Hollidaysburg Community Watchdog sues Hollidaysburg Zoning Hearing Board

Group claims due process, ethics violations in conflict of interest

HOLLIDAYSBURG -- The Hollidaysburg Community Watchdog organization has filed a Civil Action lawsuit against the Hollidaysburg Zoning Hearing Board, claiming chairman Larry Daugherty III denied due process and violated the Ethics Act when he failed to recuse himself from deliberating on a subject where he faced a conflict of interest.

According to the lawsuit filed in July by watchdog leaders Richard Latker and Regis Nale, the zoning hearing board held public hearings on May 21 and May 28 in regard to George Foster and GAF Hollidaysburg Holdings' LLC application for two variances to build a two-family duplex at 618 Blair St.

Through a written decision the board distributed on June 18, a 3-0 unanimous decision granted Foster the variances, but the board imposed several conditions. The lawsuit says that Daugherty proposed a couple of the conditions, including one that prohibited the construction of a two-family duplex.

The property is zoned as a residential/business district that has been vacant for several years and sits in a neighborhood that consists of single-family homes.

The group's statement notes that Daugherty owns and resides at 612 Blair St., a property on the same block and one parcel away from Foster's property.

According to the group, Daugherty urged Foster to not build a two-family duplex during the hearing but rather a single-family home to correspond with the surrounding homes as he had concerns about parking, window sightlines and the effects on neighbors.

Foster, owner of GAF Hollidaysburg Holdings LLC, also sued the board with a Land Use Appeal after their property use decision, but the court consolidated the case with the group because the facts are the same.

Even though the cases are fighting different issues on the subject, Foster said that the board didn't follow the law on what is allowed to be built on the property and agrees with the group in that Daugherty's involvement was a conflict of interest.

Latker and Nale claim that Daugherty holds a direct personal interest in whether and what can be built on the property and should have disclosed his connection and abstained from overseeing the hearing where he "questioned the witnesses, participated in deliberations and voted."

The group emphasized that their case has nothing to do with the board's decision, but rather how the decision was made.

"The participation of a disqualified member taints the entire proceeding and renders the resulting decision void, even where the member's vote was not mathematically necessary to the result," the court document says.

"We would have sued no matter what the ruling was," Latker said in a separate statement.

To uphold the case in court, Latker and Nale have each noted that they have a personal stake in the case and are impacted by Daugherty's actions.

During the evening of the May 21 hearing, Nale states that he was in attendance, signed in and testified in favor of the variance application. The watchdog's statement says that Nale was permitted by the board to speak and is documented in the hearings transcript.

However, the written decision does not take record of Nale's presence or comments on the subject. Nale's brief notes that he did not receive a copy of the board's ruling and was "intentionally deprived of party status."

Latker in the lawsuit states that he lives about two blocks from the Blair Street property and has a significant interest in the "lawful and impartial adjudication of development on his block" that is greater than the general public.

As a result of the lawsuit, the group wants the zoning board to cancel the June 18 decision and schedule a new hearing for the variance application that will be judged by a lawfully appointed, fair and unbiased board. They also ask all appellants to be reimbursed for their costs and grant other forms of relief that the court finds to be fair.

As the respondents of the case, the zoning hearing board issued a reply to the lawsuit in a brief denying that Daugherty's property ownership creates a direct personal interest and that he specifically proposed any specific conditions.

In the reply, the zoning board claims that neither Nale or Latker have a connection or involvement in the case because Nale is not granted party status just for attending the hearing and Latker has not stated an interest that is more significant than the public.

While the zoning board admits that Nale testified during the public comment section, they deny that he formally appeared before the board and state that he did not specifically oppose or support the variance approval.

The zoning hearing board's attorney did not wish to make any further comment on the case, other than that they are working on a settlement between the board and Foster.

The Hollidaysburg Borough also had no comment on the case as borough manager, Ethan Imhoff, said the board's decision is being challenged.

The court date for the hearing is scheduled for 3 p.m. Oct. 27 at the Blair County Courthouse. Latker said he is very confident that the watchdog group will win the case.

The watchdog group said this is the fourth lawsuit they have filed against the zoning hearing board since 2018.

Mirror staff writer Jayla Nartatez is at 814-946-7535.