Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-05474 " \1\ ..... ~ ! , /" " - i-' .J ; 7.... .~i..";. . ~, ~~ ;1 .~~ ~;hlf f :, ~ Ie; " :-;:~::'~ ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, Plaintifts : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUHBERLANDCOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM v. IN EQUITY HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC., and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Detendants . . : . . . . IIOTICB YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. It you wish to de tend against the claims aet torth in the tollowing pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set torth against you. You are warned that it you tail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without turther notice tor any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAl<E THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. COURT ADMINISTRATOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE FOURTH FLOOR CARLISLE, PA 17013-3387 PHONE: (717) 240-6200 NOTICIA 1A han deaandado a uated en la corte. Si uateeS quiere detenderae de eataa demandaa expeu.taa en laa pagina. aiquientea, uateeS tiene viente (20) diaa de plalo al partir de la techa de la deaanda y le notiticacion. Us teeS debs presentar una apariencia escrita 0 en persona 0 per abogado y archivar en la corte en torae eaerita au detensas 0 sua obieclonea a laa d..andas en contra de au peraona. Sea aviaado que ai uateeS no ae detiende, la corte tomara aedidaa y puede entrar una orden contra uated ain previo .viao 0 notiticacion y per cualquier queja 0 alivio que e. pedido en la peticion de de.anda. Usted puede perder dinsro 0 sus propisdades o otro. dercho. importants. para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO IMNEDIATAHBHTE. SI NO TUNE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAMA POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRBCCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUBDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. COURT ADMINISTRATOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE FOURTH FLOOR CARLISLE, PA 17013-3387 PHONE: (717) 240-6200 ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUN'1'Y, PENNSYLVANIA No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM IN EQUITY . . . . v. . . . . . . . . HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC., and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants . . . . . . . . us..... ... Dft... MID comrrDCLADI 01' DDBII'Daft. LOWD &1.t..D 'l'OWlI8BIP. 'l'O '1'11. COXPLAIIl'l' 01' PLAIIl'l'II'1'8. AL'l'OM If.ft8 UID t!II1Il I8lfIMIIUI 811YDBR -If.ft8 Defendant, Lover Allen Township, by its attorneys, Metzger, Wickeraham, Xnauas , Erb, files this Ansvllr, Nev Matter, and Counterclaim of Defendant, Lover Allen Township, to the Complaint of Plaintiffs, Alton Teets and Christianne Snyder-Teets, as follows: 1. The allegations of paragraph 1 of the Complaint are admitted. 2. The allegations of paragraph 2 of the Complaint are admitted. J. The allegations of paragraph J of the Complaint are admitted. 4. The allegations of paragraph 4 of the COIIplaint are admitted. 5. The allegation. of paragraph 5 of the Complaint are admitted. 6. After reasonable inve.tigation, Defendant, Lover Allen Township, i. without knowledge or information .ufficient to fora a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 6, and they are therefore denied. Proof thereof is demanded at the hearing of this matter. 7. The allegations of paragraph 7 are partiallY adJIitted and partially denied. It is specifically denied that plaintiffs had .repeatedly. requested Defendant, Lower Allen Township, to return the dogs to their rightful owners and have also .repeatedly. requested Defendant, Lower Allen Township, to allow plaintiffs' dogs to be placed in foster homes of their choosing. To the contrary, it is averred that Plaintiffs have made such requests on only two or three occasions. 8. The allegations of paragraph B are denied. To the contrary, it is averred that many of the dogs have been released to persons who have provided satisfactory proof of ownerShip and to foster hoaes found satisfactory by the Defendant, Lower Allen Township. And where Defendant, Lower Allen Township, received questionable proof of ownership, the dogs remained with the Defendant, Humane society of Harrisburg Area, Inc. 9. The allegations of paragraph 9 are specifically denied. To the contrary, it is averred that the Defendant, Lower Allen Township, is keeping an accurate account of which dogs are being rel_sed to vtloa. With respect to the nmainlng allegations, after r_sonable investi9ation, Defendant, Lower Allen Township, is without knovledq. or inforaation sufficient to fora a belief as to - 2 - the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and they are therefore denied. Proof thereof is demanded at the hearing. 10. The allegations of paragraph 10 are conclusions of law, to which no answer is required and they are therefore deemed to be denied. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations of paragraph 10 are specifically denied. The premises at 95 Kensington Drive, Lower Allen TownShip, CUlllberland County, Pennsylvania (herein .premises.), have been maintained and kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance, per se, an imminent and irreparable danger and hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood and community, so as to constitute a serious hazard to the health and safety of the Plaintiffs because the Premises are in an unsanitary and dilapidated condition, and used in violation of the permitted uses of Article 1104, R-1 Single Family Established Residential District, of the Codified Ordinances of Lower Allen TownShip of 1985, as a..nded, beinq part of the Lower Allen Township Zoning Ordinance of 1995. 11. The allegations of paragraph 11 are conclusions of law, to which no answer is required and they are therefore deemed to be denied. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations of paragraph 11 are specifically denied. Further, it is averred that preservation of the status quo would only continue the public - 3 - nuisance, violations of the Ordinances of Lower Allen Township, an imminent and irreparable danger and hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood and community, and a serious hazard to the health and safety of the Plaintiffs. 12. The allegations of paragraph 12 are conclusions of law, to which no answer is required and they are therefore deemed to be denied. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations of paragraph 12 are specifically denied. Further, it is averred that preservation of the status quo would only continue the public nuisance, violations of the Ordinances of Lower Allen Township, an imminent and irreparable danger and hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood and community, and a serious hazard to the health and safety of the Plaintiffs. Satisfactory proof of ownerShip has been accepted and respected. 13. The allegations of paragraph 13 are conclusions of law, to which no answer is required and they are therefore deemed to be denied. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations of paragraph 13 are specifically denied. 14. The allegations of paragraph 14 are conclusions of law, to which no answer is required and they are therefore dee.ed to be denied. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations of paragraph 14 are specifically denied. 15. The allegations of paraqraph 15 of the Coaplaint are specifically denied. To the contrary, it is averred that, with - 4 - assistance to the extent possible, employ.es ot the Detendant, Lower Allen Township, have been able to tell one dOC] trom the other, except where PlaintiUs did not provide accurate records tor purpo.e. ot identitication. 16. After reasonable investigation, Detendant, Lower Allen Township, is without knowledge or intormation sutficient to torm a belief as to the truth ot the allegations set torth 1n paragraph 16 ot the Complaint, and they are there tore denied. Proof thereot is deaanded at the hearing. 17. The allegations ot paragraph 17 of the Complaint are .pecitically denied. To the contrary, it i. averred that, Detendant, Lower Allen Town.hip, doe. not have any dOC] in it. po.....ion. 18. Atter rea.onable inve.tigation, Defendant, Lower Allen Town.hip, i. without knowledge or information .utticient to fora a beliet a. to the truth of the allegation. .et forth in paragraph 18 ot the Complaint, and they are there tor. denied. Proof thereof i. deaanded at the hearing. 19. The allegation. of paragraph 19 are .pecitically denied. To the contrary, it i. averred that Defendant, Lower Allen Town.hip, ha. cooperated with the Plaintitf. .0 a. to place tha dog. and puppies in appropriate home.. WHIREFORE, the Defendant, Lower Allen Township, re.pectfully reque.t. your Honorable COUrt to di..i.s the CGaplaint and enter - !5 - judgment in favor of the Defendant, Lower Allen Township, together with attorneys fees and costs of suit. lID lIA'1"1'lR 20. At the pre.ent ti.e and for some time in the past, the Pr_i.e. have been maintained and kept in .uch a manner as to constitute a public nui.ance, per se, an imminent and irreparable danqer and hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding neiqhborhood and community. 21. At the present time and for some time in the past, the pr_i.e. have been maintained and kept in such a .anner as to con.titute a serious hazard to the health and safety of the Plaintiffs becau.e the Pre.i.es 1. in an un.atisfactory and dilapidated condition. 22. The condition of the Pruises i. such that nu.erou. provision. of the Codified Ordinanc.. of Lower AUen Town.hip, 1985, a. ...nded (here1n .ordinance..) have been violated and continue to be violated, as follow.: a. Section 721.0" of the Ordinance., deaUnq with health nui.ance. b. Section 745.02 ot the Ordinance., d..UftCJ with VlIC1:.or control. c. Section 745.011 of the Ordinancea, deaUftIJ with sanitary conditione. - , - d. Section 1104.02, Permitted U.e., in a district zoned R-1 Single-Family Established Residential District of the ordinances, being part of the Lower Allen Township zoning Ordinances, 1995, the use baing made of the preaises not baing a permitted use. 23. The Premises are un tit for hUllan habitation and hazard to the health and safety of the Plaintiffs and the surrounding neighborhood and community for the following reasons: a. Odor emanating from the Premises which could be s..lled from several houses away. b. The _intaining of 69 d09s within the Premises, allowinq thea to urinate and defecate within the preaises and enclosed back yard. c. The incessant barking of the above-listed d09s, causinq a noise nuisance with neighborhood complaints. d. A qreat accumulation of garbage, debris, and rubbiah in the front, rear, and side yards of the Preai..s. e. An accumulation of fecal _tter and urine vithin the residence. f. The presence of urine and fecee soaked floor coverinqs, floor., vall., trim, door., cabinetry, and personal belonqinqs includinq beds and furniture. - 7 - q. A larq8 accWlulation of per.onal belonging. .tored loo.ely an4 in boxes kept in be4rooas, hallway., an4 other living .pace., cau.ing a potential fire hazar4. h. Bathroom, kitchen, an4 launclry room fixture. all ...ared with fecal matter, ren4ering the.e areas unueable an4 un.anitary for per.onal hygiene purpo.e.. i. The exterior of the pr_be. has not been maintained, causing deterioration of exterior eave. an4 roof. j. Becau.e the overall appearance of the resi4ance and a..ociated odor., neiqhbor. are concerned with the 4evaluation of their propertie.. :It. Neiqhbor. are concerned reqartiing the health and unitary condition. of the Pr.mia.. which may affect the ov.rall h.alth of th.ir famUi.. a. w.ll a. the .njoyment of th.ir yar4. becau.. of the ov.rpow.ring odoriferous eaanation.. 24. Tb. Def.ndant, Lower All.n Township, 4i4 not have po.....ion of any of the 409.. 25. All 409. r8llOved froa the Pr_ia.. were placed in the poa....ion of the Defendant, Huaane society of Harri.burq Area, Inc. 26. The PlaintUf. haw no pel'1lit i..ued by the united stat.. of Aaerlca, the c- l1nv..lth of Pennsylvania, the COUnty of - . - CUmberland, and the Defendant, Lower Allen Township, to permit 59 doqs and 10 puppies upon the Premises to do business as a kennel, or for purposes of breedinq. 27. Some of the 59 doqs and 10 puppies taken from the Premises were owned by the Plaintiffs or were the pets of the Plaintiffs. 28. Defendant, Lower Allen Township, its aqents, servants, employees, officers, and solicitors are illllllune from any damaqes under the provisions of the Political Subdivision Torts Claim Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 8541, et seq. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Lower Allen Township, respectfully requests your Honorable Court to dismiss the Complaint and enter judgment in favor of the Defendant, Lower Allen Township, toqether with attorneys fees and costs of suit. COlJll'l'DCLAIK L01fD .'.l.g '1'01IJISIIIP. PLAIII'l'In v. ALt'mI "all'l'. allll CIIIlIS"I.... SIlYDD-"all'l'.. Dal'lIIIDAJft'S 29. The allegations of paraqraphs 1 to and including 27 are incorporated herein by reference as thouqh fully set forth herein. 30. The Defendant, Lower Allen Township, is a Pennsylvania aunicipal corporation with adainistrative offices at 1993 Huaael Avenue, caap H11l (Lover Allen Township), CWlberland County, Pennsylvania. 31. Defendant, Christianne Snyder, also known as Christianne Snyder-Teets, is the owner of the Preai.e. situate at 95 Kensington - 9 - Drive, Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (herein "Premises"), acquired by Deed dated September 16, 1983, and recorded october 18, 1983, in CUlllberland County Deed Book 1(-30-672, et seq. 32. The Defendants, Alton Teets and Christianne Snyder-Teets, are husband and wife, reside at, and are in possession of the Pre.ises. 33. Situate on the Premises is a two-story residential dwellinq located in a district zoned R-l Sinqle-Family Established Residential District under the Zoninq Ordinance. 34. At the present time and for some time in the past, the Prsmises have been maintained and kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance per s., and an imminent and irreparable danqer and hazard to the public heath, safety, and welfare of the surroundinq neiqhborhood and community. 35. At the present time and for so.e time in the past, the Pre.ises have been aaintained and kept in such a aanner as to constitute a .erious hazard to the health and safety of the Plaintiffs and the public health because the Pre.ise. is in an un.ati.factory and dilapidated condition. 36. The condition of the Pr_ia.s i. such that numerous provi.ion. of the Ordinanc.. have been violated and continue to be violated, a. follovsl - 10 - a. Section 721.04 of the Ordinances, dealing with health nuiaance. b. Section 745.02 of the Ordinances, dealing with vector control. c. Section 745.038 of the Ordinances, dealing with sanitary conditions. d. Section 1104.02, Permitted Uses, in a district zoned R-1 single-Family Established Residential District of the Zoning Ordinances, the use being made of the Praises not being a permitted use. 37. The Premises are unfit for human habitation and a hazard to the health and safety of the Plaintiffs and the surrounding neiqhborhood and coaaunity for the followinq specific reasons: a. Extr_e odor ellanating froll the prellises which could be smelled for several houses away. b. The maintaininq of 69 d09s within the Premises, allowinq thu to urinate and defecate within the Premises and enclosed back yard. c. The incessant barkinq of the above-listed d09s, causinq a noiae nuisance with neighborhood coaplainta. d. A great accuaulation ot garbage, debris, and rubbiab in the tront, rear, and side yards of the Pntai... . - 11 - e. An accumulation of fecal matter and urine within the residence. f. The presence of urine and feces soaked floor coverings, floors, walls, trim, doors, cabinetry, and personal belongings including beds and furniture. g. A large accumulation of personal belongings stored loosely and in boxes kept in bedrooms, hallways, and other living spaces, causing a potential fire hazard. h. Bathroom, kitchen, and laundry room fixtures all s.eared with fecal matter, rendering these areas unusable and unsanitary for personal hygiene purposes. i. Appearance of the exterior of the Premises has not been maintained, causing deterioration of exterior eaves and roof. j. Because the overall appearance of the residence and associated odors, neighbors are concerned with the devaluation of the surrounding properties. k. Neighbors are concerned regarding the health and sanitary conditions of the Pre.i.es which may affect the overall health of their fa.Uie. a. well a. the enjoyJMnt of their yards because of the overpowering odoriferous e..nations. - 12 - 38. Because of the aforesaid conditions, on September 19, 1996, the Premises has been condemned and placarded unfit for human habitation. 39. All animals were removed and placed in the care of the Defendant, Human Society of Harrisburg Area, Inc., where they were vaccinated and treated for various diseases. 40. Because of the condition of the Premises, Plaintiffs should not be permitted to reside in the Premises until such time as the Premises has been cleaned and fumigated. 41. Defendant, Lower Allen Township, does not have an adequate remedy at law. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Lower Allen Township, prays as follows: a. That the plaintiffs be enjoined from living in the Preaises at 95 Kensington Drive, camp Hill (Lower Allen Township, cumberland county, Pennsylvania, until .uch time a. the premi.es ha. been cleaned and fumigated and the Premises made fit for human habitation; b. That an injunction be issued requiring and compell1nq Plaintiffs to fumigate and clean the Preahe.; c. Plaintiff. submit to Lower All.n Tovnabip a propoaed plan to fumigate and clean the preai...; d. I..u. an injunction prohibiting the pr...ne. of any ani..l. on the prami..a until aft.r the Pr.mi... have - 13 - been made habitable and thereafter permit only a reason number of animals as pets; e. Plaintiffs cease living in and remove their motor home which is parked in their driveway since it was intended to be a temporary solution for a minimum period of time until other living arrangements could be made; f. Establish set hours during which the Premises can be occupied for purposes of fumigation and Cleaning. For example, 7:00 o'clock a.m. to 7:00 o'clock p.m.; q. Require debris, rubbish, garbage, and urine/feces soaked furniture and personal property be removed from the interior and exterior of the Premises and disposed of the same in accordance with applicable United states, Coaaonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Lower Allen Township laws and regulations at the sole expense ot the Plaintitfs; h. Require a coaprehensive pest/vermin inspection be conducted and that all infestations be eradicated at the sole expense of the Plaintiffs; 1. Require a structural inspection by a qualified eftCJineer be conducted to determine the intllCJrity ot the dveUiftCJ and correction ot aU deficiencie. .0 determined at the sole expan.. ot the Plaintiffs, .14. j. Require the Premises to be professionally fUlligated to remove the offensive odors froll the dwelling and surrounding yard at the sole expense of the Plaintiffs; k. Require that a qualified microbiologist evaluate the Premises for any hazardous viruses and bacteria and zootonic agents and correction of all deficiencies so determined at the sole expense of the Plaintiffs; 1. Require a professional restoration company conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the Pr_ises at the sole expense of the Plai~tiffs; .. Require that the Plaintiffs fumigate and clean the Pr..ises by a date certain, and if the cleaning and fumigation is not co.pleted by that date, Lower Allen Township be authorized to enter into the pre.ises and to take the steps necessary to fumigate and clean the Pr..ia... If tower All.n Township expends any funds to fumigate and clean the Pr..ises, tow.r Allen Township should be authorized to plac. a li.n against the r.al e.tate for payaent of and r.illbur....nt of such coat. and expena_ : n. Defendant, Low.r All.n Township, is authorized to ent.r the ~i... of the Plaintiffs .. r.asonably - 15 - C"~I.ICA~. O. ."VIC. I, Raaona C. Cataldi, Esquire, of the law firm of Metzqer, Wicker.haa, xnau.. , Erb, hereby certify that on october 29, 1996, I .erved a copy of the foreqoinq answ.r, ... Matt.r, aDd COUDterolata of Def.Ddant, Low.r AileD ~OWD.hip, to the caaplaiat of .1aiDtiff., AltOD ~..t. and Cbri.tiaDD. .DJder-~..t., addressed to: BY Hand Deliverv to: Matthew J. Zsbelan, Esquire Law Office. of Patrick F. Lauer, Jr. 2108 Market street, Aztec Building ca.p Hill, PA 17011-4706 ~UmH- na C. cataldi, Esquire Dated: OCtober 29, 1996 ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs, V. No. 96-5474 Equity Term HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC. and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP IN EQUITY Defendants. PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAOSE 1mY CONTBMPT AT'l'ACHMBNT SHOULD NOT ISStJB AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Lower Allen Township ("Township") by its attorneys, Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb and files this Petition for Rule to Show Cause Why Plaintiffs Should Not Be Cited in Civil Contempt of Court and in support thereof avers the following: 1. On or about September 19, 1996, agents and employees of Township and the Humane Society of Harrisburg Area, Inc., ("Humane Society") acting under a valid search warrant entered the premises at 95 Kensington Drive, Camp Hill, Lower Allen Township, Pennsylvania 17011 ("Premises"). 