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 Daniel M. Linderman, Brandon : Gwynn, Meredith Gwynn, Michael : Donovan, Susan E. Homan, Gregory : E. Homan, Richard Trask, Kimberly : Anderson, James Anderson, Thomas : G. Lewis, III, Pauline Donna Lewis, : George E. Dearlove, Jean P. : Dearlove, Cora H. Sparling, Wayne C. : Sparling, and Steve Lustig : : v. : No. 228 C.D : Argued: December 9, 2013 Board of Supervisors of New Garden : Township, and PR New Garden/ : Chesco Limited Partnership, PR New : Garden Limited Partnership and PR : New Garden Residential Limited : Partnership : : Appeal of: PR New Garden/Chesco : Limited Partnership, PR New Garden : Limited Partnership and PR New : Garden Residential Limited : Partnership : BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge (P.) HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE PELLEGRINI FILED: January 3, 2014 PR New Garden/Chesco Limited Partnership (Landowner) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County sustaining the land use appeal of Daniel Linderman, et al. (Neighboring Property Owners) from a decision of the Board of Supervisors of New Garden Township (Supervisors) that granted

2 Landowner s request to be allowed to convert a proposed development to condominiums without going through the requisite subdivision application procedure. Finding no error, we affirm. The origins of this appeal date back to October 2001 when Landowner submitted a Conditional Use Application (Application) to the Supervisors which proposed improvements in the form of a large shopping center and a single-family residential community [on a 180-acre tract] on the south side of State Route 41 in New Garden Township (Township). (Supplemental Reproduced Record [S.R.R.] at 3b.) After numerous hearings, the Application was approved on April 23, 2003, subject to 97 conditions. Landowner appealed to the trial court, challenging 76 of the 97 conditions. In September 2007, Landowner and the Supervisors entered into a Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement), approved by the court, which included a plan for a proposed retail/commercial and residential development (Development), complete with elevations, landscape concepts, stormwater management plans, architectural renderings and design guidelines. 1 In early 2008, Landowner submitted plans for the first phase of the Development, including a retail center and convenience store, which the Supervisors approved in August In May 2011, Landowner and the Supervisors entered into an Amendment to the Settlement Agreement (Amendment) which modified provisions unrelated to the development of the retail space, including timing of 1 The trial court approved the Settlement Agreement on November 16, 2007, noting that it retained jurisdiction of this matter for enforcement purposes only. (Reproduced Record [R.R.] at 269a.) 2

3 payments and stream channel stabilization work and the footprint and facades of buildings. The Amendment also provided that any changes to the Development would not allow the [m]odification of any of the area and bulk requirements for the PREIT project, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to maximum density, maximum impervious coverage, setbacks and/or building heights. (R.R. at 281a.) None of the changes to the Settlement Agreement were appealed. Landowner then submitted an Amended Final Plan for Phase 1(A)(1) on August 3, 2011, which proposed to divide the Development property into condominium units which would be separately owned and conveyed. The plan was to be decided upon at the October 10, 2011 Supervisors meeting, but the subdivision request was withdrawn per the Supervisors request prior to the hearing and the plan was, therefore, approved without the subdivided units. Landowner subsequently filed a request to waive the subdivision application process necessary to create condominium units at the Development site. In its request, Landowner noted that [a] subdivision of each condominium unit would require compliance with the area and bulk regulations set forth under Section N.(1) [2] of the Settlement Agreement, 2 Section N.(1) of the Settlement Agreement provides, in relevant part: The following are the Dimensional Criteria which shall apply to the Proposed Development and which supersede all area, bulk and dimensional requirements of the Unified Development Zone and all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and which shall supersede those provisions of the Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO) which are inconsistent therewith: (1) The Retail Center and Town Center shall be governed by the following regulations: (Footnote continued on next page ) 3

