PENN TWP — No decision was rendered by the zoning hearing board Thursday, March 30, night regarding a challenge to a zoning amendment the owner of a large parcel along Route 8 said renders his land largely useless.

The three-man zoning hearing board heard testimony from an attorney for the township and one for Pacific Coast Partners, which owns 107 acres on the east side of Route 8 north of Dinnerbell Road.

Pacific Coast Partners, which is owned by Brayman Construction of Clinton Township, entered a substantive validity challenge to township ordinance 173, which repealed the original language in one chapter of the zoning ordinance dealing with planned residential developments.

The landowner told the board Thursday that a developer was working on a multifamily housing plan for the land when township supervisors approved the amendment to the zoning ordinance.

Anthony DaDamo, of Pacific Coast Partners, said the developer immediately backed out of the deal because the zoning change required half-acre lots and prohibited multifamily or cluster housing in the residential-estate zoning district.

“Those were deal-breakers for our buyer,” DaDamo said.

Attorney Rebecca Black, representing Pacific Coast Partners, said the zoning change served no purpose and demonstrated disparate treatment of her client compared to property owners across the street.

She said in most developments, only luxury homes are built on half-acre lots, which would not be feasible since the property abuts Route 8 and commercial businesses.

Black said there is no indication the change in the zoning benefits the health, safety and welfare of township residents.

Attorney Chris Reese told the zoning hearing board that the previous zoning required one-acre lots, so the change actually relaxed the restrictions in the RE zoning district.

Reese disagreed with the accusation that Pacific Coast Partners is being treated differently than abutting property owners.

“You’re always going to have boundary lines where one district ends and one begins,” he said.

Reese said DaDamo is basing his challenge on one developer, and that there is no other evidence to show the property is devalued because of the restrictions, as Black claimed.

About 25 residents attended the zoning hearing.

Jim Habovick, who owns property near the Pacific Coast Partners parcel, agreed with Reese that boundary lines between zoning districts mean differing requirements.

“You’ve got to draw the line,” Habovick said.

Gary Anderson, another nearby neighbor, said all landowners are expected to adhere to zoning laws, as he must do on his one-acre property.

“I’m going to expect you folks to hold any new development to the township ordinances,” Anderson said.

Sharon McGrady Johnson, whose family has owned property in the area of the Pacific Coast Partners parcel for many years, said she does not agree with a development on that parcel.

“Why do we need more houses?” Johnson said.

She said she would rather see the property used for something that would benefit the community, like a park.

Both attorneys made brief additional arguments before the zoning hearing board members voted to table a decision on the challenge.

Matt Marshall, zoning hearing board solicitor, said the board must make a decision within 45 days.

He said the next zoning hearing board meeting will likely take place in May, when a vote will be taken on the challenge.

The meeting will be advertised in the Butler Eagle, Marshall said.