IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA"

Transcription

1 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Mercer County Citizens for Responsible Development, Robert W. Moors and Marian Moors, Appellants v. No. 703 C.D Springfield Township Zoning Hearing No. 704 C.D Board, Springfield Township, and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. Argued October 13, 2009 BEFORE HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE KEITH B. QUIGLEY, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED November 20, 2009 Mercer County Citizens for Responsible Development, Robert W. Moors and Marian Moors (collectively, MCCRD) appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County (trial court), which affirmed the decision of the Springfield Township (Township) Zoning Hearing Board (Board). In its decision, the Board held that the zoning ordinance amendment, Ordinance (the Ordinance), rezoning certain property within the Township from C-2 Commercial to C-1 Commercial did not constitute spot zoning. MCCRD argues that the Board committed errors of law, abused its discretion, and made factual findings which are

2 not supported by substantial evidence. MCCRD also challenges the trial court s order affirming the Township Board of Supervisors (Supervisors) decision approving the Final Subdivision and Land Development Plan (Plan) submitted by Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. (Wal-Mart). Wal-Mart is the owner of the rezoned property. In 2001, the Supervisors enacted Township Ordinance No. 2 of 2001 (Zoning Ordinance), which zoned land northeast of the intersection of Interstate 79 and State Road 208 (Intersection) in the Township as C-2 Commercial. In 2005, the Supervisors passed an ordinance which would have rezoned certain of this C-2 property owned by Wal-Mart (Wal-Mart Property) as C-1 Commercial. However, this ordinance was challenged and overturned on procedural grounds. On May 5, 2007, the Supervisors passed the Ordinance, which rezoned the Wal-Mart Property as C-1, but did not rezone the other C-2 properties northeast of the Intersection. Among these properties are additional properties owned by Wal-Mart, a property containing a BP service station (BP Property), and a property containing a Boot Box store (Boot Box Property). On April 18, 2008, Wal-Mart filed the Plan with the Supervisors, seeking permission to use the Wal-Mart Property consistently with its C-1 designation. Among other things, big-box retail stores are a permitted use in a C-1 district, but not in a C-2 district. On April 25, 2008, MCCRD filed a substantive appeal of the Ordinance on the grounds that the Ordinance constituted spot zoning. The Board held a hearing on MCCRD s appeal of the Ordinance on May 21, At the hearing, the Board and the Township presented the testimony of Barbara Brown, 2

3 the Township s Administrator and Zoning Officer. MCCRD presented the testimony of a landscape architect, Michael Wetzel and one of MCCRD s members, Township resident Marian Moors. On July 1, 2008, the Board issued a decision affirming the validity of the Ordinance. The Board determined that the Ordinance did not constitute spot zoning because the Wal-Mart Property was distinguishable from the remaining C-2 properties on the basis of the size of the Wal-Mart Property and the fact that the Ordinance did not create an island of inconsistently zoned property. MCCRD filed an appeal of the Board s decision upholding the Ordinance on July 20, On July 22, 2008, the Supervisors approved the Plan. MCCRD also filed an appeal of the Supervisors decision approving the Plan on August 19, Wal-Mart intervened in the appeals. On November 24, 2008, the trial court consolidated MCCRD s appeals and the parties filed briefs with the trial court. On March 17, 2009, the trial court, without taking additional evidence, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order affirming the Board s decision upholding the Ordinance. The trial court also dismissed MCCRD s challenge to the Supervisors approval of the Plan. The trial court relied upon the same grounds as the Board, and also noted that the record contained evidence that there was greater infrastructure availability to the Wal- Mart Property than to the BP Property and Boot Box Property. MCCRD appealed the trial court s order to this Court. 1 1 This Court s scope of review in zoning cases where, as here, the trial court took no additional evidence is limited to determining whether the Board committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion. Sharp v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Radnor, 628 A.2d 1223, 1226 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (citing Isaacs v. Wilkes-Barre City Zoning Hearing Board, 612 A.2d 559, 561 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992)). 3