2. Agents and employees of Township cited the Plaintiffs for violations of Lower Allen Township COde Ordinances and ordered that the Premises be condemned as not fit for human habitation. J. on or about S-ptember 19. 1996. agents and eMPloye.s of ~f.nd&nt. MuNne SoclUy. ~ approd_tely 70 Miniature . ._.-. -, Pinscher dogs and puppies from the premises and provided the animals with emergency shelter and medical care, 4. On or about October 4, 1996, Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Petition for Preliminary Injunctive and Equitable Relief. The Petitioners named the Defendants herein as Respondents. 5. On October 8, 1996, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants Township and Humane Society. 6. On October 9, 1996, this Honorable COurt set the Emergency Petition for Hearing on November 27, 1996. This hearing was subsequently rescheduled for November 25, 1996 by Order of Court . 7. On OCtober 29, 1996, Township filed an Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim. Besides answering the Plaintiffs' Complaint, the Township made new allegations in the form of New Matter and a COunterclaim and requested a list of equitable relief designed to return the Premises to a property fit for human habitation. 8. On November :lO, 1996, Defendant, Humane Society aNlwered Plaintiffs' EMergency htition for Preliminary Injunctive and oJ. Emergency Relief and Plaintiffs' Complaint. Defendant, Humane Society's Answer contained New Matter and a Counterclaim. 9. On November 14, 1996, this Honorable Court issued a Rule on Plaintiffs' to Show Cause why Defendant Township's Motion to Consolidate for Hearing on Counterclaim should not be granted. 10. On November 25, 1996, the parties entered a Stipulation, which was approved by and entered as an Order of Court. A copy of said Stipulation and Order is attached as Exhibit A. 11. On January 9, 1997, the parties entered a Second Stipulation, which was approved by and entered as an Order of Court. A copy of the Second Stipulation and Order is attached as Exhibit B. 12. Despite their agreement to the Second Stipulation and its approval as a Order of Court, the Plaintiffs have violated the January 9, 1997 Order in the following ways: (a) Plaintiffs contracted and received a Microbiological Assessment on the subject property from Analytical Laboratory Services, Inc. Said report was completed on April 2, 1997. .). lb) The Analytical Laboratory Services, Inc. report contains specific recommendations about re~ediation. These remediation steps have not been taken to date. lc) Since the Plaintiffs failed to remediate the microbiological problems associated with their property at 95 Kensington Drive, the Township requested a remediation plan from Cocciardi & Associates, Inc. This report was prepared in bid form and was presented to the Teetses on or after April 28, 1997. This report also had specific recommendations for remediation and clean up of the Plaintiffs' property. ld) The Plaintiffs have refused to begin remediation or clean up processes at the subject property under either proposal. (e) The Order of Court of January 9, 1997 specifically required the Plaintiffs to complete a recommended remediation within thirty (30) days of the expert evaluation. If) The January 9, 1997 Order of Court also required the Plaintiffs' to complete a structural inspection as per the original November 25, 1996 Order within thirty (30) ..4. days of the biological inspection. This structural inspection has also not been done. (g) The January 9, 1997 Order of Court also provided that this Court consider an award of attorney's fees and costs to Township, if further contempt proceedings are required. WHEREFORE, Defendant Township respectfully requests this Honorable Court to issue a Rule to Show Cause Why Plaintiffs Should Not Be Held in Contempt For Violating This Honorable Court's Order of November 25, 1996. Defendant Township also respectfully requests that this Honorable Court award attorneys' fees for this contempt proceeding. Respectfully submitted, METZG " WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS, ERa , Esquire Attorney 1.0. No. 06861 Steven P. Miner, Esquire Attorney 1.0. No. 38901 3211 North Front St. P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Datedl JUlY~, 1997. uuu Attorneys for Defendant Lower Allen Townah1p .,. VERIFICATION I, Steven P. Miner, attorney for Lower Allen Township, hereby certify the Verification of John M. Eby, Codes Enforcement Officer, was unavailable at time of filing, and the facts set forth in the foregoing Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. S4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date 1/"",1'11- J I~/'-- Steven P. Miner, Esquire f 11'. ......,..~..- -~..~" 0_............. . ,__, - _ ~_ __- -.~. ~," ,. . i ..j ALTON TEETS and . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF . CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . plaintiffs . . . . v. . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . IN EQUITY . HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG . . AREA, INC., and LOWER ALLEN : TOWNSHIP, . . Defendants . No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM . ORDER OP COURT AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 1996, pursuant to the attached stipulations of counsel in the above-captioned aatter, the teras and provisions of the said stipUlations are approved and made an Order of Court. By the Court, KA'l'THJ:W J. ESHELMAN, ESQUIRE 2108 ICarket Street caap Hill, PA 17011-4706 por the plaintiff JOHN J. McNALLY, III, ESQUIRE P.O. Box 650 Hersbey, PA 17033 For Defendant Huaane Society of Harrisburg, Inc. ROBERT E. YIT'l'IR, ESQUIRE P.O. Box 5300 Harrleburq, PA 17110-0300 For DefeftClant Lover Allen 'l'oVntlhlp , . vcy ALTON TEETS and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . Plaintiffs . . . . v. . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . IN EQUITY . HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG . . AREA, INC., and LOWER ALLEN . . TOWNSHIP, . . Defendants . No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM . STIPULATION AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 1996, Robert E. Yetter, Esquire, attorney for Lower Allen Township, John J. McNally, III, Esquire, attorney for Humane Society, Harrisburg Area, Inc., ("Humane Society") and Matthew J. Eshelman, Esquire, attorney for Alton Teets and Christianne snyder-Teets, it is hereby stipu~ated that any dog in the possession of the Humane society shall be placed for foster care by the Humane society based upon the recommendation of Alton Teets and Christianne Snyder-Teets. All medical records of any such dog shall be delivered to the person or persons assuming foster care. None of said dogs vill be returned to 95 Kensinqton Drive, Lower Allen Township, CUmberland County, Pennsylvania, except as hereinafter set forth. The person or persons providing foster care to the dog shall execute an Affidavit in the fora hereto attached and aade part hereof. Oo9s by the naae of Chaapie, Abrahaa, and Rocky shall be delivered to the Teets after it i. deterai~ that the pr..ises are fit for huaan habitation to be their pets and not for purpose of breeding on the premises at 95 Kensington Drive. The attached list, consisting of three pages, sets forth accurate information with respect to name, ownership, and disposition of dogs. Any breeding or boarding of dogs in Lower Allen ~ownship shall not take place where not a permitted use under the Lower Allen Township Zoning ordinance 1995, as amended, and no dog or dogs shall be bred, boarded, or kept in such a way as to constitute a public nuisance. The Humane Society shall be notified of any and all pre.ent and future transfers of the dogs. Esquire ALTON TEETS and . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF . CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . Plaintiffs . . : v. . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . IN EQUITY . HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG . . AREA, INC., and LOWER ALLEN . . TOWNSHIP, . . Defendants . No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM . STIPULATION AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 1996, Robert E. Yetter, Esquire, attorney for Lower Allen Township, John J. HcNally, III, Esquire, attorney for Humane Society, Harrisburg Area, Inc., ("Humane Society") and Hatthew J. Eshelman, Esquire, attorney for Alton Teets and Christianne Snyder-Teets, it is hereby stipu~ted that a biological study of the premises at 95 Kensington Drive, Lower Allen Township, Pennsylvania, shall be conducted by a person recommended by Joseph Colliardi , AssocIates for carey court, Kechanicsburq, PA. No work whatsoever shall be done on the premises until such inspection is performed, unless a person performing the biological study consents thereto. A structural inspection shall be performed by the person recommended by James B. Quigley, National InspectIon Agency, 117 Cherry Ridge Road, State Colleqe, Pennsylvania. Upon coaplation of the inspections by the aforesaid, a wrItten report shall be delivered to all of the parties. Within five days thereafter, the partie. .hall meet to implement the .. - I . - C\O.\t'1~ '0,/ O\.-Ine,~ Dogs Name: Date: -Calamity - Qarley -Noelle . Maggie -Ruby . Bunbuns - Megaton e Homer ....,.Nick . Fredie -Tiffany _Whisper -Beamer - Jasmine . Cocoa ... E:lleha c::."cc.o~,",-~ -Tigger - Eddie -TruUles -Missy --6 puppies (Missy) -Misty _2 puppies (Misty) eArchie e Shsh (f2 ~ -M&1ly e Buster - Peps i . Chocolate Drop - Belle - Odie . Squirrel . Josephine _Lucy - Carey --2 Puppies (Carey) _Bad to the Bone . 4 Cockatiels Toal ReIe"R: Judy Loaardo 5017 Sudley Road CaUarpln, VA 22011 703-754-3944 Placecl with: Elvin High Carol Loeb Charles Wells Donna Garber Denise VanSchaick Elvin High Charles Wells Donna Garber Judy Losudo Elvin High Elizabeth Gardiner Juqy Losardo Donna Garber Judy Losardo Donna Garber Charles Wells Donna Garber Carol Loebs Judy Losudo Elvin High Elvin High Linda Miller Linda Miller Donna Garber Elvin High Judy Losardo Donna Garber Charles Wells Donna Garber Bette Korezynski Charles Wella DoMa Garber DoMa Garber Charles Wells Judy Lolardo Judy Loludo ElizabeU Gardiner 9123196 9124196 9/23/96 1019/96 9/23/96 9/23/96 9/25/96 1019/96 9/24/96 9123196 UlIlI96 9124196 1019/96 9/24/96 1019/96 9123196 1lV9I95 9124196 9124196 9123196 9123196 9I3lI96 9I3lI96 1lV9I95 9123196 9IJ!5I96 1lV9I95 9123196 1lV9I95 9n5I96 9123196 1lV9I95 1lV9I95 9123196 9t.Kf96 SIXI'96 1Ot2I'9G Richard Butter 44 Doql 4 Cockatiels AFPIDAVIT The undersigned, on t.his day of , 1996, deposes and states that (he) (she) (they) will adopt or proy;ide ~oflt.sr care to , t-- C{t'ld NClhe( S'/Q'fe1'M{ ~ Qr<;Jw; (nWllber of dogs) (type of dog) -M& will not return any of said dogs or pups of said dogs through a supplemental transfer or any other legal document to Alton Teets and/or Christianne M. Snyder or to the premises at 9S ltensington Drive, Camp H11l (Lower Allen Township), CUmberland County, Pennsylvania. without the written permission of the Manager of Lower Allen Township, and further states that any false statement . herein is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorit \ (Hue) lAddres.) "letty, Stat.,. Zip) . }I, tb'cl.(;AII., ack"-",,, , r",w..s),}.'I, Wa~~ ~.... ~~~~.~~ .- .... . """'" f"'I'l ALTON TEETS and . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF . CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . Plaintiffs . . v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW . IN EQUITY . HUMANE 'SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG . . AREA, INC., and . . LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, . . Defendants . No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM . ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 1997, upon consideration of the Petition for Rule To Show Cause Why contempt Attachment Should Not Issue, and pursuant to an aqreement reached in open court between Plaintiffs and Defendant Lower Allen Township, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows: 1. (a) Plaintiffs are ordered to submit a proposed aicrobioloqical inspection to Lower Allen Township. Both parties are to subait and approve the inspection proposal by January 31, 1997. (b) Plaintiffs are ordered to coaplete a bioloqical evaluation by a certified bioloqical reaediation expert approved by Joseph cocciardi and AIIsociat.s wIthin 30. days of the approval of the propos.l by Lover Allen TownshIp. 2. PlaintiffS are ord.red to coaplet. recoaaended re-.diation within 30 days of the expert evaluation. 3. plaintiff. are ordered to c~l.te a structural inapec:t1on, as per the NoviUbtr 25th, 199', stipulation, within 30 days cf the biological inspection. 4. plaintiffs are ordered to complete any required recommended action from the structural inspection within 30 days of said inspection. It is further ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiffs make no unescorted entries into the house located at 95 Kensington Drive. All visits to the interior of the house will be escorted by Lower Allen Township law enforcement personnel or Albie Wrightstone or Tim Russell, code enforcement officers, at mutually convenient times, up to two times per week; (2) Plaintiffs are ordered to remove the carport enclosure within 10 days of this order. It is further ORDERED that: (1) Lower Allen Township officials will secure all doors and gates to 95 Kensington Drive with hasps, padlocks, and other foras of security acceptable to the parties within five days of this order. Existing locks on the gates and the rear door to the carport and the door between the carport and the wood shed will be secured, but keys will be provided to both parties by the Plaintiffs; (2) This Court will consider award of attorney'. ree. and coata to Lower Allen Township, if further conteapt proceedings are required. It 1s also hereby RECOCMllEO that the Plaintirrs ~ -.,............. -- have expressed a concern over security for the premises at 95 xensington Drive. By the court, MA'l"l'HEW J. ESHElMAN, ESQUIRE 2108 Market street, Aztec Building camp Hill, PA 17011-4706 For the Plaintiffs ROBERT E. YETTER, ESQUIRE STEVEN P. MINER, ESQUIRE 3211 North Front Street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110 For Defendant Lower Allen Township wcy TRUE COpy FROM RECORD 11'I Test!'le-'1" ..... t;d, I h:.rt 11'I10 .t .,.... IIld IN "II of sM Court at CJrbIe. h. lhi&q~ cle, If '~'''''"f "..u _...."..,~-,..' ..~.~.. . rrc.u . '. ~ . t;l.. ~1 - z ~ 1 4 f ~ \1' .... (1-. C \- ., t"_. :; UJ( ~ L1( I..~ . -- ...\ ql : - c':l" (.--;, u.I' , U:1 " i - - . I', r- .. L~ Q" U . .-..-...- -- ALTON TEETS and . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF . CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . plaintiffs . . . . v. . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . IN EQUITY . HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG . . AREA, INC., and : LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, . . Defendants : No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 1997, upon consideration of the Petition for Rule To Show Cause Why Conte.pt Attachaent Should Not Issue, and pursuant to an agree.ent reached in open court between Plaintiffs and Defendant Lower Allen Township, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows: 1. (a) plaintiffs are ordered to submit a proposed .icrobiological inspection to Lower Allen Township. Both parties are to subait and approve the inspection proposal by January 31, 1997. (b) Plaintiffs are ordered to coaplete a biological evaluation by a certified biological re.ediation expert approved by Joaeph Cocciardi and Associate. within 30 day. of the approval of the propo.al by Lower Allen Township. ~. Plaintiffs are ordered to coaplete recoaaended reaediation within 30 day. of the expert evaluation. 3. plaintiffs are ordered to eoaplete a structural i"*P8Ction. .. per the Noveaber ~5th. 1996, stipulation, within 30 days of the biological inspection. 4. Plaintiffs are ordered to complete any required recommended action from the structural inspection within 30 days of said inspection. It is further ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiffs make no unescorted entries into the house located at 95 Kensington Drive. All visits to the interior of the house will be escorted by Lower Allen Township law enforcement personnel or Albie Wright stone or Tim Russell, code enforcement officers, at mutually convenient times, up to two times per week; (2) Plaintiffs are ordered to remove the carport enclosure within 10 days of this order. It is further ORDERED that: (1) Lower Allen Township officials will secure all doors and gates to 95 Kensington Drive with hasps, padlocks, and other forms of security acceptable to the parties within five days of this order. Existing locks on the gates and the rear door to the carport and the door between the carport and the wood .hed will be secured, but keys will be provided to both parties by the Plaintiffs; (2) Thi. Court will consider award of attorney's fee. and cost. to Lower Allen Township, if further conteapt proceedings are required. It is also hereby RECOGNIZED that the Plaintiffs "'\ rn-o:~"r- r~_,..' ' ,......... C~ - - . ,,--\''''''-l::\'{ " ,;...' ,.'..11. '. ' .' _, ....J.. 91 J::! -I} Pli L: 29 cu','--" ,,',". ","IV . l"I''':;-' ,.-' .. ,-..1 ...,''OJ'';' ~. , po l~-iS"i:...l/' ~ ~~\ " ALTON TEETS and . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF . CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . Plaintiffs . . . . v. . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . IN EQUITY . HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG . . AREA, INC., and LOWER ALLEN . . TOWNSHIP, . . Defendants : No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 1996, pursuant to the attached stipulations of counsel in the above-captioned matter, the terms and provisions of the said stipulations are approved and made an Order of Court. By the Court, r ... MA'l"l'HEW J. ESHELMAN, ESQUIRE 2108 Market Street camp Hill, PA 17011-4706 For the Plaintiff ROBERT E. YETTER, ESQUIRE P.O. Box 5300 Harriaburv, PA 17110-0300 For Defendant Lower Allen Township ( Cq :es Inc. ' )1(./\(' (UI,~nuA II h"d'I" ;!"r ,,'" JOHN J. McNALLY, III, ESQUIRE P.O. Box 650 Herahey, PA 17033 For Defendant Humane Society of Harriaburq. wcy ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN EQUITY HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC., and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants . . No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM STIPULATION AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 1996, Robert E. Yetter, Esquire, attorney for Lower Allen Township, John J. McNally, III, Esquire, attorney for Humane Society, Harrisburg Area, Inc., ("Humane society") and Matthew J. Eshelman, Esquire, attorney for Alton Teets and Christianne Snyder-Teets, it is hereby stipulated that any dog in the possession of the Humane Society shall be placed for foster care by the Humane society based upon the recommendation of Alton Teets and christianne Snyder-Teets. All medical records of any such dog shall be delivered to the person or persons assuming foster care. None of said dogs will be returned to 95 Kensington Drive, Lower Allen Township, CUmberland County, Pennsylvania, except as hereinafter .et forth. The person or person. providing foster care to the dog shall execute an Affidavit in the fora hereto attached and made part hereof. Dogs by the name of Chaapie, Abraham, and Rocky .hall be delivered to the Teet. after it i. determined that the premi.e. are fit for human habitation to be their pet. and not , ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, Plaintiffs . . . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . : v. . . CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN EQUITY . . HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG : AREA, INC., and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, : . . Defendants . . No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM STIPULATION AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 1996, Robert E. Yetter, Esquire, attorney for Lower Allen Township, John J. McNally, III, Esquire, attorney for Humane Society, Harrisburg Area, Inc., ("Humane society") and Matthew J. Eshelman, Esquire, attorney for Alton Teets and Christianne Snyder-Teets, it is hereby stipulted that a biological study of the premises at 95 Kensington Drive, Lower Allen Township, Pennsylvania, shall be conducted by a person recommended by Joseph Colliardi , Associates for Carey court, Mechanicsburg, PA. No work whatsoever shall be done on the pre.ises until such inspection is performed, unless a person performing the biological study consents thereto. A structural inspection shall be performed by the person recommended by James B. Quigley, National Inspection Agency, 117 Cherry Ridge Road, state College, Pennsylvania. Upon completion of the inspections by the afor..aid. a written report shall be delivered to all of the parti.s. Within five days thereafter, the part i.. shall ...t to iaple.ent the recommendations of the report. After the aforesaid inspections and reports having been received and recommendations implemented, the Teets shall implement a pest or vermin inspection of the property immediately if not referred to in the aforesaid reports. Alton Teets and Christianne Snyder-Teets shall not move back into or reside in the house at 95 Kensington Drive until such time as the recommendations of the biological study have been implemented. {~b -, EShelman, Esquire Robert Joh . C""<:rf3.f'\~\'I \'CJ~(...A - c\o.\<'1",A '0'1 O\--'(\~\~ '. Dogs Name: Date: -Calami ty - Clarley -Noelle . Maggie -Ruby . Bunbuns -Megaton . Homer ..-or Nick . Fredie -Tiffany - Whisper -Beamer - Jasmine . Cocoa .. liheea. ~~~ \:..,"~ -Tigger - Eddie -Truffles -Missy --6 puppies (Missy) -Misty __2 puppies (Misty) eArchie . Shah (12 )J~- -M&lly . Buster - Pepsi . Chocolate Drop - Belle - Odie . Squirrel . Josephine _Lucy - Carey --2 Puppies (Carey) -Bad to the Bone . 4 Cockatiels Toal Rele"ed: Judy Losa:rdo 5017 Sudley Road Catharpin, VA 22018 703-754-3944 Placed with: Elvin High Carol Loeb Charles Wells Donna Garber Denise VanSchaick Elvin High Charles Wells DOMa Garber Judy Losardo Elvin High Elizabeth Gardiner Judy Losardo Donna Garber Judy Losa:rdo Donna Garber Charles Wells DOMa Garber Carol Loeb. Judy Losa:rdo Elvin High Elvin High Linda Miller Linda Miller DoMa Garber Elvin High Judy Losa:rdo Donna Garber Charles Wells Donna Garber Bette ~orezyn.ki Charles Wells Donna Garber DoMa Garber Charle. Well. Judy Lourdo Judy Lo.ardo Elizabeth Gardiner Richard Butter 9/23/96 9124/!l6 9/23/96 1019196 9/23/96 9/23/96 912S196 1019196 9124/!l6 9/23/96 lOI1I96 9/W96 1019196 9/W96 1019196 9/23/96 1019196 9/W96 9/W96 9123196 9/23/96 9111196 9/llI96 1019196 9123196 912S196 1019196 9123196 lOI9I96 9t.l5196 9123196 1llt9196 lOI9I96 9123196 9n4I96 9n4I96 1OI'2I9l5 44 Doqs 4 Cockatiels " , ., ," I " " '. '," " I .' " j , " 1 . ',: .. . '. 0' ,,--.,., ~ ~_.l... .--- 'C';':~:Z-$ -'7G, :'.~~ g' '--"'--"'~:2-~ =-9(P-- -~'.~ ~~.~ ~-ti'- ~-:-:...~~~~~~ . ~.~ -i-~ -.9.L ~:--~:~~~~ 1~- .. . :. ": .. I _u .~.__...~~_~......-.--._) ..._~_. '. .... ___ .._..___~ ; : " " , " :' .:. ,', : : , \, ,I : " .1 :' ..' J; ...1....\..:;' .. .~ ," . .. ',' - - '.-----.. - --'" - ..---.. , ... . " - I: -.. , . : .-..------.. ,- 'i-- -,. I .. ...0'_.' ,'- I I THIS PAe~ - --j-' , ,:-- . ___..._t _.- '__-""__0" , .._.~-' --..-..- .~ . I. , " IS ~'" AOJlTION . .. 10 . - '----r--'- . . . ".--- . r--_ , I' i f . '---'-' .....----.. I " ---- -----...-40, -- . -----... '" ----.----. . , . r- L.._ I' I ....---., ,----. ....-.--- . . .-------; "-"i ---.0:--.- '. " .---....-.- 1 " .. .: ....----- ...._e..._. ,. -_._- .. , ,- , , .' .\---:~.__.- " '. . 'I - j-"'--- ~----_.. , .--.. -.. , . ...--~. :i ... . ._.~-" . -.....--...- - - ...,...-....--. . , t-----.,.;~ ....-. -'-' -- -,,--- ~-' .-. I, " I . "-'-"""C-;-- . --' ,...,;--. ..' .. .... . , . * Go ....i,\~~ 'Te~"\-S' . . . CA"'",D-\-0 \:,~.~ ~U:=,\~\p'(): , .' AaIIaIII ,.....tfII.....~onr..11 . lltlo.l.uU.. . PH' "_' .~..c.a.BIII,PL , , i. . .Aiil.Iiia.. "1IIin~ I , "'-- t- ciIa IIIIrlI '* .. 'I . IIIItJ YI ~ J. JIa D4 M , 2. CIIIII ...1 I6II'1s 1ImIIID' 14 ,I Ulllkt "II .. Midis lid II " ,('... ..... .... ....... IlIr.1. ; N ., "If: '" .u.-. 1-.. ..dill IIUIa 14.... oaIIIr) ! .. IIab "" WI JIIs .,. .. ..,laa eaI.r) .1 7. ....a..._ ..., NIIJ11s ..... 'lilt ~.. , oaIIIr) '; . L'- ..I, ..lis ..,.' r ., f. ...., ..I, "lis IiI:IIIa : r I 10.11 I.. ..13 ..lis .~~ , C~dAU ~a.. ..~ ae- . n.~ I WlftI .... r J2.r . . . ..... 1MIs' . u...., . ..... ... , 14...... 2 ..... ... II , , ., IS.- M J ..... ... 14 JIIar ,.1: "'.. ~ ..... . II J( 11.- . . ..... 'b1 M ... .... ...... ... II It. WIlMiClWlt) ..... a. : II . ~ Cl<S6IC ~""flt.. ~""f'\M M ISAf~t. -.-.......-...... -.--..- . AFPIDAVIT The undersigned, on this day of 1996, deposes and states that (he) (she) (they) will adopt or *' provide ~oflt.nr care to , ('(I'll.! fvdll!'I S'lq/t'7'fuI1 ~.' (,I ,;~. (number of dogs) (type of dog) ~ will not return any of said dogs or pups of said dogs through a supplemental transfer or any other legal document to Alton Teets and/or Christianne M. Snyder or to the premises at 95 Kensington Drive, Camp Hill (Lower Allen Township), CUmberland County, Pennsylvania~ without the written permission of the Manager of --" --- (Lower Allen Township, and further states that any false statement herein is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section I ,"'ji.:'at'... to -""= fal.lf'~t1~ to autbodt b~J ,.,.<, "(Name ) -(Addreaa) 1 City, State, Zip) )( " , , . . J'/ L Q""'- }l)..... CI....,..,,"'Iill "'- {1\~J L. 11... d(~!r""v'l...t;, ,,? '\.."" /, ~.Q _ ~~\_ _ ~ C~ ~,.o ~.~~ .'\.AU" . ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, plaintiff. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN EQUITY HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC., and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM Defendants ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 4th day of December, 1997, upon consideration of the Petition for Rule To Show Cause Why Cont..pt Attachment Should Not Issue, and pursuant to an agre..ent reached in open court between the parties and their counsel, it is ordered, directed, and decreed as follow.: 1. PlaintiffS are ordered to apply for at least $24,000.00 in financing with at least five financial institutions for clean-up costs within 30 days of this Order. 2. plaintiffS are ordered to sign a contract with INX, applying the specifications provided to the Township and attached hereto as Exhibit A within 60 days of this Order. 3. The specificationtl will be applied using the following division of labor: a. The Plaintiffs will perfors the work or provide the aaterials described in paraqrapha 2.1(A), 2.4(A), 2.4(B) (sentence. one through three), 2.4(C) throu9h (D), 2.1, 2.9, 2.15 (.entence two), 2.17, and 2.11 of Exhibit A. b. The Plaintiffs will hire INX to perfors ..-. ~f'l(Lr1 . --! a f!J 1'=::J::J::J.:I .....aL.. "UU"1 '''''-''''ll'o::J( (O"jQl'"n ,.. olUlUO HV AC System Hygiene / Decontamination General Purpose PART 1 - GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION:OF WORK Fll1'PIish ail necusary 1Dbo". equipIMnt. tools, maJertals. and supplies f'IIlrdredfo,.: A Visual inspection of air conveying system with photographic. diaital or video recording includiuB interior of duaworlc. air handlers IIId misceUaneous cleaDed surfaces, A c:losiq report shall be supplied, with either videotape or in report form clelailing 8 summary of rmngs, com:ctivc maintenance items. test IIId laboratorY reports. fungm and bacteria atossaries of organisms found, other indoor air qtiality CODCem IIId photos with headings. B. Tbc cleMinll of &if handler (AHU) . as wc1las their asociatcd supply. return, relief, outside air and bmx:h ductWOrk of the air conveyina system includins 811 diffusers, grills, dlmpen. btoy,'erS, fans, coils IIId components which are shown on the mcc:IJaniW drawings II ( l. The wort includeS removal of dirt. debris. foreip objects including sanili2ina the system for bacteria and funsus. all of which may have accumulated inside the air COIl\'e)'in& System specified by the EzlgiDeer or building .......fCI". C. Work to be perforCncd consists of iDtcrior c\eaninllllld der^-.wniDation of existing air hA""'ill' unit from air intake throu&h its ~ to iDc.lude all lUpp\y, n:tum IIIdrelief ductwork. assoriated supply and retum faDs, humidifiers. hydronic IIld or OX coils, volume dlmp:rs.and air outku. Wash supply and idum diftUJen. resisters, and grilles with a ~"ted c111J1ef. Remove cldsting dirty filtm and repIIce with clean filtm. Chemical pasurc wuhing and dcc~l.mill&tion of all beIlini IIld cooIiDa coils shaD be pcafom...d. An .....v...J anti.fouIant coatilll shall be applied to Ihe evaporator coil. D, o..tin. of all c1eanrd SlId _rUed intake 1iDcd aIIlL'or 1Ift1n-t ductwork and HVAC 1)1tcdl1W'fac:es. The ......, must be uppI(I..ed and sbalI be low VOC .....i1ti"l The _AJ et or buiktina manapr will inform ......&-.tu. of sur&ces to be ~-W The OOullldM shoWd poiM ClUl sur&ces of ~1l by die 0ClIltI1lWx' tbat may need to be c:aIlecl to the COIIIIt1 petJllu, I' I<lr1 (l':lf:I~=.:I MHIL ~u..n rt..J'<".I. I (o:J( ('';)'::''':'rI t'.lDlQI E. Quality control testing sball be performed, The non-porous dumwrk sball be tested in accOrdance with National Air Duct Cleaning Association (NADCA) Standard NADCA 01 (reference 2,20), Mcchaniea1 Cleaning of Non-Porous Air Conveyance System Components. Porous ductwork sball be tested with contact microbial plates a minimum of two tests per 250 feet of ductwork (rcfmnce attachment "A"). HV AC tests at the diffusers for funsus and bacteria sball be performed one for every 10 diffusers (reference attKbment "'8"), All microbial tests should be analyzed by an appro~ laboratory 2.20.1 and should be analyzed for genus and colony counl F. A submittal ofHV AC dec:ontamination equipment aDd supplies list, shall include specifications on equipment, duct nw:bioe I collector including filtration. rotary brUsh system, air compressor and (agger, material safety data sheets for c:bcmicals and coatings. A Certificate ofInsuianc:c, NADCA certification of supervisor onjob site (if more then one copy of all). One NADCA Air Systan Cleaning Specialist (Ases) sba11 &e supeMsiDg the project at all times. A copy of confined spece uainin& JocJcout-maout training and respiIator training and fit testing, PART 2 - EXECUTION :1.1 CONTRACTORS USE OF THE PREMISES A Tbe work sbalJ be cxccuted during week ~1I1aIciaa OIl un.! p.m. and 1P!ftd;"I_ at at' un. I p.m. 8, A po....- that allows the system to be c1esned and nslol'ed to ftdl operation by 5 un. cacb morning shall eQ:CUle the work. The iarmt oflbis .....-I is to eIIIUR the ~ of tile occupied buildiDa ftmc:tioD and to avoid recl'-.~iDstiOll of previously cIeaocd duawock I)"IIcm or area of particu1ar system. 1.1 MATERIALS FOR CLEANING A Acccs1 plaia: Pnmdc pJvaDimd shI:et mcta1 of tile IIIDC", u~ ductMlfk. 8. ~ ICCleII cIoon ~ I~ ad kl ,''IDa' ShaU be BhA".ed with Chc ~- ar bai'IdiaI manaaer and sNI1 canpi)' witb budcIiai code.. C Caulk: U. a siliCObll baed product specifa,hy rated for -ilia ~1. D. Duct PIlIp; Ns tiIht pIu1ic ftct pIup can be IDCd up 10 r E A1laBim1m (oil tape UL II t r~l..pe IS to be IIMd OIl aU IIXCII pamll fl<\J'1 (I (::! (o::!::!::!.:l MAIL. t<UU'1 fI<<JV ~ 1 ,.':31 IIUlOt"'M l""'.lQlO(; F. Chemicals for cleaning coils, dampers, fans, etc. shall be used and mixed IS per manufactures recommendation, Acid based coil clcaucrs must be approved before applying. O. Sanitizing agent for HV AC and oc:c:upied space: Shall be maNE-AD or approved equivalent, with EP A registration for the use in HV AC systems. Proper mixiDg of OXINE _ AD shall be as per manuficturc instructions; the OXJNE.t\D Shall be activated and let stand for IS minutes before being mixed with water. Surface disinfcc1ant shall be bleach diluted 10 parts water to 1. R Coatings: Coating designed for ductboard and acoustical lining shall not be used on mctaI ~ and products designed for mctal swfaces sball only be used on metal surfal:cs. Approved coating for non-porous surfaces arc Fosters and Portersept HV AC. l'.ftllting for porous swfaces or insulation arc tough-coat and Fosters. Other coating may be approved The lowest VOC admittina product shall be used if possible. AI) costing shall meet sll fire and building codes. 2.3 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND DESCRImON A The duct machine or colkctor shall be capable of a minimllll1 airflow of 2100 aM at the oPcoing oftbc machine (CFM ,-Ai", must be taken with new ' fihas in pIIcC), The machine or machines sball be capable of m.intaining a minimlllD ofO,S" inches of water column, read by a manome:teI installed within 10' (feet) ofthc connection to the ductwork. B, The duct madIine Or collector sba1J be por1ab1e and fit through a 21" door, it shall incolpol'l1e HEP A filters and not exc:ccd the maximlllD flow I"IIC of the faJters. The system must illCOfJlOl'ale a static pasure Puce to allow .,..eI*' to monitor filter pasure. C. Power Brush: I. Shall be pteUmIIically JlO"l' or electric motor driwn with safety lodcOlltl 2. SbaII be ad,justable in beipl and brush diameter from 6" to 7T', 3. Shall have brusb media for all t)JlCS of duct iDterion 4, Shall be Vlrilb1c speed. D. Ail C.()f'OprtStor: I. Call "1'"". Oft psoIinc Of dettnc (I HP psoIine 15 liP "Ulric 220 whI AC. siDaIe pbue). 2. Shall manllaill a miJlimvm 1IO"Ofbna pras1R of 175 PSI It 13 aM, 3, If pso1ine operated a low noise ...haust IIl\IIt be used, 4, The raWl tIDk ImISt be ASME rated. " Shall..... an OSHA ueeped belt auanl 6, SbalI IlICOrporalle a water and \)11 ~ Oft the IIIppIy ail_ r~un ('f.::3(:3.::3.::3:1.:) IOIH JL. ~1.JUI1 NUV.' (.~f (Iu,c:,..n 1"".l.:1l.:1::t E. Portable Pressure Washers: Shall be a minimum of2 HP with pump pressure of no less then 400: PSI ind no greater then 3S00 PSI at 2.2 QPM Or adjustable pressure models. F. Portable Vacuum or WcIIDry Canister Vacuums. Shall have HEPA filters and rated, And be properly UL grounded, Q, Chemical Foggers: A non-UL V, low-pressure fagger sbaH be used to apply lliCH:ide. ' K Full Face RespiratOrs: must be worn and protective equipment used at all times when a chemical, ~iohazard or hazardous material is a potential, All equipment sball comply with OSHA !\tandards. Training and certifications including respirator fit testing. 1.4 CLEANING AND PROTECTION OF EXISTING FACILITIES A Prior to startins the work. the Contractor shaD use clean drop cloths and other suitable coverings to ensure full protection to the areas in which the work is to be performed, All work shall be performed in I professional aaftsman-Iike manner and UDder the diligent supervision of the Contractor's thoroughly trained. experienced service foreman, The work crew shall HEPA vacuum all bard floors II the completion of the job in eacb putiallar area. Contractor sbtIl assure lhat all owner equipment and utility systems have lleen sec:ured and/or removed from the area where possible, whenever HV AC equipment or system is susceptillle to damage. After all cleaning ~ures have been completed, the Cuub...tor shallretum IU equipment and systems to their originallCH:ation and operating condition. These preparations shal1 be scheduled and coon1inated through the Contracting Officer or hi$lber desillllle pnor to the stilt of any cleaning operation. All grease. lint. dust. dirt. soot. oily residue. and ocher accumulation including those of combustible. flammable:. or explosive nature removed from all areas shall be ptbcrcd. cootainod. and dispoul will be the responsibility of the owner in accordance with local safety rqulations p'f:mina such removal and disposal, B, Airwubina and mlC:robiolOlical foging of tile area beina cleaned will be pabmed before clWling The units should be shlc to .....inbl;n a mir1imwn of 10 air exc:baJlaa per hour, The Airwashina will continue durinl and after deaNlll Cor . mi..;mlllD of 100 air ~ps or if room plfticuJarc levels m below 200.000 particullUl per cubic foot It OJ micrOIls and up or no pater thu .75 mpJ W1len lIftS are not occupied. Clcrmicida1 uJua.vioJet Iampa sbaI1 be used its canjUDCtion With airwas.bini and mtaOblolopul foaln, to inlubit ct1lSHUltaDltftlllOlJ of airborn microlMals ~ I<U'1 " (!(::l~~ Mf.4 I L. I<Ul.rl NlN.& ,.;1( ('u.r'n "'.lalla , C. All surfaces porous and tIOII-porous, living ares, buemen~ IIId attic sball be"'- ' disiDfectecf with bleach wiped onto surfil:;es diluted 10 pans water to 1 part bleach. After all ranCMble articles of furniture, ~1'I8, draperies. clcbris. aDd boxOs ofbe1onPDp IJ'e disposed oftbe disinfectina can begin. Once all surfaces arc cliJinfeeted the woodwork and dzywa11 can be addressed. A primer will be needccl on dtywa1I, woodwork and molding. Foster's 40-26 is ~-MM Tbenlll EPA registered fimaicide. Foster's 40-20 prota:tive ....-ii'll. can be appliccl to walls and moldizla. The hardwood floors must be lIDded and apin disinfected before scaling the floor with polyurethane at least 2 coatings. D. Buemeutmas IDllblockareu must becliJiDfoctedaDd treated. the IIIDUS; above except that bIpc:k,filler. Fostef's 40-16, be used suloothe the surDce of any block Wore the fuDgicidal protective ....-i111 i$ added. A primer is not ' theD De e z i Also the dirt surfSl:C in the crawlspBCC uncIcr the home shall be .........oted to pfovide a smood1 surfice. ~"U"1 (1 ';:I(~::J:I::J.:I .......... I\Ul..n 1......,..,..'...,( ""~II r.llIJ,l 2.5 CLEANING ANl> DECONTAMINATION CONTRACTOR: A. Shall completely remove all dirt, lint, dust, lOOt, and otht::r accumula1ions ~ objectionable materials from the interior of all d~ plenwn chambers, fans, fan and blower housiD&S (supply and exhaust), fan wheels, and other appurteDIIlCCS tberi:lo, with the exception of the motor interior, All , component items that m:cive cleaning sball be \eft free from film residue, and any other accumulations of dirt, soot, lint, etc. B. All work pcrfonned under this section shill be done by a Contractor speciali;';l1i in cleiniDi commcrclaVlndustrial HV AC systems and their compOnCllb. This Contractor must be a manber of the National Air Duel Cleaners AssociatiOn and ~ Consortium and follow industry guidelines of procedure and practice set forth by NADCA and the Euvironmcntal Protection A&eDC}'. This ContrlctOr ~ comply with the , FcdcIaJ and Stale J?Wldatcd "'Right to Know" law and any loc:al codes affecting the project WOlken for this Cwb.a<< sbal1 be familiar with and follow OSHA and mOSH "Worker Safety. pidelines and precautiooary ploudures in reprds to soma: removal and containmcDt disposal. 2.6 DUcr CLEANING A. lDtaior ~ sball be thorouah1y clC&Ded for the edIire tenatb of tile supply and return ciutt systems. The COIltrlCtOr shill nimove gnlles and dampers c:Jcurin&'sanitiziDg and for ac:ccss to cluct interior. ~"'.4 t1anr pocitioas sbal1 be p\aiD1y IIWkcd prior to c\ell""'&. and any da.4pcB ."UO\'Cd or repositicmed fot the c1eanina shall be refllJ1leCi to their original position ifter deanilll- Where aras of duct system cannot be readily cleaned bcc;ause of i..... ,~,,~\ity, the Cona1ctm shall cut out and insta1I access panels with tile Wv..u ofabe ContzaaiDa Officer or bisIbcr ......i"..t.., Minimum size of pIDeS sball be six (6) incbcs sqare. No access ~~. shall be cut Iarpr than 22" x 22", Such openinas may have a square 01' rectanauJar confiauratioo and foUowinl with sheet metal <:OVen of the same. JeCUrdy &staled to ducts usiA. cor1'O'ion-mistant sba:t metal sc:rews and tbea properly sealed to prevalt le"~i" fi~r pskct material will be instaDed bet..