4 which is unreasonable and impracticable. Those regulations never contemplated the creation of condominium units. Id. at 322a. Counsel for Neighboring Property Owners submitted written correspondence to the Supervisors outlining their concerns with the Development and seeking denial of Landowner s waiver request. Nonetheless, the Supervisors approved the waiver and a Revised Amended Final Subdivision Plan for Phase 1(A)(1) (Revised Plan) was subsequently approved by the Supervisors. Neighboring Property Owners appealed to the trial court, challenging the Supervisors grant of the waiver and the approval of the Revised Plan. Landowner then filed a motion to quash, contending that Neighboring Property Owners lacked standing to appeal the waiver because they did not intervene in the 2003 appeal and did not appeal the Supervisors 2007 approval of the Settlement Agreement, its 2008 approval of Landowner s final plan for Phase 1, or its October 2011 approval of the amended plan. (continued ) (R.R. at 119a-120a.) (a) Minimum lot size: 3 acres. (b) Minimum lot width at street line: 150 feet. (c) Minimum lot width at building line: 150 feet. (d) Minimum front yard: 75 feet. (e) Minimum side yard: 50 feet. (f) Minimum rear yard: 50 feet. (g) Maximum Building Height: 45 feet, inclusive of mechanical equipment which may be placed on the roof. (h) Maximum Building Coverage: 35%. (i) Maximum Lot Coverage: 65%. (j) Signage: Shall be in accordance with the Retail Center Design Guidelines and the Town Center Design Guidelines. 4

5 The trial court denied the motion to quash because, even though Neighboring Property Owners were not parties to the Settlement Agreement and had not sought to intervene in the proceedings that produced the Settlement Agreement, the condominium subdivision issue was not covered by the Settlement Agreement and was not raised until 2011 when Landowner first sought a subdivision application waiver. The trial court concluded that Neighboring Property Owners were persons aggrieved 3 for standing purposes because they own land near or adjacent to the Development and, therefore, have a direct interest, and their interest was immediate because the Development would impact the value of their homes and the quality of their right to enjoy their properties. It noted that its November 2007 order provided that the court only retained jurisdiction over the Development for enforcement purposes, and Neighboring Property Owners were seeking enforcement of provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The trial court denied Landowner s motion to quash. As to the substance of the appeal, the trial court reviewed the relevant provisions of the Settlement Agreement and said that the dimensional criteria were central and critical to the settlement of the appeal. (Trial Court Opinion dated January 18, 2013, at 17.) Noting that Landowner acknowledged that it could not comply with the dimensional requirements and that the condominiums would not appear different to a passing observer or neighboring property owner, the trial court held that the Revised Plan would still not comply with the Settlement Agreement and 3 Relying on this Court s decision in Miravich v. Township of Exeter, 6 A.3d 1076 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), appeal denied, Pa., 75 A.3d 1283 (2013), the trial court determined that in subdivision and land development appeals, because of the less stringent procedural protections before a board of supervisors, due process requires that the only applicable standing requirement is substantive, i.e., whether Protestants are persons aggrieved. (Trial Court Opinion dated January 18, 2013, at 6 (quoting Miravich, 6 A.3d at 1079)). 5

6 the Supervisors erred in approving the Revised Plan. While recognizing that the Settlement Agreement provided language permitting the Supervisors to waive other provisions of the Township s SALDO, the trial court found that the Supervisors lacked the authority to waive the subdivision application process for the condominiums because the Settlement Agreement failed to mention any waiver of a subdivision application requirement. 4 This appeal followed. 5 On appeal, Landowner argues Neighboring Property Owners do not have standing to challenge the Supervisors approval because they have no direct, immediate or substantial interest in the form of ownership of the Development and are not harmed by the Supervisors approval of the Amended Final Plan. It further contends that Neighboring Property Owners lack procedural standing to enforce the Settlement Agreement because they are not parties to the Settlement Agreement and never challenged the Settlement Agreement when it was created or amended. 4 The trial court also concluded that it found no direct or indirect support for the proposition that a land use settlement agreement may properly provide for the bypassing or elimination of the mandatory procedural requirements of the [Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S ,] and a township s SALDO. Id. at 22. It also denied Landowner s petition to require the posting of a bond. 5 Where a trial court takes no additional evidence, our scope of review is limited to determining whether the board abused its discretion or committed an error of law. North Chestnut Hill Neighbors v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of Philadelphia, 928 A.2d 418, 423 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). The board abuses its discretion only where its findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Id.; see also 2 Pa. C.S. 754(b). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person might consider sufficient to support a conclusion. North Chestnut Hill Neighbors, 928 A.2d at 423 n.6. An error of law is committed if a board erroneously interpreted or misapplied the law to the facts in a case. Board of Supervisors of Upper Southampton Township v. Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Southampton Township, 555 A.2d 256 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989). 6