4 Before this Court, MCCRD argues that the Ordinance constitutes spot zoning. MCCRD also argues that, if this Court determined that the Ordinance constitutes spot zoning, we must reverse the Supervisors decision approving the Plan. MCCRD argues that the Ordinance constitutes spot zoning because it treats adjoining land unjustifiably differently, and that the BP Property and Boot Box Property are just as suitable for C-1 zoning as the Wal-Mart Property. We do not agree that the Ordinance constitutes spot zoning. Zoning ordinances are presumed to be constitutional, and courts should only hold them to be unconstitutional when challengers show that such an ordinance is clearly invalid. Sharp v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Radnor, 628 A.2d 1223, 1228 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). Spot zoning is the singling out of one lot or a small area for different treatment accorded to similar surrounding land indistinguishable from it in character, for the economic benefit of the owner of that lot or to his economic detriment. Putney v. Abington Township, 108 A.2d 134, 140 (Pa. Super. 1954) (adopted in Appeal of Mulac, 418 Pa. 207, 210, 210 A.2d 275, 277 (1965)). The determination of whether zoning constitutes spot zoning is a fact-dependent analysis. Sharp, 628 A.2d at This Court has stated that The size of the property is only one determining factor. The topography, location and characteristics of the land are also among the factors to be considered. The most important factor, however, is whether the rezoned land is being treated unjustifiably different[ly] from similar surrounding land, thereby creating an island having no relevant differences from its neighboring property. The Court must also consider the effect of rezoning on public health, safety, morals and general welfare; and the relationship of rezoning to the comprehensive plan. 4

5 Id. (citations omitted) (citing Schubach v. Silver, 461 Pa. 366, 336 A.2d 328 (1975); Appeal of Mulac; Knight v. Lynn Township Zoning Hearing Board, 568 A.2d 1372 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990)). MCCRD argues that the Board (1) improperly focused only 2 on the question of whether the Ordinance turned the BP Property and Boot Box Property into islands of C-2 zoned property, (MCCRD s Br. at 12); (2) erred in focusing exclusively on the comparative sizes of the BP Property, Boot Box Property, and the Wal-Mart Property, (MCCRD s Br. at 13); (3) erred in its determination that the BP Property and Boot Box Property are distinguishable from the Wal-Mart Property on the basis of utility and infrastructure availability; and (4) erred in determining that the BP Property and Boot Box Property are not negatively impacted by the Ordinance. We do not agree that the Board improperly focused on any one factor to the exclusion of other relevant factors. As pointed out above, the size of a property, its location, and its characteristics are all legitimate factors for a zoning body to consider in making a determination regarding spot zoning. Here, the Board based its determination on the fact that the Wal-Mart Property was much larger than the other properties and that rezoning the Wal-Mart Property was a natural extension of the C-1 zone that currently exists west of Interstate 79. The extension of the C-1 zone across Interstate 79 does not create either an isolated island of C-1 zoning or 2 We note that the arguments that the Board focused only on whether the Ordinance created islands of zoning and exclusively on the comparative sizes of the properties at issue are inconsistent with each other and with MCCRD s arguments that the Board improperly considered a number of other factors. 5

6 an isolated island of C-2 zoning. Although MCCRD concentrates on the C-2 zoning of the BP Property and Boot Box Property, Wal-Mart is correct that there are additional contiguous properties northeast of the Intersection that are also zoned C-2. (Rezoning Plan, Board Hr g Ex. A-3.) Additionally, there are contiguous properties to the southeast of the Intersection that are also zoned C-2. (Rezoning Plan, Board Hr g Ex. A-3.) MCCRD attempts to frame the relevant area very narrowly by focusing only on the land northeast of the Intersection; however, there are a number of other properties surrounding the BP Property and Boot Box Property that are zoned C-2. Therefore, the BP Property and Boot Box Property are not islands of C-2 zoning. The Township merely extended the existing C-1 zone across Interstate 79 to include the Wal-Mart Property. Despite the fact that the BP Property and Boot Box Property are not islands of C-2 zones completely surrounded by C-1 zoning, MCCRD argues that it is enough that these properties are peninsulas, mostly surrounded by C-1 zoning, relying on C. L. Associates v. Board of Supervisors of Montgomery Township, 415 A.2d 134 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980). The facts of C. L. Associates were strikingly different from the facts in this case C. L. Associates applied to the Board of the Township Supervisors for a rezoning of their property consisting of the two lots so that all of their area, instead of an approximate three-fourths of it, would be located in the C-Commercial zone. The owner of the property lying immediately to the west of appellee's property, most of whose land was in the R-2 Residential zone, first joined in the appellee's request, asking that his 100 foot wide lot also be rezoned but later expressed a desire to retain his R-2 Residential zoning. The supervisors after hearing, instead of simply granting or denying the appellee the relief sought, decided to rezone its land by redrawing the line marking the boundary of the C-Commercial and the R-2 Residential zoning districts so as to place the appellee's lots wholly in 6

