HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-00188
~
)
~
~
~
It
!.oJ
~
~
~
~
~
~
,
~
.~
....
~
'1
~
.3
~
("
\..
\~
""
........
_.
l.\:. ,
~I
~.
oS
r-
"
;,
., ~:J
f-
0(
if,
) ~
/.
,'-
r)
= I::
~ -(
I.',
,r
r.:;
-'
0(
/.
0(
/
~ ...J
" 0- ,
,- 'v,
/. ,
" /. "
w ~
~ r_
~- Ij rJ
r<. Co
:l a:l
:1 V)
:o!
/.
..
I
u
w
;;:
LAW OFFICl:G
SNnOAKER.
BRENNEMAN
Be SPARe
5. Prior to June 6, 1989, Defendants indicated an intention
to develop the subject Land as a residential condominium type
development and submitted various plans, documents, reports and
calculations to Plaintiff, including a Land Development Plan,
which included a "Sedimentation & Erosion control Plan"
(hereinafter called "S&EC Plan") as required by section 512 of
the Subdivision Ordinance.
6. Such intended development required compliance, inter
alia, with Plaintiff's Subdivision and Land Development
ordinance, No. 83-1, as amended (hereinafter called "Subdivision
ordinance") .
7. On June 6, 1989, Plaintiff approved the Land Development
Plan, a copy of which is duly recorded in the Office of the
Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in
Plan Book 58, Page 64, which Plan is incorporated herein by
reference thereto (said Plan is herein called "Land Development
Plan") .
8. The Land Development Plan contained various
improvements, including stormwater management facilities,
including a watEr transmission facility originating on the
southern side of Nantucket Drive and proceeding in a generally
southerly direction to an existing stream or drainageway (said
facility hereinafter called "Drainage Facility").
9. Defendants promised and 3greed to and with Plaintiff to
build and construct the Drainage Facility in accordance with the
Land Development Plan as a condition of Plaintiff's approval of
-2-
said Plan.
10. Contrary to the Land Development Plan and the S&EC Plan
and without obtaining Plaintiff's consent or agreement,
Defendants changed the elevation and contour of the Subject Land
at the location of the Drainage Facility by depositing large
amounts of earth fill material thereby raising substantially the
plane of the surface of the Subject Land with unstabilized
material.
11. The filling mentioned in paragraph 10 constituted a
violation of Section 512 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
12. Defendants constructed a drainage facility at the
location of the Drainage Facility which does not comply with the
Land Development Plar.
13. The existing drainage facility is improper in that it
causes the unstabilized fill material to erode and be displaced
downstream as foreign sediment. The channel of said facility is
widening and deepening with its continuing use thereby causing a
chasm dangerous to the residents of the community.
14. Since the discovery of the improper drainage facility,
Plaintiff has notified Defendants repeatedly of the
unacceptability of the existing facility and demanded compliance
with the Land Development Plan.
15. Defendants have failed and refused to comply with
LAW OFF1C[~
Plaintiff's demands as aforesaid.
SNELDAKI:A.
BRENNEMAN
8: SI"ARE
16. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests your Honorable
-3-
1
~
~
TOWNSHIP OF HAMPDEN,
Plaintiff,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
NO.
97-188
EQUITY TERM
ALEX DISANTO and DONNA
DISANTO,
CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
Defendants
PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE ACTION
TO: PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
The underlying controversy in the above captioned matter
having been successfully settled between the parties, please
cause the docket and record in this proceeding to be marked as
"settled and discontinued".
N & SPARE, P.C.
By
chard C. Sne1baker
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: September
15
, 1997