no affordable housing in the plans for apartments at the site, Pennley Park had agreed to commit 50 percent of the tax increment from the redevelopment to an affordable housing fund. That would generate an estimated $10 million to $12 million, Mr. Kamin has said.
In response to the court action, Ms. Mondor said Pennley Park “has a right to appeal the commission’s decision. The commission looked hard at the criteria that we could use to evaluate the project.”
As for the charge that the commission’s rejection of the amended preliminary land development plan was “unabashedly political,” Ms. Mondor replied, “I don’t know what that means.”
Ray Gastil, city planning director, said the commission’s decision “speaks for itself.” He declined further comment, citing the pending litigation.
After last week’s vote, Mr. Kamin would not say what might happen to the proposed 50,000-square-foot Whole Foods grocery store, which was to replace a smaller store on Centre Avenue.
The grocery was part of a larger redevelopment proposal known as East Liberty Marketplace slated to include 200 apartments, 12,000 square feet of office, and 582 parking spaces in a first phase. Another 200 apartments would be added in a later phase.
With the commission’s rejection, those plans are now in limbo.