7 the R-2 Residential zone and enacted an ordinance amending the zoning map to so provide. C. L. Associates, 415 A.2d at 135. C. L. Associates does not describe any proffered justification for the creation of a peninsula of residential use in a commercial district on the property of a party that had asked for its property to be zoned completely commercial. In this case, by contrast, Wal-Mart asked for its property to be rezoned as C- 1. Wal-Mart correctly points out that it is not necessarily spot zoning to re-zone land at the request of its owner. See, e.g., Schubach, 461 Pa. at , 336 A.2d at 330 (Supreme Court found no spot zoning in a case where the property in question was rezoned at the owner s request.). In Schubach, the Supreme Court stated that [a] court must be mindful of the fact that in rapidly growing cities certain pieces of property will lie between two different uses, and it is in conformity with the comprehensive plan to put this land to the best use possible. Id. at 386, 336 A.2d at 338. Here, before the Board, Barbara Brown testified that it had originally been the Township s intention to zone the entire area around the Intersection as C-1, but that property to the east of Interstate 79 was zoned as C-2 due to a lack of water and traffic infrastructure. (Board Hr g Tr. at ) Ms. Brown also testified that when the Ordinance was passed, sufficient infrastructure was then available for the Wal-Mart Property. (Board Hr g Tr. at 55, 57.) Thus, the rezoning of the Wal-Mart Property as C-1 appears to be a natural expansion of the existing C-1 district lying west of Interstate 79. In essence, MCCRD s argument appears not to be that the Wal-Mart Property is not suitable for C-1 zoning, but that the BP Property and Boot Box 7

8 Property are just as suitable for C-1 zoning and should have been rezoned as well. Aside from the problem with this argument already discussed that these properties are not isolated C-2 zones, but are contiguous with other C-2 uses it is not clear that the rezoning of the Wal-Mart Property as C-1 results in economic detriment to the BP Property or Boot Box Property. In this regard, MCCRD focuses on the buffer requirement of Section 512 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3 While this section can be read as requiring a buffer between a C-2 property and a C-1 property, Ms. Brown testified that this was not the intention of the section, and acknowledged that Section 512 may need to be amended. (Board Hr g Tr. at 64.) Moreover, MCCRD acknowledges that because there will be prior nonconforming uses with respect to Section 512, the BP Property and Boot Box Property will not be required to conform to Section 512 unless they change uses. MCCRD did not adduce any testimony from the owners of the BP Property or Boot Box Property; therefore, there is neither evidence that they intend to change uses at any point in the future nor that they are otherwise negatively or economically impacted in any way by the change in zoning of the Wal-Mart Property. Therefore, it is not clear that the Ordinance results in any concrete, economic harm to the owners of the BP Property and Boot Box Property. Because the record does not contain evidence that the Ordinance created isolated areas of disparate zoning to the economic detriment of adjoining 3 Section 512 provides that properties in a C-2 district must maintain, along [a]ll property lines which abut other districts... [a] fifty- (50) foot wide buffer yard of vegetation sufficient to provide opaque screening during six (6) months of the year, along with [a] screening yard of spruce. (Zoning Ordinance 512(A).) 8

9 properties, we hold that the Ordinance is not spot zoning 4 and affirm the order of the trial court. RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge 4 Due to our holding on this issue, we do not reach MCCRD s argument that the Supervisors decision approving the Plan must be overturned because the Ordinance is invalid. 9

10 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Mercer County Citizens for Responsible Development, Robert W. Moors and Marian Moors, Appellants v. No. 703 C.D Springfield Township Zoning Hearing No. 704 C.D Board, Springfield Township, and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. O R D E R NOW, November 20, 2009, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County in the above-captioned matter is hereby AFFIRMED. RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Pennsylvania Venture Capital, Inc., : Appellant : : No. 1199 C.D. 2012 v. : : Argued: December 12, 2012 The Planning Commission of the City : of Bethlehem and

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The Allegheny West Civic : Council, Inc. and John DeSantis, : Appellants : : v. : No. 1335 C.D. 2013 : Argued: April 22, 2014 Zoning Board of Adjustment of : City

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA David Raup, No. 237 C.D. 2014 Appellant Argued December 10, 2014 v. Dauphin County Board of Assessment Appeals, Dauphin County, The Borough of Paxtang and the

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Wilson School District, : Appellant : v. : No. 2233 C.D. 2011 : Argued: December 10, 2012 The Board of Assessment Appeals : of Berks County and Bern Road : Associates

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Sale of Real Estate Northampton : County Tax Claim Bureau : No. 2162 C.D. 2004 : Appeal of: Beneficial Consumer : Argued: April 7, 2005 Discount Company

