HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-06101
If)
'lo.
;.~
, ...
: ~
'~
, \.
~
V)
~
~
,q,.,
,
""
I 4
I ~
: ~~
I l;)
I
,
;~
"
, ;;~
.~
.~
~: ~
(.
~.
~
A
-..
<;::)
........
~
; .~~
""\~
"
~
il
,,)
r~
.:...f,
.'.~
,,;~'
'!;t,
:;,'i
'.,~
')~
'j
~
~
:-\-'
"
.:s
I~
L.L..I['
.
~
\:to.
fJEFENIJAtJTS:
I
Dated: L',,:, /,! .',,'
1 ()fJ0.
1 " .
;.~ ... 1 - ,
~ 'Tfeu r~y
,/)~"
I :,' ~
I I o. ~
L~"ui~c~: t--~
,I I
"
/
i
Lauric A. Black
.azl()
_LJi litn' (1\ ,A,C~:
Andrew C. Shce~Y;" Esquire
(Attorney for Dcrdndants)
TOWNSII I P OF ~; I LVEI{ SI'I{ I IIG,
III TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBEHLANll COUNTY, PENNSYINANIA
I'lil inti II
vn.
CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
JEFFREY L. BLACK and
LAURIE A. BLACK,
No. 98-6101
EQUITY
Defendants
CotlSENT DECREE
AND NOI'l, this /Olfl day of ~J#I'I"r-
, 1999, on the
stipulation and Joint Motion of the parties' counsel (Richard C.
Sne1baker, Esquire, Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, P.C., for
Plaintiff, and Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire, for Defendants) it is
ordered and decreed as follows:
1. That Plaintiff acknowledges receipt of the appropriate
i.application fee ($500) for a storm Water Management Permit under
i:
ithe Silver Spring Township Storm Water Management Ordinance of
I
11995 ("Ordinance") and deems this Decree to be the Storm Water
Management Permit applicable to Defendants' obligations
I
I
I hereunder,
I: 2. That Defendants at their sole cost and expense shall
libUild, construct and install no later than December 15, 1999, the
storm water management facilities described in the II-page
engineer.ing report by Gibson-Thomas Engineering Co., Inc. as
signed/sealed by Timothy A. Bolden, P.E,. on May 26, 1999, and as
supplemented by a 3-page report of calculations by Mr. Bolden,
LAW OH'ICC5
$NELBAKC:R,
BRENNI::MI\N
& SPARE:
copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference thereto, and to install Bar Screens on both ends of the
proposed pipe in accordance with the specifications contained in
Plaintiff's Improvements Specifications Manual.
'!
.
~.I
t!
, I
"
~.
r
..
1
I
f
I
.
\,
~
.
j;.,
:!t
~,
l. That the work to be performed in paragraph 2 above shall
be subject to the inspection and approval of the Plaintiff's
Township Engineer (pennoni Associates).
4. Thilt Defendants, their heirs, successors and assigns,
shall keep the facilities in a good state of repair and shall be
responsible in perpetuity for the maintenance of the facilities
as installed pursuant to the Consent Decree at their sole cost
and expense, such duty to maintain to include replacement of
damaged or worn-out facilities.
5. That representatives of the Plaintiff shall have the
right at all times hereafter to enter upon Defendants' land (and
the land of their heirs, successors and assigns) to inspect the
facilities to determine compliance with all of the foregoing
,conditions.
I
I 6. That this Decree shall be an equitable servitude upon
land covenant running with Defendants' land in order to obligate
!
lall successor owners of Defendants.
I 7. That this action shall not be discontinued in order to
!preserve the continuing operation of this Decree.
I
8. That the actions commenced in this Court by Defendants
at Nos. 98-4496 civil Term and 98-5951 civil Term are deemed to
be discontinued with prejudice at Defendants' sole cost and they
shall cause the discontinuance to be filed of record forthwith.
LAW OFFICES
SNELBAKER,
BRENNEMAN
& SPARE
9. That the trial in this action scheduled for September
27, 1999, be and is hereby continued and cancelled.
, Judge
/
r
'.
'.
"
J 'ff /l1.i.1: / 'ropnty
\"".'iq Itm11' ,-, j I. i :f'. Cumbtrl.md C'ountr
PROJECT NARRATIVE
TIle prolect m\'ol\'l's IHO\'llLng dC~Jgll (lJlniHH,ltllll1<; 10 ~Ill' ,1 dr;uoagc Lttln.rt to carry 5tomlwatcr across Mr.
Jeff Black', properl\' localed ,II m71 WCrlz\'IlIc' RO,ld, Sl!l'l'r Spnng Townsl"p, Cumberland County,
The urainagl' ;Hl';1 to lilt' IIpQrLl111 l'lld of ~Ir HLH.!..'..; properly \Vas dCll'rmiOl'd to be 1164 acres estimated
from Ihe \\'l.'ctz\'llIl' I'S(;S l~l',ldr;ln~:ll' ;It;\ ~l,:;I!l' Ilf 1".5/)(", ~l'l' atlaclll'll Draln:lgc t'lfap. The surrounding
arC;1 IS prc.:dor11ln.llllly ligllt fl':<.lllt:nlul and opel! sp.u:c.:. -lllC rultoff cOt'fficlent, C, was determined to be 0.35.
TIle Tunc of Concl'lItraIlOIl, T(, was dclcrmUll'lJ 10 be ~.2.2 mmutC$, Runofr \Vas computed using the
Ratiunall-I)'urograph ~ll'fl\(Jd LOlll.Ullcd 10 lIll' I .nJJL'J 1.\1 ,ompul(r progmm. union ),0. The design storm for
the drainage cuh-crt IS the 2'-Yl'ar storm e\'Cnt It1 accordance \\ith Sih-cr Spring Township regulations. nus
flow was computl'u 10 be I (J..) Cf5, ~l'C attached computations,
TIle propuseu dr:ulIagl' t'ulvl'rt wa)'; :-ill.cd using Ihe Manl1l11g's equatioll for full pipe flow in Iht FlowmaJltr
(ompu/tr pro..~ram, (Itn/on IJ.(J. '1111.' IOCIIIOI1 of thl' pwpo:\l'd culVl'rt \\flU be \\-ithin the existing 20' Drainage
easemcnt, ;ts shown on the Subd.l\ 1~ltH1 Pbn for /, /).J.'t IJt.Ja:, rccorul'd in Plan Book 52, Page 119,
Cumberland County c.ourrhlJUSl', A copr of the plan showing Ihe location of the proposed culvert is
attached, The slope for the proposed culvert was esumated to be l.S0~O from the WerlZVille Quadrangle
Map, TIle pipe ,ize recommended is a 24-inch slllonth wa\led corrugated plastic pipe with a full flow capacity
of 32.74 cfs. Outlet protcctJOIl i)'; rccommcnul'J, Rock sill' and apron tlimensions were estimated from
figure 4.12 of the Errmu!J IJnd !>u/fut/on C/JII/roll'ro...~ram j\["lIu<1I, copy auacheu. The apron is recommended to
be 16' long and 1H' wlue at rlu' end wuh:l 2:1 taper un the :tides, The rock size shall have a median diameter
of 6", R-+ npir"l'.