7 If there was not a Settlement Agreement, there would not be any argument that Neighboring Property Owners could not appeal a subdivision approval for the condominium plan because, as property owners with homes adjacent to or near the Development site, Neighboring Property Owners have a direct interest in the Development. Neighboring Property Owners interest is also substantial. As set forth by this Court in Larock v. Sugarloaf Township Zoning Hearing Board: [w]hen the property at issue is someone s home, the owner s right to protect the viability of his property is even more personal. The purchase of a home is often considered to be one of, if not the, most significant investments an individual can make during his lifetime. To deny an individual the right to protect his interest in the property he calls home would violate public policy. 740 A.2d 308, 312 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). Development near one s property will almost certainly bear some sort of effect on that property, whether from decreased property values, noise, pollution, traffic or a number of other factors. See id. Finally, Neighboring Property Owners interest is immediate because there is a causal nexus between the Development and the effect of the Neighboring Property Owners right to enjoy their properties. The question then is whether Neighboring Property Owners are precluded from challenging the Supervisors waiver of a subdivision plan that varies from the dimensional criteria set forth in the Settlement Agreement, which provides shall apply to the Proposed Development. (R.R. at 119a.) Settlement agreements have always been problematic in zoning cases, especially those that allow waiver, not just of discretionary matters but from 7

8 requirements in zoning ordinances or regulations, because those waivers are tantamount to an ad hoc amendment of those provisions. Nonetheless, we have held that where a party is aware of a proposed settlement, that party is obligated to intervene and appeal the purported illegality of the settlement. If it did not, the settlement will be binding on the parties that were aware of the litigation. T.H. Properties, L.P. v. Upper Salford Twp. Bd. of Sup rs, 970 A.2d 495 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). However, a party only is bound by the terms of a settlement agreement, not subsequent amendments to that agreement. In this appeal, we agree with the trial court that the issue is whether the Settlement Agreement provides for a waiver of the SALDO provisions, including the subdivision application, which makes it binding on Neighboring Property Owners. We also agree with the trial court that there is no language in the Settlement Agreement that deals with subdivision or that waives the procedural requirements of the MPC or SALDO that subdivision approval must be obtained before a property can be used as condominiums. 6 Since the Settlement Agreement contains an 6 A subdivision includes the division or redivision of a lot, tract or parcel of land by any means into two or more lots for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of. transfer of ownership or building. Section 107 of the MPC, 53 P.S Division of a property into separate condominium units for the purpose of separate ownership constitutes a subdivision. Shaffer v. Zoning Hearing Board of Chanceford Township, 964 A.2d 23 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), aff d, 605 Pa. 267, 989 A.2d 5 (2010). While Landowner contends that Shaffer is inapplicable to this case because the condominium ownership will not result in any new boundary lines or changes, we ultimately held and Landowner has acknowledged that municipal consideration of a subdivision or land development plan is required in order to create a condominium and to convey a condominium unit. (R.R. at 321a.) Moreover, in the cited trial court case, [n]o complaint [was] made by the borough concerning physical compliance with the approved plans. Brookhaven Borough v. Iacobucci, 69 Pa. D.&C. 2d 190, 192 (1974). Therefore, that case is inapplicable here. 8

9 integration clause, 7 which expresses all of the parties negotiations, conversations, and agreements made prior to its execution, Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 578 Pa. 479, 498, 854 A.2d 425, 436 (2004), 8 the authority to waive the requirement cannot be read into the Settlement Agreement as Landowner suggests. Landowner acknowledged that a subdivision of each unit would not be in compliance with the dimensional criteria set forth in the Settlement Agreement for which it sought the waiver, ignoring that the Settlement Agreement did not waive the requirement to get a subdivision approval for the condominiums. Because the Settlement Agreement does not waive the requirement for condominium subdivision approval, it was improperly approved. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed. DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge 7 Section 16 of the Settlement Agreement provides, in relevant part, This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the parties hereto and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings and agreements of any nature whatsoever with respect to the subject matter hereof. (R.R. at 154a.) 8 We need not address Landowner s argument that if it needed to obtain subdivision approval with regard to the Condominium Plan, (Appellant s Brief at 25), the board was permitted by the Settlement Agreement to approve the condominium plan because Landowner s contention that the Development was never meant to be developed by a single owner, given the multi-tenant nature of a shopping center and age-restricted residential development proposed. This argument is without merit because the Settlement Agreement refers to the Development s retail center as a multi-tenant center, which does not suggest more than single ownership with leasing of units. (R.R. at 113a (emphasis added).) Finally, Landowner said in its waiver request that the dimensional criteria required of each lot in the Development never contemplated the creation of condominium units. Id. at 322a. 9