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Suzanna Z. Vaughn, : Appellant : : v. : No. 822 C.D. 2010 : Submitted: December 6, 2010 Towamensing Township Zoning : Hearing Board, John A. Parr, Patrick : Gremling,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Nicholas Enterprises, Inc., : : Appellant : : v. : No. 1340 C.D. 2014 : Slippery Rock Township Zoning : Argued: April 14, 2015 Hearing Board and Slippery Rock

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA International Development : Corporation, : Appellant : : v. : No. 1805 C.D. 2010 : Argued: June 6, 2011 Sherwood B. Davidge and Calvery : Crary, their heirs, executors,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA David Zimliki and Lana Zimliki : : v. : No. 428 C.D. 2015 : Submitted: September 17, 2015 New Brittany II Homeowners : Association, : Appellant : BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Neal L. Hufford, Edward Young, : and Kozette Young : : v. : No. 1973 C.D. 2014 : Submitted: July 17, 2015 East Cocalico Township Zoning : Hearing Board : : Appeal

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Gregory J. Rubino and : Lisa M. Rubino, : Appellants : : v. : No. 1015 C.D. 2013 : Argued: December 9, 2013 Millcreek Township Board : of Supervisors : BEFORE:

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Masuda Akhter v. No. 435 C.D. 2009 Tax Claim Bureau of Delaware Submitted September 25, 2009 County and Glen Rosenwald Appeal of Glen Rosenwald BEFORE HONORABLE

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Damar Real Estate, Inc., : : Appellant : : v. : No. 1965 C.D. 2013 : U.S. Bank, N.A. as Trustee for the : Argued: February 11, 2014 Bondholders, and not in its

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Modesto Bigas-Valedon and Julie Seda-Bigas, No. 513 C.D. 2013 Husband & Wife and Victor J. Submitted December 27, 2013 Navarro and Cheryl A. Navarro, Husband &

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA James J. Loughran, : : v. : No. 1378 C.D. 2015 : Argued: May 12, 2016 Valley View Developers, Inc., : Zoning Hearing Board of Nether : Providence Township and

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Leonard Blair and Sharon Blair : : v. : No. 1310 C.D. 2010 : Argued: February 7, 2011 Berks County Board of Assessment : Appeals, : Appellant : BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. James Walsh, : Appellant : : v. : NO C.D : East Pikeland Township : Argued: June 5, 2003

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. James Walsh, : Appellant : : v. : NO C.D : East Pikeland Township : Argued: June 5, 2003 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA James Walsh, : Appellant : : v. : NO. 2722 C.D. 2002 : East Pikeland Township : Argued: June 5, 2003 BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Logan Greens Community : Association, Inc., : Appellant : : v. : No. 1819 C.D. 2012 : Argued: March 11, 2013 Church Reserve, LLC : BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Board of Supervisors of : Bridgeton Township, : Appellant : : v. : No. 1098 C.D. 2007 : Argued: March 10, 2008 David H. Keller, a/k/a David : H. Keller, III and

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Penn Street, L.P., : Appellant : : v. : No. 761 C.D. 2013 : Argued: December 11, 2013 East Lampeter Township Zoning : Hearing Board and East Lampeter : Township

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARSHALL TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS v. MARSHALL TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD and AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM, INC. APT PITTSBURGH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Huckleberry Associates, Inc., Haines and Kibblehouse, Inc., No. 1748 C.D. 2014 and Lehigh Valley Site Argued June 15, 2015 Contractors, Inc. v. South Whitehall

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Joseph and Judith McCarry, : Appellants : : No. 914 C.D. 2012 v. : : Submitted: October 10, 2013 Springfield Township Zoning : Hearing Board and Springfield :

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW BARRY L. KATZ, : Appellant : : vs. : No. 10-0838 : KIDDER TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING : BOARD, : Appellee : Carole J. Walbert,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA David J. Pitti, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2614 C.D. 2003 : Argued: June 10, 2004 Pocono Business Furniture, Inc., : Robert M. Vonson, and Stephen : Jennings : BEFORE:

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Daniel M. Linderman, Brandon : Gwynn, Meredith Gwynn, Michael : Donovan, Susan E. Homan, Gregory : E. Homan, Richard Trask, Kimberly : Anderson, James Anderson,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Robert Dambman and : Jayne Dambman, Husband and Wife; : Casimir Seweryn and Jennifer Seweryn, : Husband and Wife; Stephen Chellew; : Ann Morton; Enid Maleeff;

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Dorothy E. Coleman Revocable Trust, : Appellant : : v. : No. 895 C.D. 2014 : Submitted: December 8, 2014 Zoning Hearing Board of the : Borough of Phoenixville