"~
f
.
t
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Gibson-Thomas Engineering Co., Inc.
C_ultJ". Enrin..n
Calculation
,
, '
CUllom,r,
Pro)ed TItle;
SubJect
\-.. ,-' ,.
--1"...-...... .
-:\"~ .-..... ~
1-\'.-',- ,
, '
~.
Calcul1tJon No.;
, Rl'lislon No,:
R,vlslon D.ll':
Conl~ No,:
DlvislonlStlectlon:
lIemNo,:
Drawing No,;
-~, " ""'L-,
,.
'...0 ..--
.' ",- ..'~...
Mad, By;
Rtvltwtd By:
Approved By:
.....-
-
'-
Dal'
Dal,
Oar,
-~
Pag,_of_
~"'=-c,' .
c.
I-.~~ ..
,
\.--':'~7_-r~, '_'-~.
-..:::::,~(~\
-' - \
>-:(-,
I..'....;::)I..:=;.~
c..I...\ \":'.... . -:-.,'.- \..
~,-
\.......... .
.\.~ -
-;-..:.."'l-'\ ........-' .-
'-"""':'
-:;- ....--.-
----'t=
:,?--'...L,.-
-==
.~..-....
- 'S' Li, \.S:'~
\~,~;..:
~~'?.~
~\""\..".f'&.,r:;
\....~_. ,.
,..:....
..:.-,', .... --..
\ .~
,""~',>,
~
I" ":"
;-:,~.:~
~'1:-"\~,~L::
7"1.;. \
l...-.......-
~,~-- '''".:,
-..~ -".
. :..'
-"," _.
:. ~ .. I
.,
-":-;'...:::'_r:.
~~k'7.
.--:-. :. ,,~-
<:.:'". ~
-" ..' . -:
.,... -
-=:'~-:-:.
. -'-' -
7'-'::-.':..1"\' \:-.. ~'_ ~'.."-.~L """~
'2::. ~:"-:,.':'"_1:.0'_.~.*~
- 2':.'=
(,',\....:.,
-:.- ~-'.-:-=x,'
''', ',~,__'T"'1~~~
<-
-~\..:..<:..:.~'~
':'(.':''-~--'-'''::'''.
"~.".
~"".-. :'.\.,: l\:...,_ '~":":>'::'::"""_''-~
\.,: -";:~:!,3:.'?-~
\1-:-
"I '"~',.\\4,';"~,
"-"
. -,
:. =~.._,-'.\,..
- F",.....,\.,:....:_
~"'-'-'
\ - ~ ,~
-'-
....~ .....: ":'-;
~"""":. \':-'~,:,:."''''''' ,:',),.? t:\
- '--- -.- ._~._.-.--.
. .,,'''',:~','...:\.:, . '- f
-;;,"'-....~ ";:,,~'-,,-:."" :..~~-:;;: I" -,~.;,~:.,:>-,
-------~--_..-
,',.:, ,o-::J__;G~:~f
';':"':~
\~,"'~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
..
H:!!i!J1I alJ~lnlllllall ~drnJ:ra ph
PDT-IDF Srllrm Inh'lI\ity CharI
2 Year Slorm io PA. ReJ:ion 4 at .Jeff llIack DrainaJ:e _ ZYear
Time of Concentration: ZZ.J8 min,
Drainage Area: 13.640 acres.
Weighted 'C' Factor: 0.3S0
nainfall naillfall
Time Iner, Tllral Inh'lI'it)' Flow
(miD) (inches) (inches) (In/hr) (efs)
0 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,00
22 0,08 0,08 0.21 1.fl2
44 0.1(, 0.24 0.-13 2,06
67 0.82 1,(J6 2.22 IO,SH
89 O.2S 1.34 0.75 3,59
III 0.11 1.45 OJO 1.42
133 0,0') 1.54 0,25 1.18
155 0,07 1.61 0.19 0,')0
177 0.0(, 1.67 0.17 0,81
200 O,fl(, 1.73 0,16 0,74
222 0.05 1.78 0,14 0,68
At time ~ 555 minutes, the flow is 0.34 CFS,
I
I
I
I
I
I
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1~:lIillllal FI~~lIll1lill!' drn~r::Il'J!
PI>T-WF Slllrm Intensily Ch:lrt
10 Year Stllrm in (lA, Rl'~illn -I at ,/l'ff iliad.. J)railla~l' _ IOYl'al'
Time IIf ('lIl1n'lIll'alilln: n,lllmin,
Draina~l' ,\I'ea: I.l,(,-I() acrc".
Wci~hled '(" Faclllr: (),.15()
Raillfall R..infall
Timc InCl'. Total Intcnsily Flow
(min) (inches) (indlcs) (in/hr) (cfs)
0 O,()O [),O() (),OO 0,00
22 0,13 0,13 [),36 1.71
44 D,22 (US 0,60 2,84
()7 1.14 1.-19 3.07 14.67
S9 0,39 l.S~ 1.06 5,04
III 0,19 2,0(, 0,50 2.40
133 0,15 2,22 0.42 1.99
155 0,12 2,34 0,32 1.51
177 0,10 2.44 0,28 1.35
200 0,10 2,5-1 0,26 1.23
222 0.D9 2,62 0,24 1.13
^llime ~ 555 millules, the flow is 0,54 CFS,
i
,
,
\
II a I illn a!J~llill!!J!!...111I1 ':!'.!:ra/lh
I'IJ /'-I/)'" Sturmlnll'nsit,l' Chart
25 Ye:lr Slorm in 1',\. IIq:ioll.j al,'",e ilIa"', IJr:lilla~I' _ 2SYl'ar
Time ufCurrcerrlr:llion: 22./H mill,
Draina~e ,\rea: lJ.6.jO :Irn',\,
Wci~hll'd 'C' "'al'lur: O.JSO
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
I
.
I
I
nainfall Rainfall
Time Inrr. Tota' Intensity Flow
(min) (inches) (inrhes) (In/hr) (cfs)
0 0,00 (J,(J(J 0,00 0,00
22 0,16 0,16 0,44 2,10
44 0,27 0../4 0,74 ],54
67 1.26 I. 70 3.41 16.28
89 0,45 2,14 1.21 5,77
III 0,23 2,37 0,61 2,92
133 0,19 2,56 0,51 2,43
155 0,14 2,70 0,39 1.87
177 (),13 2,83 0,35 1.68
200 0.12 2,95 0.32 1.53
222 O,j I 3.0f) 0,30 1.41
Allime ~ 555 minules, the /Jow is 0,69 CFS,
,
l ~
r
Iblional Formula IInlro\:ralll!
..
l'IlT-IUF Slorm Intcusity CharI
I
l '
[;
~
F
!d
100 Ycar Storm in I'A. Rc\:ion-l at .ferr llIack ()rainll\:c - IOOYcar
Tlmc ofConCl'ntration: 22.lllmin,
Dralnagc Arca: 13.6-10 acrcs.