10 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, Thomas : G. Lewis, III, Pauline Donna Lewis, : George E. Dearlove, Jean P. : Dearlove, Cora H. Sparling, Wayne C. : Sparling, and Steve Lustig : : v. : No. 228 C.D : Board of Supervisors of New Garden : Township, and PR New Garden/ : Chesco Limited Partnership, PR New : Garden Limited Partnership and PR : New Garden Residential Limited : Partnership : : Appeal of: PR New Garden/Chesco : Limited Partnership, PR New Garden : Limited Partnership and PR New : Garden Residential Limited : Partnership : O R D E R AND NOW, this 3 rd day of January, 2014, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, dated January 18, 2013, is affirmed. DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge

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 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 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

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

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 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 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 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 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

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

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 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 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 Mercer County Citizens for Responsible Development, Robert W. Moors and Marian Moors, Appellants v. No. 703 C.D. 2009 Springfield Township Zoning Hearing No. 704

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 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 Joseph and Judith McCarry, : Appellants : : No. 914 C.D. 2012 v. : : Submitted: October 10, 2013 Springfield Township Zoning : Hearing Board and Springfield :

More information

This is a motion filed by Middletown Township. ("Middletown") in Monmouth County requesting the following relief

This is a motion filed by Middletown Township. (Middletown) in Monmouth County requesting the following relief IN RE TOWNSHIP OF MIDDLETOWN : NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON : AFFORDABLE HOUSING : DOCKET NO. COAH 97-911 This is a motion filed by Middletown Township ("Middletown") in Monmouth County requesting the following

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY [Cite as Am. Tax Funding, L.L.C. v. Archon Realty Co., 2012-Ohio-5530.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY AMERICAN TAX FUNDING, LLC : : Appellate Case No. 25096

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 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

Do I Need a Municipal/Land Use Attorney?

Do I Need a Municipal/Land Use Attorney? Do I Need a Municipal/Land Use Attorney? Municipal Regulation In 1789, Benjamin Franklin famously wrote that in the world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes. Now, more than 200 years

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

ARTICLE III GENERAL PROCEDURES, MINOR PLANS AND FEE SCHEDULES

ARTICLE III GENERAL PROCEDURES, MINOR PLANS AND FEE SCHEDULES ARTICLE III GENERAL PROCEDURES, MINOR PLANS AND FEE SCHEDULES 301. Prior to Submission a. Copies of this Ordinance shall be available on request, at cost, for the use of any person who desires information

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA FMRR Development v. Birdsboro Municipal Authority Francis X. McLaughlin v. Birdsboro Water Authority Appeal of Birdsboro Municipal Authority and Birdsboro Water

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 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 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 Hummelstown Swim Club, : Appellant : : v. : No. 141 C.D. 2016 : Argued: March 6, 2017 Borough of Hummelstown : BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE

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

Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ.

Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ. Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ. MCCARTHY HOLDINGS LLC OPINION BY v. Record No. 101031 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN September 16, 2011 VINCENT W. BURGHER, III FROM THE CIRCUIT

More information

ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS SECTION 100 TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Rice Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance." SECTION 101 AUTHORITY Rice Township is empowered

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 February 25, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-2324 Lower Tribunal No. 14-21513 Two Islands

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

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: OCTOBER 2, 2009; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2008-CA-002271-MR DRUSCILLA WOOLUM, LAVETTA HIGGINS MAHAN, RUFUS DEE HIGGINS, AND ARLINDA D. HENRY

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

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

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 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

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

ZONING HEARING BOARD OF WARWICK TOWNSHIP BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Warwick Road Warrington, PA 18976

ZONING HEARING BOARD OF WARWICK TOWNSHIP BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Warwick Road Warrington, PA 18976 ZONING HEARING BOARD OF WARWICK TOWNSHIP BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Docket No. 15-7 Applicants: Owners: Subject Property: Requested Relief: Adam and Karen Sailor 2195 Warwick Road Warrington, PA 18976

More information

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA KATHLEEN GREEN and LEE ANN MOODY, v. Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

More information

COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOCKET NO. COAH THE HILLS DEVELOPMENT CO., ) Plaintiff ) v. ) TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS, ) Defendant, )

COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOCKET NO. COAH THE HILLS DEVELOPMENT CO., ) Plaintiff ) v. ) TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS, ) Defendant, ) COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOCKET NO. COAH 87-9 THE HILLS DEVELOPMENT CO., ) Plaintiff ) v. ) TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS, ) Defendant, ) Civil Action OPINION This matter was brought to Council on Affordable