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Paul Heck, : Appellant : : v. : No. 1900 C.D. 2017 : ARGUED: November 13, 2018 Worcester Township Zoning : Hearing Board and Worcester : Township and Peter Horgan

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In the Estate of Lawrence Marra, Sr. : and the Estate of Francesca Marra : : No. 2062 C.D. 2013 v. : : Submitted: June 16, 2014 Tax Claim Bureau of Lackawanna

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Heritage Building Group, Inc., : Appellant : : v. : No. 3020 C.D. 2002 : Plumstead Township : Submitted: September 10, 2003 Board of Supervisors : BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

PROPOSED FINIDINGS ZONE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE

PROPOSED FINIDINGS ZONE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE PROPOSED FINIDINGS ZONE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE (PURSUANT TO LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 12.27) CONCERNING 10550 WEST BELLAGIO ROAD, LOS ANGELES, CA 90077 Pursuant to Charter Section

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY. Facts. The property at issue is situated on the corner lot of SW Manning Street and 55th

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY. Facts. The property at issue is situated on the corner lot of SW Manning Street and 55th FILED 1 JUL AM : 1 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CLERK E-FILED CASE NUMBER: 1--00-1 SEA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY 1 1 BENCHVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, and Petitioner, CITY OF

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Theodore M. Dunn and Lori N. Dunn, : Appellants : : v. : No. 1436 C.D. 2015 : Argued: May 13, 2016 Middletown Township Zoning : Hearing Board : BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

Daniel M. Schwarz of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for Appellants.

Daniel M. Schwarz of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for Appellants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SILVER BEACH TOWERS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., SILVER BEACH TOWERS EAST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., and SILVER BEACH TOWERS WEST

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Appellants :

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Appellants : IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Amos S. Lapp and Emma S. Lapp, : : Appellants : : v. : No. 1845 C.D. 2016 : ARGUED: June 5, 2017 Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve : Board : BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RICHARD KEITH MARTIN, ROBERT DOUGLAS MARTIN, MARTIN COMPANIES OF DAYTONA BEACH, MARTIN ASPHALT COMPANY AND MARTIN PAVING COMPANY, Petitioners, CASE NO: 92,046 vs. DEPARTMENT

More information

ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS AUTHORITY AND ADMINISTRATION RESPONSIBILITIES OF DEVELOPER AND PLANNING COMMISSION

ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS AUTHORITY AND ADMINISTRATION RESPONSIBILITIES OF DEVELOPER AND PLANNING COMMISSION ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS 103.101. TITLE 103.102. AUTHORITY AND ADMINISTRATION 103.103. PURPOSE 103.104. INTERPRETATION 103.105. RESPONSIBILITIES OF DEVELOPER AND PLANNING COMMISSION 103.106. JURISDICTION

More information

ARIZONA TAX COURT TX /18/2006 HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG

ARIZONA TAX COURT TX /18/2006 HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG CLERK OF THE COURT L. Slaughter Deputy FILED: CAMELBACK ESPLANADE ASSOCIATION, THE JIM L WRIGHT v. MARICOPA COUNTY JERRY A FRIES PAUL J MOONEY PAUL MOORE UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING

More information

[J ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT : : : : : : : : : : : : OPINION OF THE COURT

[J ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT : : : : : : : : : : : : OPINION OF THE COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT C&M DEVELOPERS, INC., Appellant v. BEDMINSTER TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 171 MAP 2001 Appeal from the Order

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Servants Oasis, : Appellant : : v. : No. 1391 C.D. 2013 : Argued: March 10, 2014 Zoning Hearing Board of : South Annville Township : BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE

More information

Hoiska v. Town of East Montpelier ( ) 2014 VT 80. [Filed 18-Jul-2014]

Hoiska v. Town of East Montpelier ( ) 2014 VT 80. [Filed 18-Jul-2014] Hoiska v. Town of East Montpelier (2013-274) 2014 VT 80 [Filed 18-Jul-2014] NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Sale of Real Property for : Delinquent Tax by Elk County Tax : Claim Bureau held on September 11, : 2000 Parcel known as western one- : No. 740 C.D. 2001

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Tatiana Marchenko, No. 2021 C.D. 2015 Appellant Argued June 6, 2016 v. The Zoning Hearing Board of Pocono Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania, and Pocono Township

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 PETER S. GRAF, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : v. : : CARA NOLLETTI, : : Appellee : No. 2008 MDA 2013 Appeal from the

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Brandywine Village Associates : and L&R Partnership, : Appellants : : v. : No. 164 C.D. 2017 : Argued: December 7, 2017 East Brandywine Township : Board of Supervisors

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: JANUARY 8, 2016; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2014-CA-000767-MR RUTH C. DEHART APPELLANT APPEAL FROM GRAVES CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DENNIS R.