Wclghtcd 'C' Factor: 0.350
Rainfall Rainfall
Timc Incr. Tolal Intcnsity Flow
(min) (inchcs) (inchcs) (in/hr) (cfs)
0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
22 0,22 0,22 0,60 2,89
44 0.38 0,60 1.02 4,89
67 1.55 2.15 -1.19 19.98
89 0,59 2,73 1.58 7,56
III 0,31 3,0-1 0,83 3.97
133 0,26 3,30 0,70 3,33
155 0,20 3,50 0.54 2,57
177 0,18 3,68 0.48 2,31
200 0,16 3,84 0.4-1 2,12
222 0,15 3,91) 0041 1.96
At limc ~ 555 minutcs, thc Ilow is 0.96 CFS,
,.
-'
,
,~
t,
\
~
.~
I :.,
i'
,
I i:
I
I !
I
I
I I
i
i.
I I"
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jeff Black. Dr<lin<lgo Pipo @ Wortzvillo Road Proporty
Workshcp.t for Circular Channol
ProICt.t OC!.UlpIJOII
Workshccl
Flow E10ment
Method
Sol\lo r or
CIrcular Channel
CirCUlar Channel
Manning's FOlmu
Full Flow CLlpaCJI
InputD.Jt.J
Mannlngs Cooffrc 0.011
Slope 015000 tUft
Diameter 24 In
Resulls
Depth 2,00 n
Dischargo 32.74 cfs
Aow Area J,l II'
Welled Perime 6,28 n
Top Width 0,00 1/
etHical Depth 1.90 fl
Percenl Full 100,0 %
Crllical Slope 012988 lUff
Velocity 10.42 fUs
Velocity Head , ,69 II
Specific Encrg 3,69 fl
Froude Nurnbf 0.00
Maximum Disc 35,22 cfs
Discharge Full 32,74 cfs
Slope Full 015000 'un
Row Type N/A
g:\lJlat.k\plUJlH,ll,hll;.!
OS/25/nu lJ3: l;l,.lti PM
Project EnginrJOf' nrnotl1y A. Bolden, p,e,
Glb~on.rhom.ls [11!)III"U,II10 Co" Illc. FlowMastor V6.0 (614e)
'lJ Hil(!~lild MUl!l{Jdr., rile 37 [JrO(JkSltlu r~o,1I1 W<llorbury, cr Uti lOll USA (203) 755.1666 Page t 0' t
.... ,
"''';!;~ '
?;:~?.i '.
',.'.....~ '
, '......1:",.-......
"', ......,.
: '1'..\l~':'.',.'
...,..t~.'" ....
't:.~...,~..,;:,.:..
-,
. . ' . ..1',~,
'jv.~:.(,
'-/, '.~~,~ ' .
, ~:'!'),'
: ..... ';
: ~;i~-;":;,
~. ..;... .'t; ,
,,:"'."t;,..,.
'.~." .~:~
, 'r'."
~.n~ \,,;~
. ,';rf~:,o.i'~
',Io~~"'.JV.J .
>,\'7-".,;:,t,
" ~ :~,,;:"'I
',', . ,~.J;\ ;'~
..;\!~::,,~,.,
, ...~'"
, . .\.1
..t', ".~. .
.. ;~,'''J~
:;'A~r~'
'~J~:)u" '~
:........l~~
-:'1...",,;7,';.
'''':-::~/F!
, 4 _........\,
"'~ ~::f~.:1.'-,
'<~v
. "'ollO
, .~ "'."'n,
,,"'~"..1~
. :.\:~'.~,~'
.;" '& ;.1
..",.......,\':1
'.M'.r->;'"
'''j,f.~''",
'\'i!:~A'"-JC':,;I
t:?"'~1~S
".'i"~
i;a;K' ,
. '~; .
tll
, ,~lC;,
.~ :"1;
.. .,.....~.tJw~
~........,...
'!.fr;t},1.'1
f,J'.. .~....'~"
'~~~,~~~~~ .
~ it '~?f~~i
t~~ll' "
'f'~" ..~.' , .t
':':~..; ~,~<~.~
"" w~
Io:-...:.:t
~.~.;~.'j.y' .
',t....;U[,
..".It".,
..,..!')':
'-JG.:::
~~;;'~;il~
::.i.:;.:;:~
\~H>:~"
~:,.l:.~".\,
.-.{"
'.':"'4~~'
~~r"i1~
,~, "<~
'. . ....~
.-'1
'.' '..l
";' '''roO' -., ,
. ......ra;;c... _pFF1
,......:l... 'I
, .f..,.. :- .' ~ Or
..... ,.
,~~
~\ ~
~,
t\) ~
. ~,~~
" ~~')~~
'~ ~~
~~'~~
'B7 npn 15 p .
. St>>./f,;'W
.d"~(;'
- -:~y- -
-cul -- ,f},_ ""
"'&' .............
"./1'<< 'II '" \ I '-. _ ~y_ _ " \
~, ~~11 .('"_/33.~_, '" "
~I I 9/1'3~ c -- -_....... \ "
.... I _.- " \ /~anil7g
~I ~ - ~ .
I /' " \ I""~@C&P I
' L~81 Rlw tii7~ / "\ . ,j /1m'
~'I / \ \.) \
61 . Riq/;c-t7fl W11I \ \
I I I ;rtin~ f!o(/ D::~ -'"'-mw.' \\;.$1,0\
~ JI 9 I lJt!'i:IIt'8c/on "'"
... . ' '1 / \ :, \
!b I ~I \ \1
~ I ,~: . Ill, r -, \~,\. 4il
~ I I . / \ ~;',; 81d?
* ~ ::, J~' -: "/ ' \ \\\';~ \ ~,
~I~ I, \ ',>,
~ I~ I $02' IO'~- E B9 S Toca/ G'oJ.J,. .\. ~
t:~ ~"Z 1"PS-: I C'5!J..93' . \ '1 \ I;
~~ ~'J'; /)/ '(]I/)S$ c;r ;;;;' 35,54-7.b5.'-/""\\ \ I' ~
~,,:;I~I~I: ~/""I A<<'CiDet:t/f/W~'30.t,~\F.'l\l' ~ \.' ~
~ Ie:) ~.':!l? ; ,I loc'? \ ' ~ ,j \~ t:~
. ~ I~ ~~/I6t, 11 I /0, .Be Cbrv':~d \ \, \ '~
t\i: ~~'I nlJ!nd) /(1(" cx: 8Ki;J,c),rt6~J\. .(. \' ' \~
, ~I ,: ,''frReq. B/d9' Sec-bt9CK tin~ :1': ,', ;&al\~
as:7/ ' 34" I' /' '. 8y SuM!9, , [Rfrlf .
I I' 1,P'St!l " '.. 2~9. :11' '\, Pr"~ Loe; .0
I, J I' ",.).: ,~()"'o.7'()()' €. \ ' ..
STillE OF' PENNSYlYIINjR(;e" d. Wal/or:/rEJ~;~,,/ "'A.
, ' ~. ~
CqUNTY OF Ct./Plber/and ~ .
~.
5.S.