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

IN RE MOTION TO RESCIND ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON BOROUGH OF ALLENDALE'S ) AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBSTANTIVE CERTIFICATION ) OPINION COAH DOCKET #

IN RE MOTION TO RESCIND ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON BOROUGH OF ALLENDALE'S ) AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBSTANTIVE CERTIFICATION ) OPINION COAH DOCKET # IN RE MOTION TO RESCIND ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON BOROUGH OF ALLENDALE'S ) AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBSTANTIVE CERTIFICATION ) OPINION COAH DOCKET #06-1803 This matter comes before the New Jersey Council on Affordable

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

Certiorari not Applied for COUNSEL

Certiorari not Applied for COUNSEL 1 SANDOVAL COUNTY BD. OF COMM'RS V. RUIZ, 1995-NMCA-023, 119 N.M. 586, 893 P.2d 482 (Ct. App. 1995) SANDOVAL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Plaintiff, vs. BEN RUIZ and MARGARET RUIZ, his wife, Defendants-Appellees,

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Appellees, : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO. 02 CV 1606

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Appellees, : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO. 02 CV 1606 [Cite as Fifth Third Bank W. Ohio v. Carroll Bldg. Co., 180 Ohio App.3d 490, 2009-Ohio-57.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH THIRD BANK WESTERN OHIO : et al., Appellees, : C.A.

More information

NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOCKET IN RE PETITION FOR SUBSTANTIVE) CERTIFICATION OF WASHINGTON ) TOWNSHIP (MERCER COUNTY) )

NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOCKET IN RE PETITION FOR SUBSTANTIVE) CERTIFICATION OF WASHINGTON ) TOWNSHIP (MERCER COUNTY) ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOCKET IN RE PETITION FOR SUBSTANTIVE) CERTIFICATION OF WASHINGTON ) TOWNSHIP (MERCER COUNTY) ) Civil Action OPINION This matter comes before the Council on Affordable

More information

Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Millette, JJ., and Russell, S.J. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ET AL.

Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Millette, JJ., and Russell, S.J. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ET AL. Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Millette, JJ., and Russell, S.J. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ET AL. OPINION BY SENIOR JUSTICE CHARLES S. RUSSELL v. Record No.

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

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

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D., 2013

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D., 2013 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D., 2013 Opinion filed September 25, 2013. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-2257 Lower Tribunal No.

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

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 SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC LOWER CASE NUMBER: 3D THOMAS KRAMER, Petitioner,

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC LOWER CASE NUMBER: 3D THOMAS KRAMER, Petitioner, IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC04-815 LOWER CASE NUMBER: 3D03-2440 THOMAS KRAMER, Petitioner, v. VERENA VON MITSCHKE-COLLANDE and CLAUDIA MILLER-OTTO, in their capacity as the HEIRS

More information

JAMES M. RAMSEY, JR., ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL APRIL 16, 2015 COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS

JAMES M. RAMSEY, JR., ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL APRIL 16, 2015 COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS PRESENT: All the Justices JAMES M. RAMSEY, JR., ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No. 140929 JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL APRIL 16, 2015 COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

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 ROBERT BLINN, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D14-1636 FLORIDA POWER &

More information

IN RE CLINTON TOWNSHIP, ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL HUNTERDON COUNTY ) ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING

IN RE CLINTON TOWNSHIP, ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL HUNTERDON COUNTY ) ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN RE CLINTON TOWNSHIP, ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL HUNTERDON COUNTY ) ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING ) ) OPINION This matter arises as a result of an Order to Show Cause issued by the New Jersey Council on Affordable

More information

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

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NEIL A. CRAIG AND : ROSALIE T. CRAIG, : Plaintiffs : vs. : NO: 09-1880 : JAMES DULCEY AND : KATHLEEN DULCEY, : Defendants : James

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

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

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

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Itama Development Associates, LP, Appellant v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Rostraver v. Township of Rostraver v. No. 985 C.D. 2015 Argued November

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

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

SPRINGETTSBURY TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD AUGUST 6, 2015

SPRINGETTSBURY TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD AUGUST 6, 2015 SPRINGETTSBURY TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD AUGUST 6, 2015 MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: NOT PRESENT: Dale Achenbach, Chairman Sande Cunningham David Seiler Trisha Lang, Director of Community

More information

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN September 18, 2009 MICHAEL D. DELORE, ET AL.