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2001

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2001 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2001 FLORIDA WATER SERVICES CORPORATION, Appellant, v. UTILITIES COMMISSION, ETC., Case No. 5D00-2275 Appellee. / Opinion

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Adams v. Glitz & Assoc., Inc., 2012-Ohio-4593.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97984 BERNARD ADAMS PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs.

More information

WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. JERRYA.WEIGIZE WEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys-at-Law Associates JOSEPH P. RUANE 126 East King Street RICHARD L. WEBBER, j~ Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257-1397 Of Counsel TELEPHONE (717) 532-7388

More information

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 435 Ryman Missoula MT 59802 (406) 552 6020 Fax: (406) 327 2105 attorney@ci.missoula.mt.us Legal Opinion 2013-005 TO: CC: FROM: John Engen, Mayor; City Council; Bruce Bender,

More information

By motion dated January 3, 2 008, the New Jersey Council. on Affordable Housing (the "Council" or "COAH") received a request

By motion dated January 3, 2 008, the New Jersey Council. on Affordable Housing (the Council or COAH) received a request IN RE ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP, MORRIS ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON COUNTY, MOTION FOR A STAY OF ) ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING THE COUNCIL'S JUNE 13, 2 007 AND, ) SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 RESOLUTIONS ) DOCKET NO. 08-2000 AND

More information

WHATCOM COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER SUMMARY OF APPEAL AND DECISION

WHATCOM COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER SUMMARY OF APPEAL AND DECISION WHATCOM COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER RE: Administrative Appeal ) APL2010-0006 Application for ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT, Ron and Shelley Jepson ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ) AND DECISION SUMMARY OF APPEAL AND DECISION

More information

Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J.

Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J. Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J. BARRY E. SEYMOUR v. Record No. 061216 OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS APRIL 20, 2007 CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, ET

More information

IN THE COMMONWEAL TH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEAL TH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEAL TH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Brandywine Village Associates and L&R Partnership, Appellants v. East Brandywine Township Board of Supervisors and Carlino East Brandywine, L.P. : No. 1149 C.D.

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Sarah O Layer McCready, Appellant v. No. 1762 C.D. 2016 Argued April 4, 2017 Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission BEFORE HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Condemnation of a Permanent : Right-of-Way, Temporary Construction : Easement and Sight Line Easement : Over Lands Now or Late of Neil B. : Sagot and Eric

More information

NO IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

NO IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I NO. 29331 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I MOMILANI FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARK DEVELOPMENT, INC., the DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS, the HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Appeal from Decision of : Monroe County Board of : Assessment Appeals : : Pinecrest Lake Community Trust, : by its Trustee, Brendon J.E. Carroll : : v.

More information

[Cite as B.J. Alan Co. v. Congress Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 124 Ohio St.3d 1, 2009-Ohio ]

[Cite as B.J. Alan Co. v. Congress Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 124 Ohio St.3d 1, 2009-Ohio ] [Cite as B.J. Alan Co. v. Congress Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 124 Ohio St.3d 1, 2009-Ohio- 5863.] B.J. ALAN COMPANY, D.B.A. PHANTOM FIREWORKS, ET AL., APPELLEES, v. CONGRESS TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

More information

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL REAL PROPERTY DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL REAL PROPERTY DIVISION PENNDOT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL REAL PROPERTY DIVISION POST OFFICE Box 8212 HARRISBURG, PA 17105-8212 TELEPHONE: (717) 787-3128 FACSIMILE: (717)

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MELANIE J. HENSLEY, successor to RON SCHULTZ, as Citrus County Property Appraiser, etc., vs. Petitioner, Case No.: SC05-1415 LT Case No.: 5D03-2026 TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT

More information

TIDEWATER PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, INC. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. June 5, 1998 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

TIDEWATER PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, INC. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. June 5, 1998 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Present: All the Justices TIDEWATER PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, INC. OPINION BY v. Record No. 971635 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. June 5, 1998 CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF

More information

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Thomas P. Mann, Judge

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Thomas P. Mann, Judge PRESENT: All the Justices BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FAIRFAX COUNTY OPINION BY v. Record No. 171483 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN December 13, 2018 DOUGLAS A. COHN, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