On lhis-1Ldayof'.. /llAkh 1.sI:9~ before me,
d NOlary Public /n and for Said Councyal7o'
Scar:e, the Unde,'S/pned 'd,q persona/If/appear
;'<11111 ;:ro~nl"'lw/,od,.,orr' 1'"1;/Q n/~n /,., /)Pt...../it?//ru.!':
Recommended lor rJPp
01.. n,~ ~ IgO,? by ~/Je
Plano/nr; COmmission,
/'.,.,.._ " -r/.-I.,
, I ,,-:;':~"~," " "," ,',,>,..,,! ,:" ,I '::,~,. ,~\ ""1, ....:' 'I'tI, " .. "<'r,"''' ,.~_.<. " ",:.",;::, "
. . , ..
.4i
,,__ ",...U ."..- .
Fronea9~ 100' f"ronG~ 7,,..'
Bee-bacKS' $ec.bar:KJ'
Franc as' FronC 3.5"
Rear 3S' A't'd'/ $$"
9Ide.07e~' hod, 40' c5'tdt!.t:Wt!'t!;tJod, co'
~. UUI,. u,u,:" c:i:..
(,96 9 }<Ierczw//~ I?<f.
ena/a Per 171725 r
P/J.('7I;!7cli6 -~77(J .
~EIlFTHZ; .
.; DEED:;
;, m:jy-p,\.
I 3'1
~ AW
';9. I 'Bruce II. lJennif 9 Deborah II ~ tJfi'
~~, 1v
""."",j I " -" t; 9'
-;r ,$1 '\~\ go"'/o'-;' I__\- I t?ct4.89- ,SO$l'3."'J.'~ . "
-;f, "~p,~ 'il.11''''P'~~ led mrot~ i:1~) \ l- -\~~~
~.. ~ I \ If \
. Inells A!r 'P/1~ ' I J \ \ \
\ I. I / \ I
,'\ ~ /L/l \ JI \. .::'
\' ~ / /1)/\ \ /
d / / Y / I \\ I
\ ~ ~ / / /''-11 I (-, td / I,
\ ~ ~ / / / / \ I Ref178lnil79 lalKls (}!.~
~;/ / J' \ .l'. Dale 81 aC'k 4 I
I ~ fi / " \ I Doro'chg-3/~w'
.\ '~/~ / /, \ \ &.d)7c.~
I ~ I ~ /, / / I \ 1\ "Deed ReI?: ~.eo'c#J
'~ I'l R.c Tax Mal' /?e/J; 13-9tJ7
parcel Ie,
~ I I, I I \.' \\ /
~ I " \ /
I f I ,l I C;COni179 l/nt? lis FEr ,;I,
,/ \ r . !WP MO\ \ /"" I
I I I '\ \ I I.,
I ~ I I
, J i I :~~e~ct I) I I
'-l I \ !fl."
. ~ \ Ie I ~r ' / I I AI/I' \ - . -,
~' I Ie ueP1t's R, conrad'<;,/veJ.:m /1. #Iv I l,q_~,
/ !
oval thiS /2.... day Rev/ewed Ghi:J_da<;oi.._/987 by C/Je
· INe'r )1/,. CIJPlIJ,yIOnd C'a. P/anninf{ CO/l7/71/.ssion
. ~ ._. -
I Oale Black e tux
Silver Sorino
(Jeneral ,vO
J) ThiS /.'flll b~ a
Z) Concours /?ro"
3) BtJVl1dt9ry f!rol
1) Iron PIa.! Ccb~ :
,(1/,.,r:? r/f),,D.~p
_..__",_~__"~L._
/, ..
I
I
N
~t' ,',) 0
: II
~,_\ ..'
'J 1:
'11 S!
f ~
)] n
"
" ~ ~
,
I '" 0
':
..
..
'...
...
~
~
~ 8
H . lr aOUd
SJs-vosn :a'Jnos
o
-
o
~~:?
~., ..
M ~ ;;
.. ~
~
,
-..,
-no
\51
o.
'"
~8
o=<
-0
'<...
~-
~."
~~
'"
-..,
-
i?
z
'"
..,
c:
-
-
I
I
I
0861
]to
-~
:C~
~ij
....Iie
>>0
;::8
"'....
'"'-
....~
~....
..
."
n ..
~~
c~
_n
......
!i~
Uor~ TpUO::l :rS"lt?MTTt',r, llmUlP'TW I u6Teaa uo;rdv l:T' ~ 3un::>IA
S3110a3::lmi<I ~ saoll,r.aw mnmmNI~)N3 aaONlIWWO::l3H
066T ''IIHiIV ~ lllJJ.dVli.l
N
o
... - -~-:t~if~
Bll L~iJ U:'Jf
:j:--,~==
,\o:h ' _ -_ .... _ '-.. '.
11.'1: n -- -
0;: ~.~ -:;~fllJ ~~I;t~t !]:::L~\
\ I " '~~ ' ... I ~ ~
~'.'--r------.. ~~-, '\\ IJ1
.~ \''':' ~::~:. --:Is ' -, =--=--=---::-.:... ~~ ti'
\ \,f'_. ~.--=::-: -:.:'~~ -~":"h~-;~" =--=F:..-=. .: .~ VI~O
~\ \~ .....'........:._ -'.__.~. "'....--;-..... "..-0 _
..,' 1.1 \1 ,:~ :;;,: ~~ ,: j -.&h\\":'"-'-',~:;:; '~o.l. "t;~
_:~ ~ ~tj:l:;::--5;'~?~~::-::' -.:'-
,\\i\." _.,.. . ,\\~ ", "___
. \ \ .\..~;._, '''.-- __~,,~c:::.' T -- --,z
: \ \.: V : ~ . . ~: :'~'-;'~~ j: ~ ' !.;-::: .~~:]h
\ ~,:~:~''':,: '"
- _!__:_~"~~~::;~;'-~/ -:~:"~~~;-'6':~---- ~~'-:-~IO
\:~~ - .. .... ,,-,'i,~ ~ . - ,
~ I. r'\. . . _.....;. :_. ::: :.:,:.:-';-: '. ""',' . ," .::
o ."I'\.X~). ':'>-::'::I:"""'-~~' '.. J
. ::. -,"~~:~N-++-+::~ ~"-~:S"'''<>_I:'''~': "r-:3
.o. ~'\~.~,C1~l..:X. .. "~""''''''' ,",\~, ,..
, ..,...~ f~"i;'Y9",;~" .',,"'.-",,,," -~""'~'l;. , . . ..,
.. h; ...:,,_~~i>..~',~c,',-:< ~L~..q;~:;i~,.>....~.-~ :_::- __"
__h_ . n" .x-~~ ~"'d I:!. -.,.'=~. ~,,~. b,.'1 , b;~I7------
,,','-: ~ 0~r,,-r--(~ :~::; #:~8,-t' ~>:: : ..: '
':'......."'L,..,~66': .:'. ': :::o. (f ,.
,::!':':"'~ ~:'-I~.'~'. -,~j'u~'~ 9::'~ ~~.
, .. '-'3-...,>" . . >< '''''',hF~' ,." i---'-'.J. ~
---.;':':i,.9.=r~~ ~;.o."';, "ji'I":. ,. ~
. .:.....:: ~ ~ .i.t'~..,i, ...i..;,..../l'., . ~,: -:.: .: . .: , . I :, ' .
, 1 . , : : ~ .. ..' ,.~ ,
~
I! IT!_: I!::";
I; Iii:; i: I.