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN September 18, 2009 MICHAEL D. DELORE, ET AL. PRESENT: All the Justices HENRY ANDERSON, JR., ET AL. v. Record No. 082416 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN September 18, 2009 MICHAEL D. DELORE, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BEDFORD COUNTY

More information

DECISION. Supervisors of Westtown Township (the Board ) denying Toll PA s conditional use

DECISION. Supervisors of Westtown Township (the Board ) denying Toll PA s conditional use TOLL PA XVIII, L.P., Appellant, v. WESTTOWN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Appellee, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. CIVIL ACTION Filed and Attested by PROTHONOTARY 01 Oct

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

ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO JULY TERM, 2018

ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO JULY TERM, 2018 Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a crossappellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any

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

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

Pondview, and a Scarce Resource Restraint imposed by the Council on June 13, All briefs have been filed and the appeal is pending in the

Pondview, and a Scarce Resource Restraint imposed by the Council on June 13, All briefs have been filed and the appeal is pending in the IN RE ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP, MORRIS ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON COUNTY, MOTION TO STAY COAH FROM ) AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIRING REFUND OF DEVELOPMENT ) FEES AND TO ALLOW ROCKAWAY TO ) DOCKET NO. 09-2108 CONINUE

More information

SOUTHAMPTON TOWNSHIP, FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 705 Municipal Drive Shippensburg, PA TELEPHONE: (717) FAX: (717)

SOUTHAMPTON TOWNSHIP, FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 705 Municipal Drive Shippensburg, PA TELEPHONE: (717) FAX: (717) SOUTHAMPTON TOWNSHIP, FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 705 Municipal Drive Shippensburg, PA 17257 TELEPHONE: (717) 532-9041 FAX: (717) 532-7234 PROFESSIONAL ESCROW AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, dated this

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed September 19, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-360 Lower Tribunal No.

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

PRESENT: Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, and Powell, JJ., and Russell and Koontz, S.JJ.

PRESENT: Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, and Powell, JJ., and Russell and Koontz, S.JJ. PRESENT: Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, and Powell, JJ., and Russell and Koontz, S.JJ. SWORDS CREEK LAND PARTNERSHIP OPINION BY v. Record No. 131590 SENIOR JUSTICE CHARLES S. RUSSELL September 12, 2014

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA LEWIS Y. and BETTY T. WARD, et al., Petitioner, v. GREGORY S. BROWN, Property Appraiser of Santa Rosa County, et al., Case Nos. SC05-1765, SC05-1766 1st DCA Case No. 1D04-1629

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

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN BOUNDARY ASSOCIATION, INC. January 13, 2006

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN BOUNDARY ASSOCIATION, INC. January 13, 2006 PRESENT: All the Justices RALPH WHITE, ET AL. v. Record No. 050417 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN BOUNDARY ASSOCIATION, INC. January 13, 2006 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as Treinen v. Kollasch-Schlueter, 179 Ohio App.3d 527, 2008-Ohio-5986.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO TREINEN ET AL., : APPEAL NO. C-070634 TRIAL

More information

No July 27, P.2d 939

No July 27, P.2d 939 Printed on: 10/20/01 Page # 1 111 Nev. 998, 998 (1995) Schwartz v. State, Dep't of Transp. MARTIN J. SCHWARTZ and PHYLLIS R. SCHWARTZ, Trustees of the MARTIN J. SCHWARTZ and PHYLLIS R. SCHWARTZ Revocable

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WILLIAM KULINSKI, RONALD KULINSKI, and RUSSELL KULINSKI, UNPUBLISHED December 9, 2014 Plaintiffs-Appellees, v No. 318091 Lenawee Circuit Court ILENE KULINSKI, LC No.

More information

These related appeals concern the rights of certain sign companies to. construct billboards in areas formerly located in unincorporated Fulton

These related appeals concern the rights of certain sign companies to. construct billboards in areas formerly located in unincorporated Fulton In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: June 13, 2011 S11A0023. FULTON COUNTY et al. v. ACTION OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, JV et al. S11A0101. CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS et al. v. ACTION OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, JV et

More information

ZONING HEARING BOARD OF WARWICK TOWNSHIP BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

ZONING HEARING BOARD OF WARWICK TOWNSHIP BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ZONING HEARING BOARD OF WARWICK TOWNSHIP BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Docket No. 17-06 Applicant: Afzal Realty LLC 1875 Stout Drive Warminster, PA 18974 Owner: Same. Subject Property: Tax Parcel No. 51-013-009-012,

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 GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, INC., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee. No. 4D14-0699 [October 14, 2015]

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