More information

DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 23N

DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 23N February 3 2010 DA 09-0302 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 23N WILLIAM R. BARTH, JR. and PARADISE VALLEY FORD LINCOLN MERCURY, INC., v. Plaintiffs and Appellees, CEASAR JHA and NEW

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MATTHEW J. SCHUMACHER, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION April 1, 2003 9:10 a.m. v No. 233143 Midland Circuit Court DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,

More information

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Outagamie County: JOHN A. DES JARDINS, Judge. Affirmed. Before Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Outagamie County: JOHN A. DES JARDINS, Judge. Affirmed. Before Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 28, 2016 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In re Estate of ROBERT R. WILLIAMS. J. BRUCE WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 6, 2005 v No. 262203 Kalamazoo Probate Court Estate of ROBERT R. WILLIAMS,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Appellant/Defendant, v. Case No. 12-C Appellant/Defendant. Case No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Appellant/Defendant, v. Case No. 12-C Appellant/Defendant. Case No. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN CITY OF MILWAUKEE, Appellant/Defendant, v. Case No. 12-C-0728 RITA GILLESPIE, Appellee/Plaintiff. CITY OF MILWAUKEE, Appellant/Defendant. Case

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 15, 2007 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 15, 2007 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 15, 2007 Session JUDITH ANN FORD v. JAMES W. ROBERTS, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County No. 01-0846 Howell N. Peoples, Chancellor

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CHRISTIANA TRUST, AS TRUSTEE FOR ARLP TRUST

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 30, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D13-597 Lower Tribunal No. 10-54870 Pierre Philippe,

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JAMES P. MCGOVERN AND SHANA L. MCGOVERN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants v. EAST END GUN CLUB OF SCHUYLKILL COUNTY, PA; DEAN

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA East Rockhill Township : : v. : No. 687 C.D. 2018 : Argued: March 12, 2019 East Rockhill Township : Zoning Hearing Board : and James Burkey : : Appeal of: James

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS K.M. YOUNG CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 16, 2004 v No. 242938 Washtenaw Circuit Court CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF ANN ARBOR, LC Nos. 01-000286-AZ 01-000794-AV

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Rachael Tennyson : : v. : No. 1045 C.D. 2006 : Argued: March 10, 2008 Zoning Hearing Board of West Bradford : Township and West Bradford : Township Board of Supervisors

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT CVS EGL FRUITVILLE SARASOTA FL, ) LLC and HOLIDAY CVS, LLC, )

More information

KESWICK CLUB, L.P. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. January 12, 2007 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE

KESWICK CLUB, L.P. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. January 12, 2007 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Present: All the Justices KESWICK CLUB, L.P. OPINION BY v. Record No. 060672 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. January 12, 2007 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY James A. Luke,

More information

v. CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order from the Circuit Court for Walton County. William F. Stone, Judge.

v. CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order from the Circuit Court for Walton County. William F. Stone, Judge. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SANDPIPER DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT consolidated with

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT consolidated with NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 14-1157 consolidated with 14-1158 STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION & DEVELOP. VERSUS KNOLL & DUFOUR LANDS, LLC

More information

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Office of the City Manager ACTION CALENDAR June 11, 2013 To: From: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Christine Daniel, City Manager Submitted by: Eric Angstadt, Director, Planning & Development

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Jay R. Brown, : Appellant : : v. : No. 754 C.D. 2017 : ARGUED: December 4, 2017 Chester County Tax Claim : Bureau and Chester County : BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ********** STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 03-462 CABLE PREJEAN VERSUS RIVER RANCH, LLC ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 20012534 HONORABLE DURWOOD

More information

William S. Graessle of William S. Graessle, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees. In this eminent domain action, the JEA appeals a final order awarding

William S. Graessle of William S. Graessle, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees. In this eminent domain action, the JEA appeals a final order awarding IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JEA, A BODY POLITIC AND CORPORATE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF

More information

Rengiil v. Debkar Clan, 16 ROP 185 (2009) ALBERTA RENGIIL, Appellant, DEBKAR CLAN, Appellee/Appellant,

Rengiil v. Debkar Clan, 16 ROP 185 (2009) ALBERTA RENGIIL, Appellant, DEBKAR CLAN, Appellee/Appellant, ALBERTA RENGIIL, Appellant, v. DEBKAR CLAN, Appellee/Appellant, v. AIRAI STATE PUBLIC LANDS AUTHORITY and JONATHAN KOSHIBA, Appellees. Decided: June 17, 2009 Counsel for Rengiil: Ernestine Rengiil Counsel