,; :!\: I~'~"
ll}t @ 1~1 Tl~~
~J
o
00 II
, 1
~;- ~N
rIr
~ t---: ----...
,
^
.
o
o
.
-
~
','
~
8
o
80-'
N
...
...
dSD Rfprap Size, feet
\
ClIRllI',NT [),ITE, ,,., IJ 1"')'1
nlltlll,NTTI~IE II, ,\7 0'
1'11.1. 1l,ITE 07 I \ I')')')
1'11.1. :-J,I~IL III.1<.K
,I.I,I,I.I,I,I,I,IA.I,U,I.I,I,I.I.I.I.I,I.II,\.\ 1'11\\',1 <'lIl.l'FltT .I:-;,ILYSIS
,I. I, I, I, I, I, I ,1,'"\'\,\'\,1,\, I. I. I, I, I. I, I. I. I, I I
,1.1,1,1,1.1,I,I,I,I.\,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,\cI.I.I,I.1 III' K, \'Ell'IC)~ 1,0 ,\.I,I,I.I.I,I,I,\.I,I.I,I.I,I,I.I,I.I,I,I.I,i,I,I,1
(I. I, I, I ,i, 1,1,1, \,1,1,1, I. I, I, I. I. I. I. I, I, I, I I. I I. I. I. I, \, I, i, I, I, I, I I. I, I. I, I. 1,\, \, \, 1,1, I, I, I. \. I. I. 1,1, I. I, I, I, I, I, I. I, I. 1,1,\'\,1,1
. C' SITE D,IT,I Clll.ITllT SII.II'E, ~1.\TEln,II.,INLET
'U
,\,\, I, I. I, 1.1,1,'"1.-\'\,1,1, \,1, I, I, 1,1,1, 1,1, I, \. I, 1.\, I, I. I, \, 1,1,1, I, I, I, I. I, I. \, \.1. I. 1,1, I. \ \. \. I. \, \.-1, \,1, I, I, I. I. I, I. 1,1,1, I, \.\. I
,\'1,1,\,\ '
'I,' INLET OUll,ET U1LI'I'ltT I IIl1utF./$
'V' ELEV ELEV, I.ENCTII 'SII.II'I: SI'.I:-; ItISL ~I.\:-;:-:ING I:-:LET
'NO' (f,) (f,) (f,) ',\I.ITERI.\1. (It) (fl) .. TYI'L
11 I IlllltUI 1)5.50 )00,0.>' 1 CSP :! 00 2.011 ,011 CO~\'F:-';TION.\LI
J:2 .
13)
'4 '
'5 '
AA,I, \,1. 1,I,I:iAAA.\Ao\ol, \.\, \,\.-1,1. I. I, 1.1, \,I.-i. U, I, 1.1.\, I. I. 1,\, I. 1,I,\.-i,l. \. I. \, \. I. I. \. I.\,I.U,I, \. 1,\. I, \.\,\.i.i.I,I, I
.IAAA.I.I,I..I..\.i
SU~I~I,IR\' OF CUI.VERT FLOWS (d,) FILE: BI.ICK D,llTI: 07.13,1')')9
E1.E\' (f,) TOTAL I 2 3 ~ 5 6 Ro'lD\'(',IY 1m
IOIUIO 0,0 0,0 0.0 0,0 00 11.0 00 (1.()0 I
100,(,7 2.0 2.0 0.11 D.O fl.ll ,1I,0 (} II 000 1
IOI.OIl 4,0 4,0 0,0 0,0 1l.0 IUJ 0,0 0.00 I
101.26 6.0 6,0 0,0 0,0 0.11 0.0 0,0 0.00 I
101049 8.0 8,0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0,0 0,00 1
1111.71 10.0 10.0 0,0 0,0 00 0,0 OJ) 0,00 I
101.95 12,0 12,0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.00 I
102,21 14,0 t4.0 0.0 0.0 0.11 0,0 0,0 0,00 I
C: 102,52 16.0 16.0 0,0 0.0 0.11 0,0 0.11 0,00 1
"'-; - '~02.57 16,3 16.3 0,0 0,0 110 0,0 0.1) 0,00 I
el,,,,,, ->111"1.27 20.0 20,0 0,11 0.0 00 0,0 iHI 0,00 I
110,00 42.7 42,7 0.11 0,0 (HI 0,0 (1.0 OI'l:RTOI'I'I:-;(;
,I,\;\:i,1 ,I A AAAAAAAA,I ,1.I:i,i.\:I.\, I \. i.1 ,I ,1.\,1.1.1,1.1,1.1,1. I. I, 1.\ A,I.I. 1.1 A, 1,1 ,\.1.1 ,I.i. \.1 A,I,IA,I,:i.\ :i:i ,1,1,1.1
AA:i,\;i,\,i:\AA
SU~I~I.\RY OF ITEILITI\'E SOI.UTIO:-: ERR( 'ItS FiLl,: 1I1.II:K D.\TE: 117,13,1'10'1
II 1'..\ D HE,ID TOT,II. FLOW % FLOW
EI.EV (ft) ERROR (ft) FLOW (efs) ERROR (efs) ERROR
100.01l 0,000 0,00 0110 0,00
100.1,7 0,000 2,00 Il 00 0.00
10 Lon 0,000 4.00 1l.1l1l Il,OO
1111.26 0.000 5,99 000 11.00
IOU9 0.000 7,99 oon 0.00
101.71 0.000 9,99 OIlO ll.OO
101"5 0,000 11.9') Il nil 1l,I)O
lO::!,::!1 (1,000 13.1)1) 1l,()O 1),00
lO~,'l:! 0.000 15,1)8 11.00 lJ./l/J
11l2.S7 0,000 16,28 11.1111 'LOO
10>.27 0,000 19.98 lUll) 000
:i,l:i.l:i ,i ,i AAAAAAA.:\.iA.I.lA.:ii,I, 1,1.i .I.:i,\.i .i,i,\.\.iA.i.iA.iA.i.:iXi,i ,I A,I,i.i.i.H. \.\.\.I.\.:i.iA.\. \.\.\A. \.\r\
:i,I.:i,i:i ,I:i :i.:iii
< I > Tllf.EltJINCE (f,) = 0,010 <2> TOLI'R.INeE ("'0) = UJIJU
,i.l.i.i.i 1,IA,lii,\.H.I.I,I.i.IAAA.i.i. I, 1.\ .i.i.I.I.I,1 ,i.I,I.i,ii I. i ii,\.iA,i,\.i, iA,1 i .i,\' H.II.I,iA.I,I,i.I.U. I;i.l
,iil.1 I li,i:iA
"
.
