It’s been nothing but a litigious,
back and forth decade for a planned multi-use development in Pennsbury
Township. Now the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has chimed in, reversing a lower
court decision involving Pennsbury Village and a lawsuit that was filed after a
settlement agreement between the developer and several residents.

One of those residents is
current Supervisor Aaron McIntyre. The Supreme Court, on Jan. 19, overturned a
2008 Commonwealth Court decision saying that McIntyre was immune from a so-called
SLAPP suit from the village developer, Pennsbury Village Associates.

A Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation is one "in which a corporation or developer sues an
organization in an attempt to scare it into dropping protests against a
corporate initiative," according to www.nolo.com.

The Supreme Court ruling said
the Environmental Immunity Act does not shield a person who is a party to a
previously court-approved agreement on the matter.

McIntyre said the decision
should have no impact on the township or McIntyre himself and won’t change what
he’s trying to do.

“I’m trying to be sure the
development is in the best interest of the township,” he said.

He added the ruling would not
force him to recuse himself on any decision regarding the village project.

McIntyre became a supervisor in
the 2009. He was a private citizen at the time he and others—including Jenny
Fenton, the wife of current Supervisors’ Chairman Wendell Fenton—signed a
stipulation agreement with the developer that called for the supervisors at the
time to decide how a portion of township property could be used in the development.

Specifically, the stipulation
said supervisors could decide on the placement of an access road through
township property.

McIntyre then went to Chester
County saying that public property was being used for a private venture,
violating the county’s agreement with the township for use of the property.

That action led to the suit
that resulted in the Commonwealth Court decision granting McIntyre immunity
from suit. PVA appealed that ruling and the state Supreme Court ruled in its
favor last week.

MaryAnna Ralph, a supervisor at
the time the stipulation was signed, said the new ruling has no direct impact
on the development, but does open the door for further action against McIntyre,
should the developer choose to do so.

“For anything to happen, the developer,
or someone, would have to take action against a breech of contract which caused
damage to the developer and possibly the township,” Ralph said.

She added that the decision
does set a precedent for future legal decisions.

“In the future…any decision
that is made, any agreement that is reached, once this was overturned by the
Commonwealth Court, that someone could claim immunity after they signed a
contract, that left the whole settlement process hanging. So this had to be
clarified. Pennsbury will be a benchmark in making sure that once someone
enters a contract that they have to abide by the contract,” she said.

The village project calls for a
high density, multi-use development with retail shops, restaurants and
condominiums in a 20-acre area on either side of the township building along
Route 1.

The two separate parcels were
not large enough by themselves to satisfy the ordinance requirement for the
development, so supervisors in 2004 agreed to use some of the township property
for a connector road and for wastewater management.

At least six lawsuits have been
filed in relation to the proposed plan.