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA : SURF SIDE TOWER CONDOMINIUM : ASSOCIATION, INC.; and : INTERVENORS, CHARLES AND : LINDA SCHROPP, : : Defendant/Intervenors/Petitioners, : CASE NUMBER: SC10-1141 v. : :

More information

BEFORE THE ZONING HEARING BOARD OF LOWER MERION TOWNSHIP, MONTGOMERY COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL NO MEMORANDUM, FINDINGS, OPINION AND ORDER

BEFORE THE ZONING HEARING BOARD OF LOWER MERION TOWNSHIP, MONTGOMERY COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL NO MEMORANDUM, FINDINGS, OPINION AND ORDER BEFORE THE ZONING HEARING BOARD OF LOWER MERION TOWNSHIP, MONTGOMERY COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL NO. 4196 IN THE MATTER OF: The Kohelet Foundation : Applicant - Appellant : : 223 N. Highland Avenue : Merion

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JANOURA PARTNERS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Appellant, v. PALM BEACH IMPORTS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee. No.

More information

BARBARA BEACH OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS FEBRUARY 27, 2014 JAY TURIM, TRUSTEE, ET AL.

BARBARA BEACH OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS FEBRUARY 27, 2014 JAY TURIM, TRUSTEE, ET AL. PRESENT: All the Justices BARBARA BEACH OPINION BY v. Record No. 130682 JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS FEBRUARY 27, 2014 JAY TURIM, TRUSTEE, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA Lisa B. Kemler,

More information

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 435 Ryman Missoula MT 59802 (406) 552-6020 Fax: (406) 327-2105 attorney@ci.missoula.mt.us Legal Opinion 2011-002 TO: CC: FROM: John Engen, Mayor; City Council; Bruce Bender,

More information

Filed 21 August 2001) Taxation--real property appraisal--country club fees included

Filed 21 August 2001) Taxation--real property appraisal--country club fees included IN THE MATTER OF: APPEAL OF BERMUDA RUN PROPERTY OWNERS from the Decision of the Davie County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation of Certain Real Property For Tax Year 1999 No. COA00-833

More information

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF STAFFORD COUNTY, ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN JUNE 4, 2009 CRUCIBLE, INC.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF STAFFORD COUNTY, ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN JUNE 4, 2009 CRUCIBLE, INC. PRESENT: All the Justices BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF STAFFORD COUNTY, ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No. 081743 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN JUNE 4, 2009 CRUCIBLE, INC. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STAFFORD COUNTY

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT GARY R. NIKOLITS, as Property Appraiser for Palm Beach County, Appellant, v. FRANKLIN L. HANEY, EMELINE W. HANEY and ANNE M. GANNON, as

More information

CLAIRE CROWLEY & a. TOWN OF LOUDON THE LEDGES GOLF LINKS, INC. CLAIRE CROWLEY. Argued: September 21, 2011 Opinion Issued: December 8, 2011

CLAIRE CROWLEY & a. TOWN OF LOUDON THE LEDGES GOLF LINKS, INC. CLAIRE CROWLEY. Argued: September 21, 2011 Opinion Issued: December 8, 2011 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LOWER COURT CASE NO. 3D PRIME WEST, INC. and PRIME WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LOWER COURT CASE NO. 3D PRIME WEST, INC. and PRIME WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC 05-1697 LOWER COURT CASE NO. 3D04-471 PRIME WEST, INC. and PRIME WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioners, v. LORENZO CAMARGO and ANA CAMARGO, his wife;

More information

PRESENT: Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J.

PRESENT: Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J. PRESENT: Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J. W&W PARTNERSHIP OPINION BY v. Record No. 090328 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN February 25, 2010 PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2010 LR5A-JV, ETC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D09-3857 LITTLE HOUSE, LLC, ET AL., Appellee. / Opinion filed December 10, 2010

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC10-90 / SC10-91 (Consolidated) (Lower Tribunal Case No. s 3D08-944, )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC10-90 / SC10-91 (Consolidated) (Lower Tribunal Case No. s 3D08-944, ) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-90 / SC10-91 (Consolidated) (Lower Tribunal Case No. s 3D08-944, 03-14195) JOEL W. ROBBINS (Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser); IAN YORTY (Miami-Dade County

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES S. MCCORMICK, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant - Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 16, 2010 and ELIZABETH A. HOCHSTADT, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, v No. 283209 Livingston

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PAUL MARINO and LINDA MARINO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED June 19, 2001 v No. 215764 Wayne Circuit Court GRAYHAVEN ESTATES LTD., LLC, LC No. 98-813922-CH GRAYHAVEN-LENOX

More information