~
cURRENTDATE07,1J l'i'J') 1'11.1'.1),1'1'1'.117,1.1,1')')')
CURRENT TIME: 16:3707 FILE N,I~IE BI..ICK
AA,\A.\,LiA.\.IA.u.u, I, I, I, I. I, 1.1.1, 1,1, I, I. I, I, I, I, 1.1. I, 1.1. 1,1, I, I, I, 1.1. 1,1.\. I. I. I. I, I, I. 1,1, I, I, I, \, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I. I, I
AAA.\.\A,\,i,\,\
PERFORMANCE CURI'E HlR C:UI.ITR'I' I, I( ~ 1I11 (h) BY ~lJO (ft)) C:~I'
Akik\,\,'\:\AA.\.\AA,I, 1.\,\,\, 1,1,1, I, I, I, I ,I, I, 1,1, I. 1,1,1,1, 1,1.\. I, I. I. 1.1,\'\, I, I. i. I, I, I,\. \, \, I. I, \, 1.1, I, I, I, I, I \, \, I, \, 1,1
k\.\.i.AA.\,iAA
DIS. HI'.,ID. INLET t IIJ'I'LI'.T
CJ 1;11\(;1'. WATER CONTltOL CONTllt II. FJ.()II'I,()It~I.IL ('IIIT UlITLlT 1\1' t 111'1'1.1''1'1\1'
FLOW I'.I.F,V DElYJ'II DI'1'J'H TYI'F IWIYI'II 111,:IYI'II DI'I'TII IlI'I'T" ITI. I'l'.l.
(cf,) (fl) (f.) (f.) <1'4:' (h) (II) (hi (II) (11"1 (II")
AAA.i..\.\,\AA.\AAA.i.:i.i,i.1. 1.1.\.1., 1,1. I, I, I, I ,1.1,1,\ ,I, IA ;1,1.'1, 1,1. 1,1;1,1 ;1,1, 1.1.1, I, I. I. I, I, I. I ,\. \ I, I, I. I. I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I
A.\,UA,\,i,iiiji
0,00 100.00 0.00 .4.50 lI,NF O,1I0 1I1111 0,00 0,12 1I11() 1I 1I11
~.l)() 101l1,7 0,67.123 I S~.. 0,32 O,IR 0.18 1I07 12.3, 1111'
4.00 101.00 \.00 .3m 1.52" 0.41, ON} 0.39 0.17 9,09 \.~')
5,99 101.26 \.26 .2,82 1.52.. 058 0 HI, 0.41, 0,25 1084 \.511
7.99 101.49 1.49 .2.56 I 5~.. 0.67 \.111 0.1,1 IU2 9,9(, 1.1,7
9,99 11I1.71 1.71 .2,251,52.. 0.75 I U 0,63 IU8 11.')1I LHI
1\.99 101.95 1.95.1.901,52.. 0,83 1.24 0,74 0.-14 lUll 1m
13.99 1O~.2I 2,21 .1.4'11,52.. om U.' 0,8,1 O.4'} ILl3 2M
15,98 102,52 2,52 .\.03 1.52.. 0,98 U4 0.')8 IJ.54 10.47 2 U
16,28 11I~,57 2,57 ,0.% 1.5~.. LOll t.-l5 0.9'1 055 10,49 ~.15
19,98 103,27 3.27 0.041.52.. Ll3 1.60 1.1~ 0.6) 10.99 ~.30
A.\A.L\,\Aiiiiii.\AiL\EiiA,'iAAAA,\,I,\,\,iki,i,\,i.\,\,'iAiiil;\ A .\,'iAil,\, 1,\ ,\ ,\ ,1.'1,1.1, I, I, 1,1,1,\,\. I,i. I,H,\,\,'i,\
AA:iii.\,\,iAiiji
EI. inlet face invcu 100.00 ft EI. outlet invert 95,50 fr
El. inlet lhraat invert 0,00 ft EI. Illlt'f crest 0.00 fr
Ai\.\.\.\,\,\i\.\AA.\A.\iiA,\i\. \.\.'iii,\ il. I. I.\i\. \:i.I.liii\.\.\.\.\.I,I, I.I,IA. \,I,\,i,I,\ .1,i,'i,I,iii.I,\;\. \A.\ ,I.\,ijii\. \. \.\
A.\;iiiAiiAA.U
..... srrr~ DATA "..., CULVERT INVERT ..'"H....'''
INI.I'.TSTATlON 10000f,
INLET ELEVATION IOIUJO fl
OUTI.I'.TSTATlON ,10000 f.
OU11 ,1'.1' ELEVATION 95.50 II
NU~IIlER OF BARREL5 I
51.01'1'. (V /H) O.lll511
CUI.I'I'.RT LENGTH ,I LONG 51.01'1'. 30tU13 h
...... CCI.\'ERTlJ.1.T,\.sU~l)'L\RY ............-......-........
IHRREL5HAPE CIRCULIR
BARREL DIAMETER 2,00 f.
BARREl. MATERIAL CORRl1C.lTED STEEL ----r- '::,('<'oCC>"" \.':"-:--~J cc;z,'l.L\<-=",02':::,
Jl;IRRFJ,M/INNING'SII 0.011 ./ \'c..'f",,\C_ \',\,..~ _ I\u':::,c:."C. ~'lY\\\_o{"'~
INI.E'I"IYPE CONI'ENTI( 'N.II.
INLET EDGE AND W,ILI. MITEHlm TO r:ONrOH~1 TO SLOPE
INI.ET DEPRES510N NONE
:U..i ,\ ii ,liiiiAAA.\.\.U,iA.t \.\AAii,1 .\,",L\,\,\,i,i.\,\.i.\.i.\,I.\ .I,\,iiiii ,"ii,\,I,\,i.I,",iA,\,"i\;\. \ii,t Uii.'i.'\. \. \.\
.U,\ A,\ ,\,\iiiiii
r
I,
I
i'
r
"
.
\
CUltRFt-;T 1),111; 117 L\ I')')')
ClIllItENTTIME 1(.17 ()7
I'ILI' 1),111', ,,7 1\ 1')')'1
l'Ill'. ~.I~II'. 11I,1t:K
A.I, I, I, I, I, I, 101'\'\.1,1.\. I. I, I. I, I, 1,1,1, I, I, I. I, I. I, I, I. I. I. \..., I, I I, I. I, I, I, I, \'1,1, 1,1, I. I. I, I, \.1, 1,\,1. 1,\. 1,I,\.i,\, 1,\, 1.1. l.i,\
01.1.1,1,1.1,1,1,1,1
,I.i, I ,\ ,\, I, I, 1,\.1.1.\.1.1, lA, I ,1.\, 1,1.1, I, I, I, I . r. 111,11', \"1.1' It ,1,1,1.1, I, I, I, I, I. I, I. I, I.\. 1.1,1. I. 1,1. 1,1.1. 1,1, I
A,I. I, I, I, I, I, 1.1. 1,1.1.1,1, I. I..., I, I, 1,1, I, I, I I, I, I. I, I, I. I I I. I. I, I, I, I, I. I, I. I, 1.1.\, I. I. 1,\,1, iel,I,I,\,I.\, I, I, l,iA,I.i. i.I.I,I,i, I
,I, I, 1,1, I, 1,1, 1.1.\
....... IlE(;UL\R CI J.\NNEI. CROSS SI~CTI(}N .. '0.11..' ......
IlOTrO~1 WIDTII 111111) fr
slDn SLOPE II/V (X I) 211
CII,INNEI. SWPE \' /II (fl/fl) 0 IllS
M.INNING'S II (01,0.1) III1W
(I1.1~~EL INVERT EI.EV,ITION 'I, \8 f1
CI;I.I'ERT NO.1 OU'I1.ET INI'ERT EI.E\',\TION ')5.50 fr
....... UNIFORM FLOW 1t.ITING CtI\(I'I'., FOIt DO\I'NSTIU"I~I C1I.INNEI.