~. the ducts and cover p\alC to pre.cat the loss of'&ir IDd the eape of aiJbomt substances. The Coodlldilll Officer or his'her desipate will iMl*l III cluctlI after !be ac:cas ~i..,. have been cIoIed to auure that lbe _ IUdc ~'* lbe duct IDLi ICCaI plate IS ainipt 1'1<1.I'1 11/'::J"::>>:I~.:t ..~1L.f"{1Jl..I1 r<<JVol,.:J( (ICo4Orrl "'.101.:1 ~.9 ACCESS OPENINGS A. Shall be installed by the CoDtllCtOr when required for complete clcanine. Access openinp aball be closed with riJid remlivable metal cova plales filled with aaskcts IIId securely fastened to the duct to prevent air leakage wbcte KClC5S openinp aR cut through tuned walls or ceilings, such furrins shall be rcplaeed and refiDished to IIII1Ch adjacent areas. 2.10 FANS A. Tho fans sha1I be Ihorouah1Y cleaned of all dirt. dust. grcue. oil, snd rust, except drive_ bl:arinp, including saollJ, housinp,lJIafts. bnces. ~ iD1cts. collars, sndwbeels. Chemic:a1ly clean and powet wash all d.lnpus and fan units using thO EASE 3000 cleani'1l[ componcu1~. Air handling units' mtaior shaD be cleaned. All peRicles. dirt. and 4ust shall be removed 2.11 SANITIZING OF DUCTWORK AND UNITS A. A NON.UL V FOQGER shall be IISCd to apply a bio-cide iDIo the ductwork system. A ..qaUYe airflow shall be plIcod on the duct I)'StCID during the eppIiootiocL OXINE.AD,ID EP A rq:iatUed bio-cidc specifically for HV AC IDCI air duct suitlticn OXINE will be mixed to manufictuR instructiaas IDCI will be applied with no ocx:upems in the spIl:Ie. NOTE: WHIt OCC1Ipssta are p...... alaaat air aut lit yaW cndIkIe. 2..12 COILS A. P,"", cooIin& IDCI reheat coils shall be t'--' Coib Iba11 be de&""" with IIClIt wala IDCI a edmpouad spc.cifk:al1y farmulated for this eppIjcotilJll. Sample or oMllll'...od shaD be IUbmittDcI for ......Ml. 2..13 REGISTERS. GIIJ1.I.u' DIFFUSERS A, An 1.adO~ ....-.s. pilla,_ difrIaserI sbID be lCIDO\"CId for .J H li.. n. I~ pilla, B........s dl,..~ will be oeftyed wtth &.4-'k- EPA rqistend biClcidc for HV AC \1M All........... 4e.ic:a' ...... will be 1NItId...s maaiD II ~ Illrl' ....... ....~ 2..14 AIR FD.TERS A ~ aNll flov.s.1ll1Ibor eo iftIIaII air filtIn ....,&y sedlebn ,. "~ IDCIllriIIadirtJ IDtm tD opal ",olliJ J trath I_../~Vl., ~rc"'" (i(;J(:;:):;,::t::t~ r~iL. 1"(UU1 NUV.l '.:Jf ('u,,..rl "'."11" , . ' %.15START.UP OF EQUIPMENT After the compl~on of the cleaning required for each supply, cxbimnfin, IDd ~urn air sy~ a tinaI inspection wilIllc performed by the Contractine Officer's ~w Before start-UP. the equipment shall be lubricated 1$ requind and then pill back mto service. The Contractor or its desipted , representative shall be present at the initial start-up, . , -2.16 REMOVAL OF DELETElUOIUS OR OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALS All grease, lint, soot. dirt, oily residue. md accumulations of deleterious or objectionable ma!elials removed from c1culiila areas shall be pthered, pacbd in sealed cbntainers, by the eontractor. The owner of the property will perform removal. Z.17 PROTECTIVE DEVICES TO PREVENT DAMAGES While working on or near instilled equipment, the Contractor sha1I use drop " cloths, shields.1Dd 0Iher proIteCtivc devices to p'...w,l di.....~ to tbc ' equipment mVor areas .qacent to units beiDa cleaned. 2.18 ,EQUIPMENT ANi> CHEMICAL SAFETY The c-tl..lb& sball use only equipment aud app1i.-~confomUng to the latestedi1ion of the NlCioaaJ E1ec:trical Code. The w.I,-1m shall DOl traIISport to. or use upon, tbc OM\cr's premises any ~~iI, soMat, decartIoailJer, or ~ c1...ni"l qent that posICSKS ftmlmab1e. combUstible, or explosive ~stics. unless approval is obtained from the eo.dl~ Officer ofhislber ~~ representativc. 2.19 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL 1.19.1 PLENUMS, FAN SECTIONS, AND DUCTWORK PlalllDl, tan sec:lia and duetwork will be visually i,....o.ed at sevcnI poiDts 10 cbcdc for ra,......1 dirt. debris and the pIlIIII etfll..ti.CftllSS orllle t..... process. The de....illa COIlb.... shill pnMde . ~ for insp.,(tiorI of .....t....... iD1erior surfaces. A.....-...... ~l dirt IIId .... fOUDd cluriq tbc iDspe( tiou will be suffiQaIllUJon 10 re-cleln witbout IdditioaII COlt to the c:ustomw. I I rl'\un rl(~(:1:1::J:J~ l....~ "UUI l","^"oa,..;Ir , ....crll r..,1:J ~, ":! . , 2:19.2 COILS Placilli a light on Jhc opposite 'side shall visually inspc<:t coils, and a piece, of 26-pugc sheet metal shall run along the c:oilline to dctem1ine if dirt is ' present When coils are DOt completely ,ICIII, they will be ~Icancd. 2.20 NON-POROUS StJRFACE CLEANING VERIFICATION All Non.Porous i~erior smfac:es of the Air Conveyance System shall be c:apable of passing the visual inspection pnxcss IS outIincd in paragraph 2.1I).J, The Pmtractors shall provide a IndepeDdent teltiDca&eat to perform the NADCA Vacuum Test IS outlined by NADeA Staadanllm. 01 for each Air CoiMyance System involved with the scope of work this section. The weight of debris collected IS outlined in AppeIldix A of the NADeA Vacuum Test shall not exceed 1.011I&'100 'IU2. The ladepadeat teltiDc agent shall perform a p\imetric analysis of the samples in accordaDce to the Natiollll IlIStitute for OccapatioDllI Safety lad HeaIdt Medaod 0500 (toeal nlliu""f: dllSt), The cwb...1Os shall provide the Q\wcr's fqll~jlati>'l: with tbcsc test results for vcrifitatioo. Test resu1ls sbowins cIcbris accumulatian in ex&.CSS of the standan1 minimmn shall be sufficient RlISOII to ~Iean it no IdditiooaJ cost to the customer. 2.20.1 ACCEPTABLE TESTING AGENT A. INK Laboratoriea 2.21 INACcr.ssmLE DUCTWORK WhaI i-bIe duct mas to be dClIIIId are enooo.......... SDd DDI1IIII- elMaa operations CIIIDllC be utili'" the CoaIrIct.or sbaIJ 1.._....,'...'1 DDIity die OwDer's I~~~ve aDd make ~..I~_l_''''w.. in onIcr1D tb1Iy dtart tbac uas. Work sboaId not proceed without their ~, 2.22 CONTRACTOR GUARANTEES n. conIrIdar ......11111 the -'ice plo.ided MIl be free hID 1Il141ft!c1s. The ContrIctar widIout COlt shall male adjwf--- IAt lO" (ld~~N. ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs . . . . . . . . . . . . NO. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM v. HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC. and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants DIlI'JDlDAII'r IItJJI1UOI SOCIIlTY 01' BAllRISBURCJ ARIlA. :nle.' S usna WITH HIlW MATTIla UD COtJJl'1'llRCLaIIC . AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Humane society of Harrisburg Area, Inc. (hereinafter "Humane Society"), by and through its attorneys, James, Smith , Durkin, to Answer plaintiffs' Complaint and aver New Matter and Counterclaim as follows. I 1. Admitted. I 2. Admitted. , I 3. Admitted. ( I 4. Admitted. j 5. AdJlitted. 6. Admitted in part. It i. adJIitted that SOlIe of the dog. placed in Defendant Humane Society'. ou.tody were tho.e of the Plaintiffs. After reasonable investigation, Defendant Huaane Society i. unable to confirm or deny the natura of Plaintiff.' relation.hip to the owner. of other d09. placed in Defendant Huaane society's care, and .trict proof of the .... is cleaancled at trial. 7. Denied a. stated. It is aclJlitted that the Plaintiffs have requested a retUrn of their d09., but it is specifically denied that .uch request. were aade repeatedly and strict proof thereof i. .. .---- -- demanded at trial. 8. Denied. Many of the dogs placed in Defendant Humane Society's custody have been returned to individuals other than the Plaintiffs who have demonstrated ownership of such dogs, and Defendant Humane Society has placed other dogs in foster homes approved by Defendant Lower Allen Township. 9. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Humane society has not kept a proper accounting of the dogs in question or that the dogs have been improperly placed in foster homes. 10. Denied. The averments in paragraph ten (10) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 11. Denied. It is specifically denied that the issuance of an injunction would preserve the status quo of the parties and, instead, Defendant Humane Society asserts that the status quo will be preserved without the issuance of an injunction. . 12. Denied. The averments in paragraph twelve (12) are conclusion. of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is deaanded at trial. 13. Denied. The averaents in paragraph thirteen (13) are conclusion. of law to Which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is deunded at trial. Further. it is specifically denied that Plaintiff.' private property has been appropriated for distribution to the general public. 14. Denied. The averaents in paragraph f~rteen (14) are concluslona of law to Which no nsponsiv. pleading is req\linc1 and strict proof thereof is d...nded at trial. Further. it is specifically denied that the placement of the dogs is unwarranted. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant cannot confirm or deny whether the Plaintiffs know that Defendant Humane society can tell one dog from another, and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 16. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Humane Society is disposing of Plaintiffs' dogs and puppies without the express permission or authority of their rightful owners. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph seventeen (17) and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 18. Denied. It is specifically depied that Defendant Humane Society intends to "get rid of the dogs" in a manner inconsistent with the owners' wishes. 19. Denied. The health, safety and welfare of the dogs at issue, when found at the Plaintiffs' property on September 19, 1996, provided the valid reason for taking custody and control of the dogs in question. WHEREFORE, Defendant Humane Society of Harrisburq Area, Inc. respectfully requests judqaent in its favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with costs. 11ft DftD 20. The anawera in paragraphs one (1) throU9l\ nineteen (19) are incorporated herein by reference. 21. On September 19, 1996, agents of the Humane Society were asked to accompany the state Dog Warden to the Plaintiffs' property as identified above. 22. Pursuant to a search warrant obtained by said State Dog Warden and Lower Allen Township, said Warden and Lower Allen Township entered Plaintiffs' property at which time it was discovered that plaintiffs housed sixty-nine (69) dogs at the property known as 95 Kensington Drive. 23. At 95 Kensington Drive, Plaintiffs kept dogs for the purpose of breeding, training, warding, sale or show. 24. Plaintiffs confined dogs in crates and cages so they could not stray from 95 Kensington Drive. 25. Plaintiffs operated a private kennel, as such is defined at 3 Pa.C.S.S. !459-102, at 95 Kensington Drive. 26. Many of the dogs in Plaintiffs' possession at 95 Kensington Drive on september 19, 1996, were not licensed in CUSberland County or by any municipality in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 27. At no tille on or before September 19, 1996 clid the PlaintiffS possess a kennel license under 3 Pa.C.S. 1459-206. 28. It is believed, and therefore'averred, that aany of the sixty-nine (69) dog. were transported into the Co.aonwealth of Pennsylvania by Plaintiffs without a current license tag firmly attached to the collar. or harne..es of the dogs and without health c.rtificates required by 3 Pa.C.S. 1459-214. 29. All dogs in the Plaintiffs' po.s..sion at 95 Kensington Drive on Septeaber 19, 1996 were in the co.aonwelath of Pennsylvania in excess of thirty (30) days before said date. 30. Plaintiffs failed to maintain 95 Kensington Drive in a sanitary and humane condition in accordance with the standards and sanitary codes promulgated by the Secretary at 7 Pa. Code 121.21, At aIg., in that: a. The house at 95 Kensington Drive was not maintained so as to protect the dogs from injury. b. The buildings' surfaces were not constructed or maintained so as to be water resistent and were not readily sanitized. c. The Plaintiffs' did not provide adequate drains to readily eliminate excess water. d. Adult dogs were not segregated by sex. e. Housing did not provide proper ventilation for the dogs. f. Potable water was not readily accessible to the dogs. g. The dogs were not provided with clean bedding. h. The primary enclosure at 95 Kensington Drive was not sanitized a minimum of once daily. WHEREFORE, Defendant Humane society of Harrisburg Area, Inc. respectfully requests jUdCJ1l8nt in its favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with costs. CO~IlCL&IJI Hna.ft. Socl.tv of Harrl.bura M.a.. Ine. L. Alton Teets and Christianne SnYder-Teets 31. The ansvera in paraCJraphs one (1) throuqh nineteen (19) and avenMnta in paragraphs twenty-one (21) throuqh thirty (30) .... incorporated he...in by ...fe...nce. 32. The state Dog Warden and Defendant Lower Allen Township searched the Plaintiffs' property pursuant to a validly issued search warrant. 33. The Dog Warden and Lower Allen Township seized the dogs at 95 Kensington Drive and placed them in the custody and care of Defendant Humane Society. 34. At such time as the dogs were placed in Defendant Humane Society'S care and custody, many of the dogs were in dire need of veterinary care. 35. Since the dogs were placed in the care and custody of Defendant Humane society, the Humane Society has rendered valuable and needed veterinary care to the Plaintiffs' dogs, the cost of which to date has exceeded $7,000.00. 36. Since the Plaintiffs' dogs -were placed in Defendant Humane Society's care and custody, Defendant Humane Society has expended considerable su.. to feed and shelter Plaintiffs' dogs. 37. Plaintiffs would be unjustly enriched if this Court would not require that they reiaburse Defendant Humane Society for the above-referenced services rendered in the care of their animals. WHlRlroRE, Defendant Huaane Society of Harrisburq Area, Inc. respectfully requests judcJaent in its favor and aCJainst the Plaintiffs in an aaount not in excess of $30,000.00, tOCJether with coat.. VJlR:rrICA.,:rOIl The undersigned, ED SHORE, hereby verifies that the facts set forth in his Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief and further states that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. CBRTIrICA'l'JI or .BRVICB I, JOHN J. McNALLY, III, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter upon the following below-named individual(s) by depositing sue in the U. S. Mail, postage pre-paid at Hershey, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania this ~ day of November, 1996. SERVED UPON: Matthew J. EShelaan, Esquire Law Offices of Patrick F. Lauer, Jr. 2108 Market Street, Aztec Building Ca.p Hill, PA 17011-4706 ....- III. Eaqu re ~ ._--... -- ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM IN EQUITY v. HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC., and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants ORDER AND NOW, this ~ day of December, 1996, upon Defendant, Lower Allen Township's Petition for Rule to Show Cause, a Rule is entered upon Plaintiffs, to show cause, if any they have, why the relief requested in said Petition shall not be granted. Rule returnable the ~~ day of ~~ ' 19!1.1-, Courtroom No. ~, CUmberland county courthouse, One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 at/d ~~l? o'clock --'t... BY THE COURT: J. J;.~f A1~\~~ ( \.~.. " , "'t.,,"l"'" ~', ;, ~ .," - ,'. "",,, ~. -" ~' l'io hJ t" ,,- ;-t'- S-:;:Zlli (IJ.U.::' ;';;';."i_:;.,:.Jj\j ~ ... .~ ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, Plaintiffs . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM IN EQUITY . . . . v. . . . . HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC., and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants . . . . . . PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CONTEMPT ATTACHMENT SHOULD NOT ISSUE AND NOW, cOllies the Defendant, Lower Allen Township ("Township") by its attorneys, Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss' Erb and files this Petition for Rule to Show Cause Why Plaintiffs Should Not Be cited in Civil Contelllpt of Court and in support thereof avers the following: 1. On or about September 19, 1996, agents and employees of Township and the Human Society of Harrisburg Area, Inc., ("Human Society-) acting under a valid search warrant entered the premises at 95 Kensington Drive, camp Hill, Lower Allen Township, Pennsylvania 17011 ("Premises"). 2. Agent. and esploy..s of Township cited the Plaintiff. for violations of Lower Allen TownShip Code Ordinances and ordered that the Premises be condemned as not fit for human habitation. 3. On or about September 19, 1996, agents and employee. of Defendant, Humane society, resoved approximately 70 Miniature Pinscher dogs and puppies frOll the premises and provided the animals with emergency shelter and medical care. . .-.-..... , '- 4. On or about October 4, 1996, Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Petition for Preliminary Injunctive and Equitable Relief. The Petitioners named the Defendants herein as Respondents. 5. On October 8, 1996, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants Township and Humane Society. 6. On october 9, 1996, this Honorable Court set the Eaergency Petition for Hearinq on November 27, 1996. This hearinq was subsequently rescheduled for November 25, 1996 by Order of Court. 7. On october 29, 1996, Township filed an Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim. Besides answering the Plaintiffs' Complaint, the Township made new allegations in the fora of New Matter and a Counterclaim and requested a list of equitable relief designed to return the pr_ises to a property fit for human habitation. 8. On NoveIlber 20, 1996, Defendant, Humane Society answered Plaintiffs' Eaergency Petition for Preliminary Injunction and ElIerqency Relief and Plaintiffs' COlIplaint. Defendant, Humane Society'S Answer contained New Matter and a Counterclai.. 9. On Noveaber 14, 1996, this Honorable COUrt issued a Rule on Plaintiffs' to Show Cause Why Defendant TownShip's Motion to OOnaolidat. for Hearing on COUnterclai. should not be vranted. -2- 10. On November 25, 1996, the parties entered a Stipulation, which was approved by and entered as an Order of Court. A copy of said Stipulation and Order is attached as Exhibit A. 11. Despite their Agreement to the Stipulation and its approval as an Order of Court, the plaintiffs have violated the Order in the following ways: a. It is averred upon information and belief that the Plaintiffs have continued to board dogs in the Premises at 95 Kensington Drive, including a recent stay by a dog which resulted in an animal cruelty complaint with the Humane Society. (See attached Exhibit B). b. It is averred upon information and belief that the Plaintiffs have arranged with foster care parties to have dogs transferred without notification of the Humane Society. c. It is averred upon information and belief that the Plaintiffs have performed a variety of work in the Premises without the consent of any individual to be re~ained for a professional biological survey in accordance with the Court Order. This .work. includes but is not limited to cleaning, fumigating and painting the interior of the Premises. 12. On or about Deceaber 8, 1996, plaintiffs or agents acting for Plaintiffs within the scope of their authority enclosed the carport of the Premises and performed other structural laprove..nts -3- tdIM . . , . . ALTON TEETS and . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF . CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA plaintiffs . . . . v. . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . IN EQUITY . HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG . . AREA, INC., and LOWER ALLEN . . TOWNSHIP, . . Defendants . No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM . STIPULATION AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 1996, Robert E. Yetter, Esquire, attorney for Lower Allen Township, John J. McNally, III, Esquire, attorney for Humane Society, Harrisburg Area, Inc., ("Humane Society") and Matthew J. EShelman, Esquire, attorney for Alton Teets and christianne Snyder-Teets, it is hereby stipulated that any dog in the possession of the Humane Society shall be placed for foster care by the Humane Society based upon the recommendation of Alton Teets and Christianne Snyder-Teets. All medical records of any such dog shall be delivered to the person or persons assuming foster care. None of said dogs will be returned to 95 Kensington Drive, Lower Allen Township, CUmberland County, Pennsylvania, except as hereinafter set forth. Tho person or persons providing foster care to the dog shall execute an Affidavit in the fora hereto attached and made part hereof. DogS by the name of Cha.pie, Abrahaa, and Rocky shall be delivered to the Teets after it is determined that the premis.s are fit for human habitation to be their pets and not ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . v. . . CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN EQUITY HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG : AREA, INC., and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, . . : No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM Defendants . . STIPULATION AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 1996, Robert E. Yetter, Esquire, attorney for Lower Allen Township, John J. McNally, III, Esquire, attorney for Humane society, Harrisburg Area, Inc., ("Humane society") and Hatthew J. Eshelman, Esquire, attorney for Alton Teets and Christianne Snyder-Teets, it is hereby stipulted that a biological study of the premises at 95 Kensington Drive, Lower Allen Township, Pennsylvania, shall be conducted by a person recommended by Joseph colliardi , Associates for Carey Court, Mechanicsburq, PA. No work whatsoever shall be done on the premises until such inspection is performed, unless a person performing the biological study consents thereto. A structural inspection shall be perforaed by the person recommended by James B. Quiqley, National Inspection Aqency, 117 Cherry Ridge Road, state colleqe, Pennsylvania. UpOn coapletion of the inspections by the aforesaid, a written report shall be uelivered to all of the parties. Within five days thereafter, the parties shall aeet to iapl..ent the recommendations of the report. After the aforesaid inspections and reports havinq been received and recommendations implemented, the Teets shall implement a pest or vermin inspection of the property immediately if not referred to in the aforesaid reports. Alton Teets and Christianne Snyder-Teets shall not move back into or reside in the house at 95 Kensinqton Drive until such time as the recommendations of the bioloqical study have been implemented. t~ --.. EShelman, Esquire .-- '. I / " , , " ., :, " j , '. J J ~, > :. '. .. ': ~ ..~ , . . , : "---'" , L- . : ,"-,- I I I L . ' ,. ~- I' , - . i I L._ , ' I " I -- .-- \ _.. . ''''~''. .._'0.. THIS IS - ......: : 'f t,. !i " .........;..::' . ..... '0 .. ___....' .t.;_.~_ '._'." _'._ :~:~:iG,_ .. c:r~~~.~9~_ __. . :.. '1'-?-"I : :--.!k... ..... _." ,.,.I9. -::.. ~_ ':" q ~. ,..~ -z.,~ __~it_ Lo -11 ..~_ , ,~~ :-'t~ .~......-. , . "'---.'. ...---------- , .- ..-----.. ......-.. --.-. -- P AG'E ~IO ACDlTION u'.;"':"':"';_ . . -r----- . ' ~ _.:.-..1- _' \".! '. , " .--- . --:---t.-. , . ' ---.,--- "._~'-';" ---. --,", i I .._~. I '. -----.. .,-~_._--- .... --...--...----. .-.-. -------.- " , . '_.--~.-.i -~-_.- " ._~._~.:. 1 " ...----- ._._-~.._'. .. ,- , '. .- , ~ ," 0' .~--......-.__.- '. , . . ; .---..- i--'--'- 1--.--- . .. ""--~. :1 '-." . ' l ---- -- "; . .....----..: .-.- ~ -- ...-. -r--- - , _Ill .....:.-J. --' I .--, --t--. .-- , (' ,- _.--~--- .-. .:---~ '\. .... " , J * Go ~'\~~ "Tee.h' , , , . , ~~e6 -\-0 ~ ~~-te\eC: . I ! .' I : . i ., , h. A1111111/"-w..,It tIloBaae sOdcronrllhlllbo..Nit. JiiI. ~ w.ac ~f'iriiliift uotl60l4-HltllIII I . SIn.'" _iii.. CllllpBlli.'L . DnnNmw ~ J. MIl B-2 . 2. dl.dII D..U UIIdd: Boll _ ,('... 1IIaQ' Bon '" 2. A1nIlaI BoI1 .. Dab Bon . 7. u.... - 1-13 L ,..... BoI, t. IIopIIIf BoU Jo. B I. BoU Cl\o(d~U ~a. GlllpQpc OllIe J L AIIlIIJ I J2., '. . . 2 , b....., 14.... . IS. f' Itl ......1: 1"1 ~ J( 11. ":' J' .1. W. II. ......~ :Ja CAS6It: -- -" '; .!;' . ~ .. ,~.,~ ,1ol:~ IImal RDtrMII MIIIPIII MIllIla WbII'1a ldIaPIII ..PID J6aPla Mla1'll "PIlI J6aPill . ...tIa WlDPID IllAa YsPID ...... '* 'I ~ 1Im'Iu' " RId ;. 1lDr.1.a ; .. I BIUID ! .". ,. .. 10( 14 M M .. (IlIt IIIIIcIa coIIIr) .. ..,..0DLr) F~colIIr) , P P ~. ': Ji\MIa' '. iI:I1. : I ': t ~ led , p , M M ..,., I lid lid : Jlid . ;' ... 8lIl ..... .... I ...1Is ~, ..... a.. u.'~t.. ~~ . , BAt lStatv '- : K K K M M , ...- -- " 11IIII1 .\ \ @OFFlCEOFINVES'tU1A\IUI1It '.. Humane SOCiety of Harrllburg Artl, Inc. eMT 1/I0R4IHl!LTlR Wl:lJT 8IlORli IHEI1ER 77ICl~Md 71D~R0I4 HOI'/lIIIlIIlI. PI' 17111 IIM1l.,..a.u", PA 17Dt' nMpllOM (717).....- n,""*,,, (717) 117,''''' O,\T&: /'Lotl-" liME /~"Q REceJVeO 'it'( .J ~." =E~ OWNJ:.~1- fJ,. TEU!I'HONI! 'DIRECTIONS TOW TOWNSHIP L-- .. ~ - CClMPl/oIN,\HT'S NAME ~~ M;*".l~ ADDRESS 'L1.rJ ,P;,I fJ#.. J I, . .-,1,6 T&LEPHQNE (... - ,. ~.. ~ .,. SPECIES ~t_' P.&I GREen NATURE Of C()t.IPI.JJNT o Ird1Q1*" HllIltIlng ~ FoadIWIl" ..,.....'77~ 1{ ~yslcal Abu.. o 0lIwt '" - ,\c;TlON TAKEN VERIFICATION I, steven P. Miner, attorney for Lower Allen Township, hereby certify the Verification of Patrick N. McCloskey, Assistant Codes Enforcement Officer, was unavailable at time of filing, and the facts set forth in the foregoing Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 54904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. '"\ Date : /) /I/;" , . /~~~- steven P. M r Esqu re .~. ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS . SNYDER-TEETS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs . . . . v. . NO. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM . . . HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG . . AREA, INC. and LOWER ALLEN . . TOWNSHIP, . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . Defendants . . DanR 01' DII'BJIDAIl'r IItJDIII SOCIITY 01' DRRI8BURQ ARIA. IlIe. TO PLAIII'1'II'J'8' IlllROIIICY PB'fI'l'IOII I'OR PRJILINIRARY IlIJUJfC'l'IOlf UD IOUI'l'DLJI RIlLIII' AND NOW, comes the Defendant Humane Society of Harrisburg Area, Inc., by and through its attorneys, James, Smith and Durkin, to answer the Plaintiffs' Petition as follows. 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted in part. It is admitted that so_ of the dog. placed in Defendant Humane Society'S custody were those of the Plaintiffs. After raasonable investigation, Defendant Humane Society is unable to conUra or deny the nature of Plaintiffs' relaUonship to the owners of other dogs placed in Defendant Humane society's care, and strict proof of the sa.. ia deaanded at trial. 7. Denied as atated. It i. admitted that the Plaintiffs have requested a return of their doga, but it is apecifically denied that auch request. were ..de repeatedly and strict proof thereof ia i < . ._.--..... -- demanded at trial. S. Denied. Many of the dogs placed in Defendant Humane Society's custody have been returned to individuals other than the Plaintiffs who have demonstrated ownership of such dogs, and Defendant Humane Society has placed other dogs in foster homes approved by Defendant Lower Allen Township. 9. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Humane Society has not kept a proper accounting of the dogs in question or that the dogs have been improperly placed in foster homes. 10. Denied. The averments in paragraph ten (10) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 11. Denied. It is specifically denied that the issuance of an injunction would preserve the status quo of the parties and, instead, Defendant Humane Society asserts that the status quo will be preserved without the issuance of an injunction. l2. Denied. The averments in paragraph twelve (12) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 13. Denied. The averaents in paragraph thirteen (13) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required ancl strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. Further, it is specifically denied that Plaintiffa' private property haa been appropriated for distribution to the general public. u. Denied. The averaenta in paragraph fourteen (14) are concluaiona of law to which no reaponsive pleadinq is required and atrict proof thereof is demanded at trial. Furthttr. it ia specifically denied that the placement of the dogs is unwarranted. l5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant cannot confirm or deny whether the Plaintiffs know that Defendant Humane Society can tell one dog from another, and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 16. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Humane Society is disposing of Plaintiffs' dogs and puppies without the express permission or authority of their rightful owners. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph seventeen (17) and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 18. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Humane Society intends to "get rid of the dogs" in a manner inconsistent with the owners' wishes. 19. Denied. The health, safety and welfare of the dogs at issue, when found at the Plaintiffs' property on September 19, 1996, provided the valid reason for taking custody and control of the dogs in question. WHEREFORE, Defendant Humane Society of Harriaburv Area, Inc. respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny the Plaintiffs' berqency Petition for Preliminary Injunction and Equitable Relief. \ \ I I ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . : .No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM v. . . HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC., and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants . . . . IN EQUITY . . . . . . JlOTIO. 'l'O CORSOLIDATII I'OR RI!lARINO OR COUllTIIRCLAIJI I I I . I 1 I I 1 I t Defendant, Lower Allen Township, by its attorneys, Metzger, WiCkersham, Knauss , Erb, files this Motion to consolidate for Hearing On Counterclaim and in support thereof respectfully submits the following: 1. Petitioners Alton Teets and ChriBtianne Snyder-Teets comaenced this action by the filing of an Eaergency Petition for Preliminary Injunction and Equitable Relief on october 8, 1996, a copy of which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "AR, and made part hereof. 2. By Order dated october 9, 1996, Judge J. Wesley Oler, Jr., scheduled. hearing on the bergency Petition for Preliminary Injunction and Equitable Relief for Wednesday, November 27, 1996, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom No.5, CUSberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, a copy of which is attached hereto, aarked Exhibit RB-, and made part hereof. 3. on OCtober 29, 1996, Lover Allen Township filed Anaver, New Matter, and COunterclaim of Defendant, Lover Allen Tovnahip, to the Complaint of Plaintiffs, Alton Teets and Christianne Snyder- Teets, , a copy of which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "C", and made part hereof. 4. The holdinq of a hearinq on the Counterclaim of Lower Allen Township at the same time as the hearinq on the Emerqency Petition for Preliminary Injunction and Equitable Relief of Plaintiffs' should be held at the same time to promote economy, prompt disposition thereof, and sound jUdicial administration by reason of common questions of law or fact. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Lower Allen TownShip, prays your Honorable Court to hold the hearinq on Plaintiffs' EIIergency Petition for Preliminary Injunction and Equitable Relief at the same time as the hearing on the Counterclaim of Defendant, Lower Allen Township, to the Complaint of Plaintiffs', Alton Teets and Chriatianne Snyder-Teets. Respectfully submitted, METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KlfAUSS , ERa / ; Byz! . -/ , .( " I . .11 ,'. ,r.. .y, J. . Robert j~. Yetter, Esquire 3211 NOrth Front street P.O. Box 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Deteda NowIdIerl, 199' Attorneys for Lower Allen Township - 2 - 11IM a II\r..l \cll~ICl" vs. I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF I CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA I I NOI 96-5474 I I IN BQUITY I I BMBRGBNCY INJUNCTIVE I RELIBF REQUESTED I ALTON TEITS and CBRISTIANNB SNYDBR-TEITS, PITITIONERS, BtJMANB SOCIBTY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC. and LOWER ALLIN TOWNSHIP, RESPONDBNTS BMBRGBHCY PB'l'ITIOH POR PllRT.tMIRARY IBJUHC'rIOH AHD BOOI'rJl.RT.1l! RBLIBP' 1. Petitioners are Alton and Christianne Snyder-Teets, husband and wife, of 95 Kensington Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2 . Respondent is the Humane Society of Harrisburg Area, Inc., a non-profit organization with principle busines8 offices located , at SinclaJ.r , Bppley Road, Mechanic8burg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and 7790 Grayson Road, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 3. Respondent is Lower Allen Township, a corporate lIIlnicipaUty with offices located at 1993 HlUlllllell Avenue, Camp Bill, CWlberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Pursuant to a search warrant executed on September 19, 1996, the Respondent Lower Allen Township seized 59 dogs and 10 puppies froa Petitioners' residence located at 95 Kensington Drive, , CuIp Bill, CUllberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. AD inventory of the dogs was prepared by State Dog Warden R. Mark Osborne. 'l'his inventory is attached as Exhibit A. I i , ! ! i i , j i i j , j I 6. All doqs and puppies listed on the inventory belong to Petitioners and other individuals known to Petitioners who had temporarily placed the dogs in Petitioners' care. 7. Petitioners have repeatedly requested Respondents to return the dogs to their rightful ownsrs and have also repeatedly requested Respondents to allow Petitioners' doqs to be placed in foster homes of their choosing. 8. Respondents have withheld many of the dogs from their rightful owners and from foster homes suggested by Petitioners. 9. Presently, Respondents are not keeping an accurate accounting of which doqs are being released. to whom. In addition, Respondents are improperly placing the dogs in homes not approved ' by Petitioners. For instance, the dog named Misty, who is high strung and the JIIOther of two puppies, was placed with Linda Miller, not Maryann Lutz as requested by Pstitioners. Also, the female dogs nu.d Chocolate Bon and Goofy have been improperly placed with proven ..le studs nUld Odie and ChaIIIpy. '!'he whereabouts of Dixie and Nos are unknown to Petitioners at this time. 10. Petitioners will suffer irreparable hara and injury for which there is no adequate ra.dy at law if the Respondents do not t-.diately take &Jl accurate accounting of the dogs and refrain fro. t.properly placing the dogs. 11. Issuance of &Jl injunction WOIlld preserve the status quo of the parties. " l2. Denial of injunctive relief would lead to immediate and irreparable harm in the form of damage to and 10s8 of dogs and puppie8 for which an accurate accounting was not taken. There is no adequate remedy at law for harm caused to these dogs and the people who own and love them. l3. Denial of this injunction would in effect permit the appropriation of Petitioners' private property for distribution to the public at Respondents' sole di8cretion. 14. Issuance of an injunction would prevent the unwarranted misplacement of dog8 of puppie8 to people who do not Jcnow the dogs. lS. The Petitioners have no Jcnowledge that Respondents can tell one dog from another. 16. The Respondents are retaining and disposing of Petitioner.' dogs and puppies without the express permission and authority of the rightful owners. 17. The Petitioners have no knowledge that the dogs and puppies currently in the possession of the Respondents are being treated in a proper I14Dner, such as providing proper medication to dogs which have been prescribed special treatment by their veterinarians. 18. Due to inconsistent pest responses of Respondents to requests by Petitioners for p1aceaant of the dogs to places approftd by Petitioners, Petitioners believe that Respondents . . intend to get rid of the dogs in a manner inconsistent with the owners' wishes. 19. Respondents have no valid reason to refuse to cooperate with Petitioners so as to place the dogs and puppies in appropriate hOlll8s. 20. A Complaint in support of this petition was filed at the above docket number on October 8, 1996. WBBRBPORB, Petitioner requests your Honorable Court to order, pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. Rule 1531, that the Respondents immediately refrain from placing dogs in places not approved by Petitioners and that an accurate accounting be taken as to the whereabouts of all 59 dogs and 10 puppies. In addition, Petitioners request that the stringent proof of ownership requir_nts be waived and that all dogs be placed with those claia1ng to own the dogs and by those approved by Petitioners. In the alternative, Petitioners request that a temporary injunction be granted pending a hearing on the matter. Respectfully submitted, Date. ~ elJlaD, .squ . Law Offices f Patrick P. Lauer, Jr. 2108 Market Street, Altec Building C.-p lill, Pennsylvania 17011-470' 101 72'55 Tel. (717) 761-1800 10M. " ,. ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, Plaintiffs . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW I HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC. and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants . . . . . . . . NO. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM AND NOW, ORDER OF COURT this .,(t;day of October, 1996, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Emerqency Petition for Preliminary Injunction and Equitable Relief, a hearinq is scheduled for Wednesday, November 27, 1996, at l:30 p.m., in Courtroom No.5, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PennsylVAnia. PENDING the hearinq, Defendants shall provide an accountinq of the doqs removed from Plaintiffs' possession and their present whereabouts, ~nd shall not do anythinq which would have the effect of oermanentlv depriving Plaintiffs of the right to possess the dogs. THE preliminary injunction contained herein is conditioned upon Plaintiffs' filing of a bond or cash in the amount of $250.00 in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1531(b) within 10 days of the entry of this order. BY THE COURT, Iri)~~ ~ ; ; ~1 ~U CI:I" o. tl:; , Lower Alren Townshi TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In T~ w:t..~.II'!r. Ut'\'o ~ lr./ h!:'ld and of said ~ it ~rl!s"'. III Matthew J. Eshelman, Esq. 2108 Market Street A~tec Buildinq Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiffs Humane Society of Barrisburq, Inc. Sinclair , Eppley Roads Mechanicsburq, PA l7055 Defendant, Pro Se Aer Allen Township 993 Hummel Avenue Camp Hill, PA l7011 Defendant, Pro Se Ire " I t I I I (.tnne " ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . v. No. 96-5474 HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC., and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants . . . . IN EQUITY EQUITY TE~ c, n c ',' --'., -r. !' :-, ::1 r;, n ,'1 L ,~ .... ....1 rl'~ (,i '.c. -' ; , t.. . , ~ () '-' , -1:1 ~ .. ~" - , , .~C) ~-' , =-:~ nl11 -' , I , :::> ~ ..' ~ .... u' . . . . NOTICI! YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a jUdgment may be entered aqainst you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lOBe money or property or other riqhts important to you. YOU SHOULD TAXE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. COURT ADMINISTRATOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE FOURTH FLOOR CARLISLE, PA 17013-3387 PHONE: (717) 240-6200 NOTICIA Le ban deaandado a uated en 1a corte. Si uated quiere defenderse de estas demandas expeuataa en las paqinas ai9Uientea, uated tlene viente (20) diaa de plalo al partir de la fecha de la deaanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia eacrlta 0 en persona 0 por aboqado y archivar en la corte en foraa eacrita au dafenaaa 0 aus objeci?nes alas demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si Ulted no se deUende, la corte tomara -.didaa Y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviao 0 notiticaclon y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido en la ALTON TEETS and . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS . CHRIS'l'IANNE SNYDER-TEETS, . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PEt.'NSYLVANIA . Plaintiffs . . : No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM v. . . . IN EQUITY . HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG . . AREA, INC., and . . LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, . . Defendants . . DSIfBR. lfB1f MATTER. AND COUN'l'BRCLAIK OP DIJ'BNDANT. LOIfBR ALLEH TOWNSHIP. TO TBB COKPLAIliT OP PLAIliTIPPS. ALTON TJlBTS AND CBRISTIANKB SNYDBR-TBBTS Defendant, Lower Allen Township, by its attorneys, Ketzger, Wickersham, Knauss , Erb, files this Answer, New Matter, and Counterclaim of Defendant, Lower Allen Township, to the eomplaint of Plaintiffs, Alton Teets and Cbristianne Snyder-Teets, as follows: 1. The allegations of paragraph 1 of the Complaint are admitted. 2. The alleqatlona of paragraph 2 of the Complaint are admitted. 3. The alleqatlons of paraqraph 3 of the Coaplaint are admitted. 4. The alleqatlons of paragraph 4 of the coaplalnt are admitted. 5. The alleqations of paragraph 5 of the Coaplalnt are admitted. 6. After reasonable investigation. Defendant, Lower Allen ~ip, is without knowledge or information SUfficient to fora a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 6, and they are therefore denied. Proof thereof is demanded at the hearing of this matter. 7. The allegations of paragraph 7 are partiallY admitted and partially denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs had "repeatedly" requested Defendant, Lower Allen Township, to return the dogs to their rightful owners and have also "repeatedly" requested Defendant, Lower Allen Township, to allow Plaintiffs' dogs to be placed in foster homes of their choosing. To the contrary, it is averred that Plaintiffs have made such requests on only two or three occasions. 8. The allegations of paragraph 8 are denied. To the contrary, it is averred that many of the dogs have been released to persons Who have provided satisfactory proof of ownership and to foster homes found satisfactory by the Defendant, Lower Allen TownIlbip. And where Defendant, Lower Allen Township, received questionable proof of ownerahip, the dogs reaained with the Defendant, HuJlane Society of Harrisburq Area, Inc. 9. The allegations of paragraph 9 are specifically denied. To the contrary, it i. averred that the Defendant, Lower Allen 'I'ovnship, is keeping an accurate account of Which dova are beinq rel..sed to wboII. With res~ to the reaaining allegations, after reasonable invesUlJation, Defendant, Lower Allen Township, is vithO\lt knovleclge or infonation suffioient to fora a beUef as to - 2 - the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and they are therefore denied. Proof thereof is demanded at the hearing. 10. The allegations of paragraph 10 are conclusions of law, to which no answer is required and they are therefore deemed to be denied. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations of paragraph 10 are specifically denied. The premises at 95 Kensington Drive, Lower Allen Township, CUmberland County, Pennsylvania (herein "Premises"), have been maintained and kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance, per se, an imminent and irreparable danger and hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood and community, so as to constitute a serious hazard to the health and safety of the Plaintiffs because the Praises are in an unsanitary and dilapidated condition, and used in violation of the peraitted uses of Article 1104, R-1 Single Family Established Residential District, of the Codified Ordinances of Lower Allen TownShip of 1985, as amended, being part of the Lower Allen Township Zoning Ordinance of 1995. 11. The allegations of paragraph 11 are conclusions of law, to which no answer is required and they are therefore de..ed to be denied. To the extent an answer ia required, the allegations of paragraph 11 are specifically denied. Further, it i. averred that preservation of the status quo would only continue the public - 3 - nuisance, violations of the Ordinances of Lower Allen Township, an imminent and irreparable danger and hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood and community, and a serious hazard to the health and safety of the Plaintiffs. 12. The allegations of paragraph 12 are conclusions of law, to which no answer is required and they are therefore deemed to be denied. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations of paragraph 12 are specifically denied. Further, it is averred that preservation of the status quo would only continue the public nuisance, violations of the Ordinances of Lower Allen Township, an imminent and irreparable danger and hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood and community, and a serious hazard to the health and safety of the Plaintiffs. Satisfactory proof of ownership has been accepted and respected. 13. The allegations of paragraph 13 are conclusions of law, to which no answer is required and they are therefore deemed to be denied. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations of paragraph 13 are specifically denied. 14. The allegations of paragraph 14 are conclusions of law, to which no an8Ver is required and they are therefore deued to be denied. To the extent an an8Ver is required, the allegations of paragraph 14 are specifically denied. 15. The allegations of paragraph 15 of the coaplalnt are specifically denied. To the contrary, it is averred that, with - 4 - . assistance to the extent possible, employees of the Defendant, Lower Allen Township, have been able to tell one dog from the other, except where Plaintiffs did not provide accurate records for purposes of identification. 16. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Lower Allen Township, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 16 of the Complaint, and they are therefore denied. Proof thereof is demanded at the hearing. 17. The allegations of paragraph 17 of the Complaint are specifically denied. To the contrary, it is averred that, Defendant, Lower Allen TownShip, does not have any dog in its possession. 18. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Lower Allen Township, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paraqraph 18 of the Coaplalnt, and they are therefore denied. Proof thereof is deaanded at the hearinlJ. 19. The allegation. of paragraph 19 are .pecifically denied. '1'0 the contrary, it is averred that Defendant, Lower Allen Township, ha. cooperated with the Plaintiffs 80 as to place the dog. and puppies in appropriate hoses. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Lower Allen Township, respectfully requests your Honorable court to di..is. the co.plaint and enter - 5 - . '. judgment in favor of the Defendant, Lower Allen Township, together with attorneys fees and costs of suit. j 1 I 1 I I i NO MATTER 20. At the present time and for some time in the past, the Premises have been maintained and kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance, per se, an imminent and irreparable danger and hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood and community. 21. At the present time and for some time in the past, the Premises have been maintained and kept in such a manner as to constitute a serious hazard to the health and safety of the Plaintiffs because the Premises is in an unsatisfactory and dilapidated condition. 22. The condition of the Premises is such that numerous i 1 provisions of the Codified Ordinances of Lower Allen TownShip, 1985, as amended (herein -Ordinances-) have been violated and continue to be violated, as follows: a. section 721.04 of the Ordinance., dealing with health nuisance. b. Section 745.02 of the Ordinance., dealinv with vector control. c. Section 745.03B of the Ordinance., 4e.linv with .anitary conditions. - 6 - d. Section 1104.02, Permitted Uses, in a district zoned R-1 Sinqle-Family Established Residential District of the Ordinances, being part of the Lower Allen Township zoninq Ordinances, 1995, the use beinq made of the Premises not beinq a permitted use. 23. The Premises are unfit for human habitation and hazard to the health and safety of the plaintiffs and the surroundinq neiqhborhood and community for the followinq reasons: a. Odor emanatinq from the Premises which could be smelled from several houses away. b. The maintaininq of 69 dogs within the Premises, allowinq them to urinate and defecate within the Premises and enclosed back yard. o. The incessant barkinq of the above-listed dogs, causinq a noise nuisance with neiqhborhood complaints. d. A great accuaulation of garbaqe, debris, and rubbish in the front, rear, and side yards of the Pr_is_. e. An aCCWIUlation of fecal matter and urine within the residence. f. The presence of urine and feee. soaked floor coverJ.nqs, floors, walls, trim, doors, cabinetry, and personal belonvlnq. includinq beds and furniture. - 7 - g. A large accumulation of personal belonging,s stored loosely and in boxes kept in bedrooms, hallways, and other living spaces, causing a potential fire hazard. h. Bathroom, kitchen, and laundry room fixtures all smeared with fecal matter, rendering these areas unusable and unsanitary for personal hygiene purposes. 1. The exterior of the Premises has not been maintained, causing deterioration of exterior eaves and roof. j. Because the overall appearance of the residence and associated odors, neighbors are concerned with the devaluation of their properties. k. Neighbors are concerned regarding the health and sanitary conditions of the Praises which .ay affect the overall health of their families as well as the enjoyment of their yards becau.e of the overpowering odoriferous emanations. 24. The Defendant, Lower Allen Township, did not have pos....ion of any of the dog.. 25. All dogs reaoved fro. the Pr..b.. were placed in the pos.e.sion of the Defendant, Humane Society of Harrbburq Area, Inc. 26. Th. Plaintiffs have no permit 1asued by tha United state. of AIlerlca, the Coaaonwealth of Penn.ylvania, the county of - . - cumberland, and the Defendant, Lower, Allen Township, to permit 59 dogs and 10 puppies upon the Premises to do business as a kennel, or for purposes of breeding. 27. Some of the 59 dogs and 10 puppies taken from the Premises were owned by the Plaintiffs or were the pets of the Plaintiffs. 28. Defendant, Lower Allen Township, its agents, servants, employees, officers, and solicitors are immune from any damages under the provisions of the Political Subdivision Torts Claim Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. section 8541, et seq. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Lower Allen Township, respectfully requests your Honorable Court to dismiss the Complaint and enter judgment in favor of the Defendant, Lower Allen Township, together with attorneys fees and costs of suit. COtJIfTDCLAIM La'" ALL" ttOWIf8BIP. pLaDl'fIn v. aL'l'Olf '1'Bft8 aDd 1!1I1I18'l'IMIlfIl 8JfYDD-'l'BB'l'8. DBPDDJ.Il'l'8 29. The allegations of paragraphs 1 to and including 27 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein. 30. The Defendant, Lower Allen Township, is a Pennsylvania municipal corporation with adainiatrative office. at 1993 Huaael Avenue, caap Hill (Lo_r Allen Township), CIlaberland COunty, Pennsylvania. 31. Defendant, Christienne Snyder, also known as ChriatianM snyder-Teet., is the owner of the Proises altuate at 95 Iten.lngton - 9 - . Driv~,. Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (herein npremisesn), acquired by Deed dated September 16, 1983, and recorded October 18, 1983, in CUmberland county Deed Book K-30-672, et seq. 32. The Defendants, Alton Teets and Christianne Snyder-Teets, are husband and wife, reside at, and are in possession of the Premises. 33. Situate on the Premises is a two-story residential dwelling located in a district zoned R-1 Single-Family Established Residential District under the Zoning ordinance. 34. At the present time and for some time in the past, the Premises have been maintained and kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance per se, and an imminent and irreparable danger and hazard to the public heath, safety, and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood and community. 35. At the present time and for some time in the past, the Praises have been maintained and kept in such a aanner as to constitute a serious hazard to the health and safety of the Plaintiffs and the public health because the Praises is in an uneatisfactory and dilapidated condition. 36. 'l'be condition of the preai.es is such that nuaarou. proVisions of the Ordinance. have been violated and continue to be violated, es follovsl - 10 - a. Section 721.04 of the Ordinances, dealinq with health nuisance. b. Section 745.02 of the ordinances, dealinq with vector control. c. section 745.03B of the Ordinances, dealing with sanitary conditions. d. Section 1104.02, Permitted Uses, in a district zoned R-1 Single-Family Established Residential District of the Zoning Ordinances, the use beinq made of the Preaises not being a permitted use. 37. The Premises are unfit for human habitation and a hazard to the health and safety of the Plaintiffs and the surroundinq neighborhood and community for the following specific reasons: a. Extreae odor eaanatinq from the Preaises which could be smelled for several houses away. b. The maintaining of 69 dogs within the pre.ises, allowing the. to urinate and defecate within the Premise. and enclosed back yard. c. The incess.nt barkincJ of the above-listed dog., cau.incJ a noi.e nuisance with neighborhood ccaplaint.. d. A great .ccumulation of garbage, debris, .nd rubbish in the front, rear, and .ide yard. of the Pre.i.... - 11 - e. An accumulation of fecal matter and urine within the residence. f. The presence of urine and feces soaked floor coverings, floors, walls, trim, doors, cabinetry, and personal belongings including beds and furniture. g. A large accumulation of personal belongings stored loosely and in boxes kept in bedrooms, hallways, and other living spaces, causing a potential fire hazard. h. Bathroom, kitchen, and laundry room fixtures all smeared with fecal matter, rendering these areas unusable and unsanitary for personal hygiene purposes. 1. Appearance of the exterior of the Premises has not been maintained, causing deterioration of exterior eaves and roof. j. because the overall appearance of the residence and associated odors, neighbors are concerned with the devaluation of the surrounding properties. k. Neighbors are concerned regarding the health and sanitary conditions of the Premises which may affect the overall health of their families as well aa the enjoyaent of their yards because of the overpowering odoriferous eaanations. - 12 - 38. Because of the aforesaid conditions, on September 19, 1996, the Premises has been condemned and placarded unfit for human habitation. 39. All animals were removed and placed in the care of the Defendant, Human Society of Harrisburg Area, Inc., where they were vaccinated and treated for various diseases. 40. Because of the condition of the Premises, Plaintiffs should not be permitted to reside in the Premises until such time as the Premises has been cleaned and fumigated. 41. Defendant, Lower Allen Township, does not have an adequate remedy at law. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Lower Allen Township, prays as follows: a. That the Plaintiffs be enjoined from living in the Premises at 95 Kensington Drive, Camp Hill (!.ower Allen Township, CUmberland County, Pennsylvania, until such time as the Premises has been cleaned and fumigated and the Premises made fit for human habitation; b. That an injunction be issued requiring and coapelling Plaintiffs to fumigate and clean the Prabe.; c. Plaintiffa subait to Lower Allen Township a proposed plan to fumigate and clean the premis.s; d. Issue an injunction prohibiting the presence of any aniaal. on the Premise. until after the Pr..iee. have - 13 - ,- . . . been made habitable and therea~ter permit only a reason number of animals as pets; e. plaintiffs cease living in and remove their motor home which is parked in their driveway since it was intended to be a temporary solution for a minimum period of time until other living arrangements could be made; f. Establish set hours during which the Premises can be occupied for purposes of fumigation and cleaning. For example, 7:00 O'clock a.m. to 7:00 o'clock p.m.; g. Require debris, rubbish, garbage, and urine/feces soaked furniture and personal property be removed from the interior and exterior of the Premises and disposed of the same in accordance with applicable united states, C01IUIlOnwealth of Pennsylvania, and Lower Allen Township laws and regulations at the sole expense of the Plaintiffs; b. Require a comprehensive pest/venin inspection be conducted and that all infestations be eradicated at the sole expense of the Plaintiffs; i. Require a structural inspection by a qualified ellCJineer be conducted to ctetenine the int8CJrity of the ctwellillCJ and correction of all cleficiencies so determined at the sole expense of the Plaintiffe, - u- , . , , 4..,........_ -- . . , j. Require the Premises to be professionally fumigated to remove the offensive odors from the dwelling and surrounding yard at the sole expense of the Plaintiffs; k. Require that a qualified microbiologist evaluate the Premises for any hazardous viruses and bacteria and zootonic agents and correction of all deficiencies so determined at the sole expense of the Plaintiffs; l. Require a professional restoration company conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the Premises at the sole expense of the Plaintiffs; m. Require that the Pla~ntiffs fumigate and clean the Premises by a date certain, and if the cleaning and fumi'lation is not completed by that date, Lower Allen ToWnShip be authorized to enter into the Premises and to take the steps necessary to fumigate and clean the Premis... If Lower Allen Township expends any funds to fumi'late and clean the Pr..ises, Lower Allen Township should be authorized to place a lien against the real ..tate for payment of and reimburaeaent of such costs and expense.; n. Defendant. Lover Allen Township. i. authoriled to enter the Premise. of the Plaintiffs a. rea.onably - 15 .. . -.,..-..-.,- '.... . .. . . . , .. , VERIFICATION The undersigned, being the Manager of Lower Allen Township, a Pennsylvania municipal corporation, makes this Verification on its behalf, being authorized so to do, certifying that the facts set forth in the foregoing ADsver, Hev Hatter, &DeS COllDterclaiJl of DefeneSant, Lover Allen TownShip, to the Complaint of plaintiffs, Alton Teets aneS Christianne SDyeSer-Teets are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, and further states that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 54904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. ~. Dated I october ~9 ' 1996 ,,",. :.:.":",,,,\_'_,_'~-;d _.__ ~jtR. . ;cllit . 'Ii: : lis --.:. i' :;15 j, .... . . 1 ~, to ~ 5 a- I. fiB Ii . . I~ :l co~ i II i ~'O e= ... . ~w-= I~I "~~~_-n';:+Y!"';'~~'''''''-' .. .. .. 2 Ii ~8 ~~ !i ii G.. :i ' ' ';4 ~, 'I' - '0' , t, 0, " d E lll:JlIgc , i ~I:I' &! il 21' ' w ~ d ,f l 0( t:'i . ~ :) 151 I I .. .... ',;, , . I . .. trV,- ~,rIJI' j:~_-" . . - ._--........ '- ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, PLAINTIFFS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 96-5474 vs. CIVIL ACTION HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC. and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, DEFENDANTS IN EQUITY NOTICE YOU DAVE BBBN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend aqa!nst the claims set forth in the followinq pages, you must take action within (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by enterinq a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writinq with the Court your defense or objections to the claims set forth aqainst you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any IIIOney claiAed in the Complaint or for any other clai.JII or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose IIIOney or property or other riqhts i:aportant to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE 'l'BIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO HO'1' DAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE TUB OFFICE SB'l' FORTH BELOW TO FIND OOT WBBRB YOU CAN GET LEGAL BBLP. Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siquientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia eacrita 0 en persona 0 par abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas 0 sus objecionea alas demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviao 0 notificacion y par cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros derechos ~portantes para usted. LLBVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INHEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 51 NO TIENE EL DINERO 5UFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAHE POR TRLEFONO A LA OFIClNA CUYA DIRECCION SE BNCU!HTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DON DE 5E PUEDB CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. COURT ADMINISTRATOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PA l70lJ (717) 240-6200 , ALTON TEBTS and CBRISTIANNB SNYDER-TEETS, PLAINTIFFS, I IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . vs. I I I I I I CIVIL ACTION NOI HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC. lUld LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, DEFENDANTS . . IN EQUITY /6 -.:5Cfl1 . . I I I I I j COMPLAIR'l' 1. Plaintiffs are Alton and Christianne Snyder-Teets, husband lUld wife, of 9S Kensington Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant is the Humane Society of Harrisburg Area, Inc., a non-profit organization with principle business offices located at Sinclair , Eppley Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and 7790 Grayson Road, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant is Lower Allen Township, a corporate municipality with offices located at 1993 HWIIlII811 Avenue, Camp Bill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Pursuant to a .earch warrant executed on September 19, 1996, the Defendant Lower Allen Township .eized 59 dogs and lO puppies frea Plaintiffs' residence located at 95 Ken.ington Drive, Camp Hill, Cuaberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. An inventory of the dogs was prepared by State Dog Warden R. Hark Osborne. 6. All dog. and puppies listed on the inventory belong to Ii Plaintiffs and other individuals known to Plaintiffs who had temporarily placed the dogs in Plaintiffs' care. 7. Plaintiffs have repeatedly requested Defendants to return the dogs to their rightful owners and have also repeatedly requested Defendants to allow Plaintiffs' dogs to be placed in foster homes of their choosing. 8. Defendants have withheld many of the dogs frOlll their rightful owners and from foster homes suggested by Plaintiffs. 9. Presently, Defendants are not keeping an accurate accounting of which dogs are being released to whOlll. In addition, Defendants are improperly placing the dogs in homes not approved by Plaintiff. For instance, the dog named Misty, who is high strung and the mother of two puppies, was placed with Linda Miller, not Maryann Lutz as requested by Plaintiffs. Also, the female dogs n~ Chocolate Bon and Goofy have been improperly placed with proven male studs named Odie and Champ)'. The whereabouts of Dixie and Hoe are unknown to Plaintiffs at this tt... 10. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable ha~ and injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law if the Defendants do not i-ediately take an accurate accounting of the doqs and refrain frea t.properly placing the dogs. 11. Issuance of an injunction would preserve the .tatu. quo of the partie.. 12. Denial of injunctive relief would lead to i..ediate and irreparable harm in the form of damage to and loss of dogs and puppies for which an accurate accounting was not taken. There is no adequate remedy at law for harm caused to these dogs and the people who own and love them. 13. Defendants have, in effect, appropriated Plaintiffs' private property for distribution to the public at Defendants' sole discretion. 14. Issuance of an injunction would prevent the unwarranted misplacement of dogs of puppies to people who do not know the dogs. 15. The Plaintiffs have no knowledge that Defendants can tell one dog frOlll another. 16. The Defendants are retaining and disposing of Plaintiffs' dogs and puppies without the express permission and authority of the rightful owners. 17. The Plaintiffs have no knowledge that the dogs and puppies currently in the possession of the Defendants are being treated in a proper manner, such as providing proper -.dication to doqs which have been prescribed special treatment by their veterinarians. 18. Due to inconsistent past responses of Defendants to request. by Plaintiffs for plac...nt of the doqs to place. approved by Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs believe and aver that the Defendants intend to get rid of the doq. in a ..nner inconsistent with the ., ., ': 'j i .j . i ALTON TBBTS and 'I CHRISTIANNB SNYDBR-TBETS, , PBTITIONBRS, vs. I IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF I CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I I NOI I I IN EQUITY . HUMANE SOCIBTY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC. and , LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, RESPONDBNTS . . I EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE I RELIEF REQUESTBD I A'I"l'ORNRY VBRIFICATIOH Undersigned counsel, Matthew J. Bshelman, for Plaintiff, Alton Teets, hereby verifies and states thatl I. He is the attorney for Alton Teets, Plaintiff. 2. He is authorized to make this verification on his behalf; 3. The facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are known to him and not necessarily to his client; 4. The facts set forth in the foregoing Compaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, info~tion and belief. S. He is aware that false stat...nts herein are ..de subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Respectfully .ubaitted, Date I (~/ff fJ , dJI.A-. .hel_n, laquire Law Offices of Patrick r. Lauer, Jr. 2108 Market Str_t, Aztec 8uildillfJ ea.p Hlll, Pennsylvania 1'011-470' ID' 72'55 ~l. ('171 "3-1800 ._--...... - ALTON TBETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, Plaintiffs IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . . . . . : No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM v. . . . . IN EQUITY HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC., and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants . . . . TRIAL MEMORANDUM I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On or about october 4, 1996, Petitioners/Plaintlffs Alton T.ets and Christianne Snyder-Teets ("Teetsea"I filed an Eaerg.ncy Petition for preliainary Injunction and Equitable Relief. The P.tition naaed the Huaan. society of Harriaburg Area, Inc. ("Society") and Low.r Allen Township ("Township") as Respondents. The T.etaea sought a temporary lnjunction pending a hearlng and alternatively aought an accounting of the placement of the 59 doqa and 10 puppi.. reaoved fraa their pr..ises on Septeaber 19, 1996. on October 8, 1996, the T.ets.s fUed a caaplaint aqa1n ..eking relief concerning the plac...nt of the dog. and puppie., but also requ.sting da..ge. for allegedly lo.t dogs and for alleged d...qe. to the dog.. th....lv... on October I. 199' thi. Honorable Court ..t the laeZ'Vency Petition for hearing on Noveaber 21. 1996. Thla he.r1ncJ we. .ubaequently re.cheduled to Noveaber 25. 1996. The court al.o ordered that the society and Tovnablp provide an accounting of the i ! I .1 I I I I doqa' whereabouts and that the placements, if any, not be .ade permanently. On October 29, 1996, the Township filed an Anawer with New Matter and Counterclai.. Besides anawerinq the Teetses' Complaint, the Township .ade new allegations in the fora of New Hatter and counterclai. and reque.ted the following relief: a. That the Plaintiffs be enjoined fro. livinq in the pre.ises at 95 Kensington Drive, ca.p Hill, Lower Allen Township, CUaberland County, Pennsylvania, until such ti.e as the premise. have been cleaned and fUllligated and the pre.ises ..de fit for huaan habitation; b. That an Injunction be is.ued requiring and co.pelling Plaintiffs to fuaigate and clean the preaises; c. Plaintiffa subait to Lower Allen Township a proposed plan to fuaiqate and clean the preaise.j d. Iasue an injunction prohibiting the presence of any eni..ls on the pre.is.. until after the preaise. have been ..de habitable and thereafter perait only reasonable nUJlber of aniaals a. pet., e. Plaintiff. cea.e living in and reIIOV8 their actor bOIlS Which is parked in their driveway since it vas intended to be a teaporary solution for a .inlllUlll perlod of ti_ until their liVing arrangeaenta could be ..de, -2- , -. f. Establish set hours during which the prellliaes can be occupied for purposes of fumigation and cleaning. For exalllple, 7:00 a... to 7:00 p.III.; 9. Require debris, rubbish, garbage and urine/feces soaked furniture and personal property be removed frolll the interior and exterior of the pr8lllises and disposed of the sa.e in accordance with applicable United states, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Lower Allen Township laws and regulations at the sole expense of the Plaintiffs; h. Require a comprehensive pet/verain inspection be conducted and that all infestations be eradicated at the sole expen.e of the Plaintiffs; i. Require structural inspection by a quallfied engineer to be conducted to deteraine the integrity of the dwelling and correction of all deficienciea so deterained at the aole expense of the Plaintiffs; j. Require the pr_isea to be prOfessionally fu.igated to reaove the offensive odors fraa the dwellin; and surroundin; yard at the .ole expense of the Plaintiff.; k. Require that a qualified aicrobioloqi.t evaluate the preai.e. for any halardous viru.e., bacteria and lootonic agents and correction of all deficiencies sO deterained at the sole expense of Plaintiffs, -3- 1. Require a professional restoration company to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the premises at the sole expense of the Plaintiffs; m. Require that the Plaintiffs fumigate and clean the premises by a date certain, and if the cleaning and fumigation is not completed by that date, Lower Allen Township would be authorized to enter into the premises and to take the steps necessary to fumigate and clean the premises. If Lower Allen Township expends any funds to fumigate and clean the premises, Lower Allen Township should be authorized to place a lien against the real estate for payaent of and reiaburseaent of such costs and expenses; n. Defendant, Lower Allen Township be authorized to enter the premises of the plaintiffs as reasonably soon as practical following the signing of this Order to inspect the premise. and condition thereof. Thereafter, Lower Allen Township is authorized to re-enter the preaise. a. often as de_ed rea.onable and necessary to re- inspect the condition of the pr_ises. o. The Plaintiffs be ordered to pay the coat. and attorney.' fee. of the.. proceeding.. p. Grant such other and further relief .. your Honorable COQrt ..y deea appropriate. -4- On November 20, 1996, Society filed an Answer with New Matter and counterclaim to the Teetses' Complaint and an Answer to their Emergency Petition. II. SUMMARY OF FACTS This case is before this Honorable Court on the Emerqency Petition and complaint of plaintiffs, Alton Teets and Christianne Snyder-Teets, Petitioner-plaintiffs ("Teetses"I requesting injunctive relief in the form of an accountinq of dogs and puppies and alleged damages to the aniuls and Lower Allen Township, Defendant- Respondent's ("Township's") Answer with New Matter and Counterclai. requesting injunctive Relief in the form of nuisance abat..ent. This aatter arise. fro. a series of inspections conducted under a .earch warrant and follow up visits due to concerns over public health and safety. Various township personnel visited the residence of the Teetses at 95 ltenaington Drive, Lower Allen Township, cuaberland county, Pennsylvania on septeaber 19, 1996, 8epteaber 26, 1996 and october 21, 1996. On septellber 19, Township officials were also accOllp8nied by Town.hip police, representative. ot the IIwIane society of the Harrisburg Area, Inc. ("SocietY"1 and the co..onvealth of Pennsylvania's DOCJ Warden. The Township Code Enforceaent Officer, Patrick McCloskey, has tiled . cr18inel citation tor violation of Lover Allen Township -5- ordinance section 721.04 "Health Nuisance," section 745.02 "Vector control," and section 745.03B "Sanitary Conditions" before the Honorable Charles A. Clement, Magisterial District 09-101. These mattera are currently acheduled for hearing before that Court on January 23, 1997. The aatter before this Court results from the Teetses allegedly operating their home as a dog kennel for the purpose of raisinCJ, boarding, and breedinCJ miniature pinscher doqs. On Septeaber 19, 1996 under authority of search warrant issued by District Justice Clement, John Eby, Director of Building and zoning, Rayaond Rhodes, Township Manager, Patrick Mccloskey, Code Enforc_ent Officer and representatives of the parties set out above entered the residence at 95 Kensington Avenue. The property is owned by Mra. Christianne Snyder-Teets, according to Deed recorded in CUaberland county at Deed Book K-30 Page 672. The Teetses adait that they used the property at 95 Kensington Drive, caap Hill, Lover Allen TownShip, CUaberland county, penn.ylvania as their re.idence. (Coaplaint paragraph 1 and paragraph 4). Upon arriving at the residence, town.hip officiel. encountered en extr... odor e..nating froa the residence which could be ...lled froa .everal hou.e. away. Additionally, there had been collplainta about incaa.ant barking froa dog. causing noi.. nuisance. within the nei9hborhood dating back to 1989. Town.hip officials also -6- observed a great accumulation of garbage, debris and rubbish in the front, rear and side yards of the premises. Upon entering the property, township officials encountered an accumulation of dog urine and feces within the premises. The fecal aatter and urine were found in all rooms of the house and appear to have existed in this condition for quite soae time. The urine and feces soaked floor coverings, floors, walls, trim, doors, cabinetry and personal belongings, including beds and furniture in the rooms on both floors of the two-story dwelling. A large accumulation of personal belongings stored loosely in boxes were kept in bedrooms, hsllways and other living space, causing a potential fire hazard. The bathrooa, kitchen and laundry rooa facilities were all ...ared with fecal matter, rendering those areas unusable and unsanitary for personal hygiene purposes. Beside. the unsanitary and hazardous condition of the interior of the property, the exterior of the residence bas not been maintained, causing deterioration of exterior walls, sav.. and the roof. The front, side and rear yards of the pr..ises were also filled with garbage, debri. and rubbish. Township officials are prepared to pre.ent through evidence that they encountered an overpowerlD9 _11 of aaaonia cau.ed by the accuaulation of canine urine. Official. al.o discovered that the property contained doq feee. on aU floor aurfacea. furniture -7- .. ~-........ '- and to a level of approximately two to three feet on the side walls. Officials also found 59 dogs and 10 puppies roaming freely in the structure. Numerous doq cages were stacked in the dwelling, presumably to transport the doqs. Bach of the rooms on the first floor contained dog excrement with doqs freely moving about. The rear bathroo. on the flrst floor of the structure was apparently used as a birthing room since a litter of puppies was discovered in this roo.. Evidence will show that the stench in this room was so overpowering that one township official will testify that he experienced dry heaves upon entering the roo.. After searching the downstairs, the inspection continued upstairs. COnditions of the upstairs were siaUar to those on the lower level. Beds and cribs contained doq treats bUt were again covered with a aixture of va.t. and filth. on 8epteaber 19, 1996, TownShip officials cond8lllled the preaia_ and placarded it as unfit for huaan habitation. All aniaal. discovered on the praises v.re reaoved and placed in the car. and cu.tody of the Society. The Soci.ty also enU.ted veterinary help to vecclnate and treat the aniaal. for various die_.... unfortunately, a nuaber of anlaal. have dIed due to various 111ne_... A follow-up inspection va. conducted on Sept....r 26, 1996 by Patrick McC10llkey, COde Inforc...ot Offlcer to d.tuaIne what -1- needed to be done with regard to the structural integrity of the premises. A second follow up inspection was conducted on october 21, 1996 to determine what progress had been made toward the clean up of the premises. At that time, it was discovered that an obvious effort had been made towards cleanup and that some of the debris, including newspapers used to sop up dog urine, had been disposed of. However, the condition of the house still remains a serious hazard to health and safety and will require additional clean up, fumigation and eradication of pests and vermin. As previously mentioned, a second inspection occurred on September 26, 1996 at which time some of the debris had been removed. However, the situation remained extremely dirty and hazardous due to the accuaulation of ani..l waste. A further inspection occurred on October 21, 1996 at which tiae the township officials still continued the condemnation order since the property was not fit for huaan habitation. After the inspections, the property owners were ordered to refrain froa re-entering the dwelling, except to clean and fWligate. All of the dogs were rescued by the HUJlane Society officials, who subsequently have placed the doqs with their rightful owners, have placed thea in foster care, or continue to care for the. at Society facilities. Township officiels will prove at the h..ring that the injunctive relief requested in its COunterclaim should be ordered. -9- nuisance due to the fact that the Teetses have had an unusual number of miniature pinschers living in the house located at 95 X.nsington Drive, Lower Allen Township, Caap HUI, cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Courthouse records indicate that Mrs. Snyder-Teets has owned the dwelling since approximately 1983. As mentioned above, the Township upon authority of a search warrant inspected the property on September 19, 1996 and found 59 dogs and 10 puppies on the premises. Generally "nuisance" applies to a class of wrongs that arise from the unreasonable, unwarrantable or unlawful use by a person of his/her own property producing such aat.rial annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort or hurt that the law will "presume" a consequent daaage. JCramer v. Pittsburah Coal Co.naIlY, 341 Pa. 379, 380, 19 A.2d 362, 363 (1941). In the afor.said case it .tate. that public nuisance i. an inconvenience or trouble.oae offense that annoy. or affects the whole community at larg.. In the instant cas., we have a couple who are living in th.ir re.idenc. with a large nuaber of ainiatur. pinch.r doq.. At the h.aring scheduled for November 25, 1996, te.timony will be .licited frea various witn..... that the .tructure is uninhabitable by huaana due to the aCCUllulation of canin. urine and feces on the preai.... The un.anitary condition. and overpow.rihCJ offenaive odor. have al.o had d.l.teriou. .ffect. on neiCJhboring propertie.. -11- -. Testimony will also be presented showing that the housing of this number of animals in a residence designed for humans is unsanitary and causes vector problems including unwanted insects and oth.r pests. Testimony will be developed that will show not only that the property is and was incredibly dirty, but that the barking doqs and emanation of odors from the property were greatly annoying to neighbors. There may be testimony elicited that the property values in the area have been reduced, because of the condition of the preaises both in the interior and exterior due to the large number of animals housed. It is also believed that the Humane Society will present t.stiaony that the property has been operated as an unlicensed kennel. The Township, however, will focus its testimony on the violations of the Township'S coditied and Zoning ordinances under the health hazards, vector control and nuisance sections. Additionally, t..ti.ony will be off.red to show that the living COndition. were ha~ful to the resid.nts th....lv.s as w.ll a. the ania&la. It is beli.ved that .oae of the doqs reaoved froa the facility .ubsequ.ntly died due to conditions that th.y suffered trOll due to the un.anitary conditions of the property. Moreover, the Huaane Soci.ty vill off.r te.t1aony about the need for veterinary servic.. tor the ani..la reaoved troa the preai.... In a ca.. vith strikingly .i.ilar tact., (althOQlh vlth csts not dOCJS) the eo.aonwealth COUrt found a public nuisance -12- j 1 caused by the hazards associated with too aany aniaals housed in a residence without adequate maintenance. In Feelev v. Borouah of Ridlev Park, 121 Pa, cmwlth. 