Council votes to appeal Wawa ruling

HATBORO >> The fight over a proposed Wawa superstore in the borough will continue.

The borough council May 20 voted to appeal the May 2 decision rendered by Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge Todd Eisenberg.

In that decision, Judge Eisenberg concluded that Hatboro, in its zoning hearing board rejection of the store project last fall, had “unconstitutionally excluded a legitimate land use” and that the developer was entitled to site-specific relief to develop the store at York and Horsham roads.

The borough had 30 days following the ruling to respond with an appeal. The council’s vote was 6-0, with Councilmember Elle Anzinger abstaining.

The council’s decision to appeal wasn’t entirely unexpected, as the township had formalized its opposition to the project during its lengthy review process before the zoning hearing board.

Over the past two weeks, council members sought public feedback on how to proceed following Judge Eisenberg’s decision and vowed to based their decision whether to appeal on the collective wishes of the community.

The developer released a statement to MediaNews Group immediately following the council’s decision Monday night.

“We are very disappointed that the Hatboro Council has decided to continue to violate our constitutional rights and appeal the ruling of the court. We will challenge the Hatboro appeal vigorously.

“We have received an overwhelming amount of support from residents and businesses that want to bring a modern Wawa to the borough. The positive feedback and clear demand, along with our proposed plan that would bring much-needed economic development to Hatboro, encourages us to continue our progress,” the statement said.

Council President George Bollendorf acknowledged receiving a letter from the developer that includes names and comments from supporters of the proposed Wawa living in Hatboro. That letter was signed by Thomas Verrichia and dated May 17.

Bollendorf said he couldn’t take the petition into consideration when weighing an appeal because the list of names did not include the supporters’ last names or their full addresses to verify their residency. The letter states that the last names were removed — except for the first letter — for confidentiality reasons.

The borough is gearing up for what could be a protracted appeals fight. Officials are also keeping their eyes on a similar court fight involving Wawa in Plumstead for potential precedent that may result from that decision.