FLOW W.S,E. FROUDI'. DEI'I'II VEL SIIE.I\(
(d,) (fl) NUMllER (f.) (fh) (1"1)
0.011 95,38 0,000 0.00 0,00 01111
2.110 95.57 0.399 0,19 1.00 0.19
4.00 95,67 0.422 0.29 1.29 028
5.9'! 9>,75 0.435 0.37 1.50 OJ6
7,99 95,82 0.443 0.44 1.67 0..12
9,9<) 95.88 0,450 0.50 1.81 OAR
11,99 95,94 0.454 0.56 1.93 0.54
13.99 95,99 0.459 0.61 2.0.1 0.59
15.')8 %.04 0.462 0.66 2,\3 0.64
16,28 %,05 0.462 0.67 2.15 0.6-1
19.')8 %,\3 0.467 0,75 2.30 0,73
A:i A:i,1 ,iAAAAAAAAA:I:i,iA.i.iA.\,i. i.iA.\.\,\:i .1.1.'.,i, 1,1.1:1 ,\.1 ,\.v,:i.\ .\,i AAA.i:i:\AA. i,i.i.i:i:\.:i:\.iA:i.i.\.i
.i:\.i:I:i.\.iAAA
,:\'iAAA.i.iAAAAAii.iA:i,iA.~U:i:\.\,\A RO..ID\I',I\' OI'ERTOI'PING D.IT,I
.i.:i.'iA,\,\i\AAiiAiiiiAA:i,i. i,i.~i.'i.V. ,\,\
A.UAA :i,iAAAAAii. i.i:\ ,i:i.'i.i.i.\A.\, 1.\U:iA.I.I,i. \.i.\,I,I, i. 1.1 .'.:i.\,i.\.i. \:i,\,\,I,\:U,i. \,i. 'i.i,\,'I.i. i.i:i,i.i. \.\
,i,i,\,\.\ ,\,\ ,\.\.\
I((Jlml:l\, SURF.ICE GR.II'EL
E~nl.\NKMENT TOP WIDTH 50110 ft
CREST LENGTH 25(11) fl
OVERTOPPING CREST ELEI',ITlllN 1 toll" fr
,U:i:i:iAAAAAAA.\.\:i.i,i.i.i.\,'I:i. I ,i,iei,I,i.i,I, I. 1.\.\.1, I. I. I, I, I, 1,1.1'\, 1.1.1,1, I. I, I, 1,1.\.1.1, I ,I, I, I, i. I.I.IA,I. I,i, I,i
A:iii,\A,i.iAAA
,II'TFRI:Y I.. 111/\('1\ and 1,\11/<1/"
A. Ill. At 'I\.
: IN III" ('01 fin OF ('(J,'vlMON 1'11:i\S OF
: t '1IMIlI'RIJ\ND('()( INIY, PI'NNSYI,Vi\NIi\
/\ppdlanls
\,
: ('lVII, A(TION --IA\\'
IONINt; /I/',J\/{INtj 1l0AIW 01'
SII.VU{ SI'RIN(; /OWNSIIII'.
Appdkc'
: No, '>X-:;'):; I CIVil ILRM
TOWNSI 1/1' OF SIIVI:R SPRIN(i,
P/iiintif!
: IN 1111' COIIRI OF COMMON 1'l./,i\S OF
: CI IMIl/:RI ,AND COI INTY. I'LNNSYI, V i\NIA
v,
JEFFR/,Y L. BIi\CI\ and li\lJRIE
A. BLACK,
: CIVil. ACTION -- U)IIlIY
Dcrcndants
: No, 98-6101 U)lJITY TI,RM V
IN I~E: LAND lISE APPEAL; PRELJMINAI~Y OB./ECTlONS TO COMPLAINT
BEFORE HESS and OLER, .1.1.
ORDER OF COllRT
i\ND NOW. this 10th day or March, 1999. a/icr care/lll considcration orthc land usc
appcal dockctcd at No, 98-:;9:; / Civil Tcnn, and or thc prdiminary objections to thc
complaint/iled at No, 98-6/0 I Lquity Tcnn, and lill' thc rcasons stated in the accompanying
opinion, it is ordered and directed as liJI/olI's:
I, i\t No, 98-:;9:; I Civil Term, the decision or i\ppcllec
at Application No. 1\-98-2. dated Septcmber 22, 1998. is
Vacated,
2. i\t No, 98-610 I Lquity Term, Delcndants' preliminary
objection in the limn ora motion to dismiss Plaintilrs e1aimliJr
allornev's Ices is sustained: De/endants' remaining preliminary
objections arc denied.
,
i
,
IIY "" ('(HIIU.
I, /
I .-' I (./ ~.', (
. ....., ~ -" ...,
.I, \\'~sky ()kr,>.Ir.,.I.
/
L-
v'
.I/.1IRI,Y I, /11,\( '" alld 1,\1 'I{II
A, III 1\( 'j,;,
, L" II II ('( II II{ I ()I ('( ),\IM( ),,, 1'1 leAS (>J
l"I\lIllRI M\'I)( 'OliN IY. I''''''NSYIVANIA
I\ppdiallh
\,
; ('1\'11 A(' 1/( IN -. I A\\'
IONIN( j 11I.'\RINI ; /lOARI) 01
SII VLI{ SI'RIN( i IOWNSI/II',
App~lk'l'
; 1"", ')X-:,'):,I ('IVII ,II;I{M
TOWNSI/ II' 01' SII VU{ SI'I{IN( i,
I'lailllilf
; IN II/L COIII{T 01, CorVIMON I'/.I':/\S (iI-'
; ('llf\lIILRII\NIl COIINTY, I'I':NNSYI. V AN/A
\',
JEF/:I{/:Y I., BI.ACK and I.A! I/{II,
A, BLACK.
: ('IVII. ACT/ON.. H)I IITY
lklcndallls
; Nil, 9X-(,IOI H)IIITY TUUvl
IN RE: LAND USE APPEAL; p/mUM/NARY OB./ECTlONS TO COMPLAINT
BEFORE HESS and OLER. .1./,
OR/)E/{ :lIId OPINION OF COURT
OLER. J.. Mar~h 10 , 1999,
Th~ above-captioned ~ases have be~1I collsolidated by an order of this eourl.' In
dispule in each case is whether certain aetivily of Jeffrey L. Black and Lauric A Black 011
premises in Silver Spring Township constituted a violation of the township's storm water
management ordinance,
At No, 98-5951 Civil Term. the Blacks have appealed jrDlll a decision of the
township's zoning hearing board denying Iheir appeal frolll an enforcemellt notice of
violation issued jointly by the township's zOlling officer and its code enforcement ot1ieer,
Th~ lIoti~e all~g~d that "land disturbance activity" conducted without a permit in violation
of the township .~; 1995 storm water management ordinance, existed on property owned by
r Order ofCourl. Mareh 10. 1999,
;j
;'
;, .