554, 551 A.2d 373 (1988), the Court considered the following facts inter AliA : (1) Feces, and urine were observed on the floors in aultiple roo... (2) A strong ammonia odor was observed in every room. (3) The house constituted a poor and unhealthy environaent for ani_Is and its residents. (4) Neiqhbors were bothered by the odors emanating froa the house. Peelev, sunra, 551 A.2d at 375. In su..ary, the property at 95 lCensington Drive owned by Mrs. Christianne Snyder-Teets should be declared a public nuisance. As a final note, Plaintiffs' Eaerqency Injunction deaanding an accounting of the doqs and puppies re.oved froa the preaises should be denied. Since the granting of this COurt's Order on October 9, 1996, Township and society have provided a list of the ani_Is reaoved frea the T_taes' house at 95 Kensington Drive to their counsel. The llst outlines where the dQ9s have been placed and whether they reaain in the custody or f<MIter cere of the Society. -13- - ._,-.... It is therefore argued by the Defendant/Respondent Lower Allen Township that this matter is now moot and no further argument is neceasary. B. LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP HAS AUTHORITY UNDER THE FIRST CLASS TOWNSHIP CODE AND ITS ORDINANCES TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCB. Township seeks authority froa this Court to require the occupants to clean and fuaigate the premiaes and to not return to the pr..iaes until after an inspection liftinq the current state of condeanation due to its inability to house humana. Additionally, the TownShip has also requested relief in the fo~ of other inspections for the structure before continued us. of the pre.ise.. Township has requested the all coapliance asasures be undertaken at the expense of the Plaintiffs. The First Class Township Code, Act of May 27, 1949, P.L. 1955, Section 31, 53 P.S. 556526 authorizes First Class Townships to abate nuisance.. Further, Section 56526 authorizes First Class Townships to seek relief by bill in equity. Additionally, the First Class Township Code at 53 P.S. 556519 also authorile. First Class Townships to -qovern and requlate the . . . aaintenance, sanitation" of buildih98 and to -instituta appropriate actions or proceedih98, at law or in equity.- -14- Furthermore, the Township may bring an action in law for violation of the Ordinance and in equity to compel compliance and performance with its ordinance. Bristol TownshiD v. KasDeritis, 19 Bucks 164, 61 Municipal Law Reporter 1 (1969). In Feelev, SUDra, the Commonwealth Court addressed the same issues as those before the Court today. That is: (1) Whether the plaintiff/petitioner's house constitutes a public nuisance; and (2) Whether the township has the authority to abate the nuisance. See. Feelev v. Borouah of Ridlev Park, 121 Pa. cmwlth. 554, 551 A.2d 373, 375 (1988). Based on the record presented, the Coamonwealth Court affiraed the Chancellor's rulinq that the house in Feelev, SUDra constituted a public nuisance. Secondly, Coamonwealth Court deterained that the aunicipality involved had authority to abate the nuisance under the Borough Code. 14. at 3'6. our situation is analoqous since the First Clas. Townahip Code also peraits the abateaent of nuisances. 53 P.S. 556526. -15- ALTON'TBBTS and CHRISTIANNB SNYDBR-TEBTS, Plaintiffs IN TBB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA I I I I : I I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. HUMANE SOCIBTY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC. and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants . . I NO. 96-5474 BQUITY TBRM ORDBR OF COURT AND NOW, this '1 'It. day of October, 1996, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Emergency Petition for Preliminary Injunction and Bquitable Relief, and it appearing that this action has not been cOlllmSnced in conformity with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1007 - e.g., by the filing of a complaint - the petition is denied, without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to request such relief following proper cOlllmSncement of the action. See 2 Goodrich-Amr_ 2d $100711, at 203 (19911; see, e.g., Appeal of Energy Explorations, 44 Pa. Coamw. 511, 404 A.2d 741 (19'91. BY THE COURT, Matth_ J. Bshelun, 2108 Market Street Aztec BuUding Caap Hill, PA 1'011 Attorney for Plaintiffs Irc .J , i Ii I I. II ,J 'I Ii .!i i i ALTON TEETS and :i CHRISTIANNB SNYDBR-TBBTS, i i PETITIONERS, " q :j vs. i 'I HUMANE SOCIETY OF 'I HARRISBURG AREA, INC. and ! LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, I RESPONDENTS I IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF I CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA I I NOI I I IN BQUITY I I EMERGBNCY INJUNCTIVE I RELIBF REQUESTED I , day of , 1996, upon AND NOW, this .: consideration of the within EMERGENCY PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND BQUITABLB RELIBF, it is hereby ordered that a " hearing on the matter is scheduled to take place on the , day of , 1996, at .m. in CourtrOOJD No. of the Cumberland County Courthouse in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. In the meantt.., a temporary injunction is granted again.t aeepondent. and they are ordered to refrain from dispo.ing of or placing any of the dog. a.ted on the inventory de.cribed in Bxhibit A of the Emergency Petition. BY 'l'BI COUR'l'I J. vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA NO: fie., .s.y 7'1 ~ 0........ IN EQUITY EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUESTED . ALTON TEBTS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEBTS, PETITIONERS, BUMANB SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC. and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSBIP, RESPONDENTS BMBRGBHCY PETITION FOR p~RT.tMIHARY INJUBC'l'IOH AND BOUITART.R RELIBF 1. Petitioners are Alton and Christianne Snyder-Teets, husband and wife, of 95 Kensington Drive, Camp Bill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Respondent is the Humane Society of Harrisburq Area, Inc., a non-profit organization with principle business offices located at Sinclair , Eppley Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and 7790 Grayson Road, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 3. Respondent is Lower Allen Township, a corporate IlUnicipality vith offices located at 1993 H~ll Avenue, Camp Hill, Cuaberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Pursuant to a search warrant executed on Septeaber 19, 199'. the Respondent Lower Allen Township seiled 59 dogs and 10 puppi.s froa Petitioners' residence located at 95 Kensington Drive, C.-p Hill, Cuaberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. An inventory of the doqs vas prepared by State DocJ Wardsn R. Kuk Osborn.. This inventory is attached as Ixhibit A. :i , I 6. All dogs and puppies listed on the inventory belong to ,Petitioners and other individuals known to Petitioners who had , temporarily placed the dogs in Petitioners' care. 7. Petitioners have repeatedly requested Respondents to return the dogs to their rightful owners and have also repeatedly requested Respondents to allow Petitioners' dogs to be placed in foster homes of their Choosing. 8. Respondents have withheld many of the dogs frOlll their rightful owners and from foster homes suggested by Petitioners. g. Presently, Respondents are not keeping an accurate accounting of which dogs are being released to whom. In addition, Respondents are improperly placing the doga in homes not approved by Petitioners. For instance, the dog named Misty, who is high strung and the mother of two puppie., was placed with Linda Miller, not Maryann Lutz as requested by Petitioner.. Al.o, the female dogs named Chocolate Bon and Goofy have been improperly placed with proven male studs na-.d Odie and Champy. The whereabouts of Dixie and Hoe are unknown to Petitioners at this time. 10. Petitioner. will suffer irreparable ha~ and injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law if the Respondent. do not i--tdiately take an accurate accountinq of the doqa and refrain free improperly placinq the dog.. 11. 1e.uance of an injunction would pre.erve the etatu. quo of the partie.. " " 12. Denial of injunctive relief would lead to immediate and irreparable harm in the form of damage to and loss of dogs and puppiee for which an accurate accounting was not taken. There is no adequate remedy at law for harm caused to these dogs and the people who own and love them. 13. Denial of this injunction would in effect permit the appropriation of Petitioners' private property for distribution to the public at Respondents' sole discretion. 14. Issuance of an injunction would prevent the unwarranted misplacement of dogs of puppies to people who do not know the doq s . 15. The Petitioners have no knowledge that Respondents can tell one dog from another. 16. The Respondents are retaining and disposing of Petitioners' dogs and puppies without the express peraission and authority of the rightful owners. 17. The Petitioners have no knowledge that the doqs and puppies currently in the possession of the Respondents are being treated in a proper aanner, such .s providing proper aedication to doqs which have been prescribed special treat8ant by their veterinarians. 18. Due to inconsistent past r.sponses of Reepondents to requesta by Petitioners for placeaent of the doqa to places .pproved by Petitioners, Petitioners believe that Respondents 1 i I , i; :, intend to get rid of the dogs in a manner inconsistent with the 'i owners' wishes. 19. Respondents have no valid reason to refuse to cooperate '. .: with Petitioners so as to place the dOCJs and puppies in appropriate homes. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests your Honorable Court to order, pursuant to Pa. R. civ. P. Rule 1531, that the Respondents immediately refrain from placing dogs in places not approved by Petitioners and that an accurate accounting be taken as to the whereabouts of all 59 dogs and 10 puppies. In addition, Petitioners request that the stringent proof of ownership requirements be waived and that all doqs be placed with those claiming to own the doqs and by those approved by Petitioners. In the alternative, Petitioners request that a teaporary injunction be granted pending a hearing on the aatter. Dat., It - (.. ~' Respectfully submitted, ~.J .kfht""," t J. Esb , Esquire Lav Office. of Patrick P. Lauer, Jr. 2108 Market Street, Azt.c lIuildinl Cup Bill, PelUlsyl"ania 17011-470 ID. 726SS ,.1. 1'1') 163-1100 ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, PETITIONERS, I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 96-5474 vs. HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC. and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, RESPONDENTS IN EQUITY EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUESTED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this , day of , 1996, upon consideration of the within EMERGENCY PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND EQUITABLE RELIEF, it is hereby ordered that Respondents refrain from improperly placing dogs owned by Petitioners and those who have placed dogs in their care. It is further ordered that Respondents provide an accounting of the whereabouts of all dogs and either return them to their rightful owners or release them to people approved by Petitioners to care for the doqs and that any requirement to show proof of ownership be waived. BY TUB COUR'l'1 J. ALTON TBBTS and CHRISTIANNB SNYDER-TEBTS, PETITIONERS, I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF I CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA I : NOI 96-5474 vs. . . HUMANE SOCIBTY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC. and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, RESPONDBNTS I IN EQUITY . . I EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE : RELIEF REQUESTED . . RMRRGRHl!Y PE'rI'l'IOR FOR PRRT.DlIRARY IRJUNC'l'IOR AND EOOI'I'ART.R )lRT.IBF 1. Petitioners are Alton and Christianne Snyder-Teets, husband and wife, of 95 Kensington Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Respondent is the Humane Society of Harrisburg Area, Inc., a non-profit organization with principle business offices located at Sinclair , Eppley Road, Mechanic.burg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and 7790 Grayson Road, HarriSburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 3. Respondent is Lower Allen Township, a corporate IIUnicipality with offices located at 1993 HUDDell Avenue, Camp Hill, Cuaberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Pursuant to a search warrant executed on Septellber 19, 1996, the Respondent Lower Allen Township sehed 59 doqs and 10 puppies free Petitioners' residence located at 95 lensin9ton Drive, C-.p aill, Cuaberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. An inventory of the doqs wa. prepared by State DOCJ Warden R. Nark Oaborne. This inventory is attacbed as Ixhibit A. ,I I 1 I , ! i I 6. All dogs and puppies listed on the inventory belong to Petitioners and other individuals known to Petitioners who had temporarily placed the dogs in Petitioners' care. 7. Petitioners have repeatedly requested Respondents to return the dogs to their rightful owners and have also repeatedly requested Respondents to allow Petitioners' dogs to be placed in foater homes of their choosing. 8. Respondents have withheld many of the dogs frOlll their rightful owners and from foster homes suggested by Petitioners. 9. Presently, Respondents are not keeping an accurate accounting of which dogs are being released to whom. In addition, Respondents are improperly placing the doqa in homes not approved by Petitioners. For instance, the dog named Misty, who is high strung and the mother of two puppies, was placed with Linda Miller, not Maryann Lutz as requested by Petitioners. Also, the female doqs n~ Chocolate Bon and Goofy have been improperly placed with proven ale studs named Odie and Ch&llpY. The whereabouts of Dixie and Hoe are unknown to Petitioners at this time. 10. Petitioners will suffer irreparable ha~ and injury for which there is no adequate relllldy at lew if the Respondents do not i--rdietely take an accurate accountin9 of the dog. and refrain froa apropedy placift9 the dogs. 11. I..vance of an injunction would pre.erve the statu. quo of the partie.. " . ....,.......- - 12. Denial of injunctive relief would lead to immediate and irreparable harm in the form of damage to and loss of dogs and puppies for which an accurate accounting was not taken. There is no adequate remedy at law for harm caused to these dogs and the people who own and love them. 13. Denial of this injunction would in effect permit the appropriation of Petitioners' private property for distribution to the public at Respondents' sole discretion. 14. Issuance of an injunction would prevent the unwarranted misplacement of dogs of puppies to people who do not know the dogs. 15. The Petitioners have no knowledge that Respondents can tell one dog from another. 16. The Respondents are retaining and disposing of Petitioners' dogs and puppies without the express permission and authority of the rightful owners. 17. The Petitioners have no knowledge that the doqs and puppies currently in the possession of the Respondents are being treated in a proper aanner, such as providing proper -.dication to dogs which have been prescribed special treataent by their veterinarians. 18. Due to inconsistent past responses of Re.pondent. to requests by Petitioners for plac_nt of the doqs to plac.. approved by Petitioners, 'etitioners believe that ".pondents ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, Plaintiffs . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. I I I I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC. and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants . . I I . . NO. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this \,~ day of November, 1996, upon request of Robert B. Yetter, Bsq., attorney for Lower Allen Township, and with the agreement of all other counsel, the hearing previously scheduled in this matter for November 27, 1996, at 1130 p.m., is RESCHEDULED to Monday, November 25, 1996, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom No.5, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT, , . . Matthew J. Eshelaan, Esq. 2108 Market Street Aztec Building Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiffs John .:r. McNally, III, aaq. P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 Attorner for Humane Society of Harr abur9, Inc. Robert E. Yetter, Esq. 3211 North Front Street P.O. Boll 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0300 Attorney for Lower Allen TownshIp , to:) .. . , .- - , r ; " . '..1 l . , ) . ; , n\ :::l " f.. Irc C~t'.~ ~".4..-("'1L II/I.t/I/If ,," " -~~- - - - ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS . SNYDER-TEETS, . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . plaintiffs . . . . v. . NO. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM . . . HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG . . AREA, INC. and LOWER ALLEN . . TOWNSHIP, . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . Defendants . . DlTRY 01' UP.UUCK TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of Defendant Huaane Society of Harrisburg Area, Inc. only, with respect to the above-captioned action. Respectfully subaittecl, . .1&11I8. 8KI'1'B , ~~ '--- Byl Date41 \\\\S\~ \ P. . Box 650 Her.hey, PA 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 Attorney for Defendant HUMANI SOCIITY OF KARRISIIURC AREA, INC. ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, Plaintiffs . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM IN EQUITY . . v. . . . . HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC., and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants . . . . : PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION Kindly substitute the attached verification of Patrick N. McCloskey for my verification on the Petition for Rule to Show Caus. Why Conteapt Should Not Issue which was previously filed in the above aatter. METZGER, WICJC:ERSHAM, KNAUSS' DB ) I)) I . st....~~/P. 'Mi';;;.{ Eaquin Attorney I.D. No. 38901 3211 North Front Str.et P. O. Box 5300 Harriaburg. PA 17110-0300 (717) 238-8187 Attorneys for Defendant, Lower Allen Township Date: ~har 12. 1996 11/11/88 17:11 tt717 114 847& 1l1lUll JIBe. PA I&IUUZlUUI vmu'IYCA'l'l:OH 1, Patrick K. HcCloakay, Assiatent COdes Zntorc..ent Office of LoVer allen 'rCMlllhip, hereby cartify that 1 bava read the forego1n9 Petition and believa it to be true and correct to the beat of ay Jcnovledge, intoraation, and beliaf. 1 underatanll that false stat...nts harain are 1I84e aWlject to the penaltiea of 18 Pa. C.S. 14'04 relatin9 to unsworn falaification to autboritiea. LOWIlt ALLIN '1'OWIl8HIP ~:rJ&f;,.~ Date . J '1 - J..1.::::.!1 , , ALTON TEETS and CHRISTIANNE SNYDER-TEETS, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 96-5474 EQUITY TERM v. HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARRISBURG AREA, INC., and LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Defendants . . : IN EQUITY . . . . : CBRTIFICATB OF 8BRVICB I, Steven P. Hiner, Esquire, do hereby certify that on the date set forth below, I did serve a true and correct copy of the ..titioD for Rul. to Show Cau.e Why CODt..pt AttachaeDt Should Hot Is.ue and Order upon the following person(s) at the following address (es) indicated below by sending same in the United states mail, first-class, postage prepaid: Matthew J. Eshelman, Esquire Law Offices of Patrick F. Lauer, Jr. 2108 Market Street, Aztec Building Camp Hill, PA 17011-4706 John J. McNally, III, !.quire Ja..., Smith , Durkin P. O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 HETZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS' ERB I ~, Steven (~~{~:ui:e - Date I DtK:..hAr 19.. 11.6 t' ,.,,:"Ri.' ,. :~~~~. , . 'T,:.' , ,. -.,i ,. I . .... .. .'''' l ..' ... '..'0 . . 1:1 i . lj ..j~ ... 110& i '.. ~ Ii e Ell en e. ! . e . ~ II i~~ t!. . ~ .. .. li~ i Ii , < .. - ;;~". :,;', ~;:;,~.,~, " <;!':";:i~'; ;:;.~yc : .... Cg " :.' hM a,.IA: lilt! i~'! '1. '0 s %