HUNTER SMITH/THE EXPRESS A yard sign is seen opposing the rezoning of land near the Jacksonville exit of I-80, on a property on the corner of Jacksonville and Walt Roads in Marion Twp., Centre County.

PHOTO PROVIDED
This screenshot shows the area, marked in green, which has been rezoned for commercial highway development.

JACKSONVILLE –Two land use appeals filed this month accuse the Marion Township Board of Supervisors of bypassing required procedures when adopting a zoning ordinance that altered the township’s highway commercial district.

The litigation is the latest salvo in a months-long standoff between the township and residents over a rezoning process officials characterize as necessary, but which opponents fear could threaten the rural community’s way of life.

The separate appeals, filed by two Marion Township households, ask the Centre County Court of Common Pleas to declare the ordinance procedurally invalid and of no legal effect, citing the board’s failure to follow public notice and hearing requirements mandated by the state Municipalities Planning Code.

Plaintiffs James Burris and husband and wife, Matthew and Lisa Ford, each allege the township failed to properly advertise its intent to enact the rezoning ordinance, share it with planning officials for recommendations and notify property owners. They also claim the board violated the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act by not including the ordinance on the Dec. 10, 2025, meeting agenda when it was adopted.

In a call, Marion Township Solicitor Louis Glantz, of Glantz, Johnson & Associates, told The Express, “They are correct when they say it wasn’t on the agenda that night.”

He also acknowledged that the vote came 73 days after the most recent rezoning advertisement published in The Lock Haven Express, which exceeds the 60-day window that the plaintiffs say the township was required to observe under the Municipalities Planning Code.

At the Dec. 10 township meeting, Glantz initially held that the township could not vote to amend the zoning map that night because the change had not been advertised or placed on the agenda. However, after Marion Township Zoning Officer Tim Weight raised the point that no advertisement was required because the proposed amendment only reduced the size of the map, the solicitor agreed, and the vote went forward. The measure passed unanimously, with Supervisor Herb Chapman and now former-supervisors Orie Hanley and Archie Gettig all in favor.

In addressing the litigation, Marion Township has two options going forward, Glantz explained. Supervisors could either dispute the appeal as invalid, given that neither appellant’s property falls within the rezoned areas, or readopt the ordinance and provide a new public notice in the newspaper.

At the time of the conversation, Glantz suggested the township would likely opt to readvertise and adopt a second ordinance amending the map, though he said he had not yet discussed how to proceed with supervisors.

Because the first ordinance only changed the zoning map and did not set the development conditions supervisors and residents had discussed to limit potential impacts on the community, a second ordinance will soon be up for consideration, providing the board an opportunity to revisit the map.

Since the December vote, two of three township supervisors have been replaced on the board. At least one of the new members, Lisa Barner Hovies, indicated at the Dec. 10 meeting that she intended to reconsider the map.

“Can that vote get changed later?” Barner Hovies asked Glantz at the meeting.

After receiving an affirmative response, she said, “That’s kind of where I’m thinking. This is such a hasty thing. I think they should just keep going with what they were doing.”

Were the supervisors to go forward with constituting a new map, the appeals would become moot.

At the heart of the controversy is a Pennsylvania law that requires municipalities to allow all reasonable land uses. Failing to do so can expose local governments to exclusionary zoning challenges, which restrict their ability to control how and where development occurs.

From the outset, Solicitor Glantz has maintained that Marion Township lacks sufficient highway commercial development space because of the new Interstate 80-99 highspeed interchange, which is presently under construction. Municipal officials and their legal counsel have pursued rezoning several parcels near the Jacksonville exit of Interstate 80 to negate the issue.

While most zoning matters draw little attention, interest last summer from Scranton-based company ONVO in building a travel plaza in the township sparked residents’ concerns that rezoning could bring crime or environmental problems to their doorstep.

Township officials have remained adamant that ONVO’s inquiries are unrelated to the rezoning and would have been necessary regardless.

As of Wednesday, no plans for a travel plaza or similar development have been submitted in the township, according to the Centre County Planning Office, which oversees such matters.

In any case, highway commercial development cannot start in the township until late March, when a 180-day moratorium stemming from the township’s declaration that its zoning is invalid expires.

Township resident James Burris is represented in the litigation by Coploff, Ryan & Houser of Lock Haven, while the Fords are represented by Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir, P.C., of State College.

As of press time, no judges have been assigned to the two appeals.

The next township supervisors meeting is scheduled for Feb. 11.