,
,
,I
:i
'I
I.
I,
ii
I: ",
I:,.
~-.:'"
; ;..
Ihe Black, ill 1',lIola, I'l'I1II'~ '''lIlia.: Al1Iollg Ihe i"lIe, Ii,,' di'pll\ilioll ill Ihi, ;'pp"'al "
whelher Ihe IOlIillg hearillg hoard had jllrisdietiollto hl'ar Ihe malllT,
AI No, 'iX-fdfll I'qllily Iel'ln, Ihl'IOWIIShip has 'lied ihe Illac:ks 10l'IIjoinlhl' ;"k,~ed
violalioll or 'hl' ,101'111 \\allT In;lIlilgl'lIlelll ordinallel', I'or di'po,ilioll ill Ihi, caw arc
preliminary ohjeeliolls likd hy Ihe Illaeks lolhe tl1\\lIship's eomplailll.
Oral argllmelll was held ill Ihese cases 011 Decem her 12. 1'i'iX, For llie reasolls ,Ialed
in this opinion, the del'isioll or Ihe zoning hearing hoard at No. 'iX-S'iS I \\ill he \aeated,
oeeanse oJ'an ahsellee oJ'jllrisdielion on the pari oJ'lhe hoard to he;,r the mailer Ilhieh was
presented to il; Ihe preliminary objections al No. 'iX-ClIOI I:quil)' Termlolhe 1l1llnship's
complain I will bc suslaincd in part and denicd in parI.
STATI:MENT OF FACTS
The f(lllowing lilels do not appcar to bc in dispute: Jeflrc)' /., Illack and /.auric ^,
Black arc thc owners oJ'propert)' in Ihe Cl90(J block oJ'Wcrlzville Road. Enola, Silver Spring
Township. Cumberland County. Pennsylvania, Cerlain earlh moving activity has allegedly
occurred on the premises without a permit in violation or the lownship's storm waler
management ordinance. which was enacted on Oetooer II. 19'iS; the earth moving activity
allegedly dammed a swak which served as a natural watercourse,
By an amended "enl()rcement notice or violation" dated May 19. 199R, the
township's zoning officer and its code enf()rcement officer sent notice or the alleged
violation to Jeffrey Black, The notice advised that certain "land disturbance activity"
constituted a violation or Section 301 oJ'Township Ordinance No, 95-13 (the Silver Spring
Township Stornl\vater Management Ordinance), It li.lrther advised or a "rightto appeal this
notice to the Silver Spring Township Zoning Hearing Board within thirty (30) days from the
date oJ'delivery [oJ'the notice]" and that "[a] copy orthe Zoning Ordinance may be examined
at the Silver Spring Township Municipal Building ......
, Enforcement Notice or Violation. dated May 29. 1998,
2
The IIlaeks appealed, in ae",nl;IIII'I' II ith the adl'iee orlhe nolice. to Ihe Silver Spring
TOllnship /(l/Iing llearing Il(lard hy Ieller dated .Iune 17, 1998, In so appealing, hOllel'er.
the Illaeks exprl'ssly deelit1l'd to ",neede Ihat Ihl' zoning hearing hoard had ,iurisdiclion OI'C/'
Ihe maller, I
A hearing onlhe appeal was held hy the zoning hearing hoard on.luly 13, .Iuly '27. and
Augusl 10, 1998, At the hearing. counsel li)r Ihe Blacks rcilerated Ihcir position that Ihe
hoard was not the proper li)rum ")1' a resolulion or the dispule under Ihe ordinance in
l)uestion,1 Ilowel'er, Ihe board's solicil"r concluded that tlw hoard had jurisdiclion to
proeced pursuant to Section <)09,1(01)(9) or the Municipalities Planning Code,'
On Sep/ember 22. 199K Ihe zoning hearing hoard issued a decision denying the
Blacks' appeal fhlllllhe enfilreemenl notice orl'iolation, The decision predicated the board's
jurisdiction upon Section 909,1(01)(9) orlhe Municipalities Planning Code."
On October 16. 1998, Ihe Blacks liled a notice or appeal fhllllthe decision or the
hoard. docketed at No, 90-5951 Civil Term,' The nolice orappeal challenged Ihe jurisdiction
orthe board to have heard the malleI'. inter alia,' A certified record or the proceedings was
,\ S(!(! Leller from Andrew C. Shedy. ESl),. to James E, Hall. Zoning Officer. dated
June 17. 1998,
4 N,T, 3-5. Hearing. July 13. 1998: N,T, 2-8, Hearing. .Iuly 27. 1998..
'S<!(! N,T, 4, Hearing, .Iuly 27. 1998, This provision or the Municipalities Planning
Code is quoted hcrealler in the text.
(, Findings and Order. Zoning /-Iearing Board orSilvcr Spring Township. Application
No, A-98-2. at 5-6,
, Notice or Appeal or Jeffrey L. Blaek and Lauric A, Black from the September 22.
1998 Wrillen Decision of the Silver Spring Township Zoning /-Iearing Board. f1Ied October
16. 1998,
..
, Id.. paragraph 17,
,
I
,
I I
,
.'
th~n:alkr liled h~ Ih~ hoard pllr'lIillillo a \\ril or~~rliorari isslll'<1 h~ Ih~ prothoIlOI;lI-Y,
()II (kloh'T 211, l'I'Il<, Ihl' 10" IIship filed a wlllplailll ill ~"lIit~ agailhllhl' IIla~k\,
dllcJ.;~kd at No, ')X.1l111 I Lqllil~ IlTIII: Ih~ ~lllllplairil all~gl'd all IInplTlllilll'd "1;lIld
dislllrhancl' ;Icti\il~," iIlIlTli:rill,l' "ilh a lIalll; al" ::krcollr,Sl'. 011 Ih., pari orlhl' d~li:lldallts,
ill \'iolalioll orlh~ IIIl11lil'ip;r1il~ \slonlll\;i1~r 1l1;lJla)!~III~liI onlillalll'~'" ;"Ior~ sp~ci/ically,
th~ OIl~-WIIIlI. si.\l~l'll-paragraph wlllplairil illdlld~d Ih~s~ ;IIWJIl~llls:
f" SlIhs~qll~nllo (ktoh~r I (,, 1'11)5, I k/elldallls imlallc'd
011 IIlack Lalld c~rtaill soil alld othcr 1l1akrials )!l'lllTally illlh~
ar~a orlhc I\akrwllrs~ IIIclltioll~d ill parawaph 5 aho\~, Ih~r~hy
prcv~rllillg thc Ilatllral 11011' or stOl'JlIlI'al~r through Ihc IIla~k
Lalld and ~ausing such lI'atcr 10 ac~umulatc and pond on lands
mljoinin)! iliad I,and,
7, On O~tob~r II. 1'1'15, PlailltifI in its I~gislativ~
capacity. ~nact~d Ordinanl:l: No, '15- I 3 ~ntitled "Silver Sprillg
Township Storlll Wat~r Mallagement Ordinanc~" (/wrcinali~r
call~d "Ordinanl:l:"), which b~came ene~tive on O~tober 1("
11)1)5,
X, Said Ordillall~~ requir~s a Storm Water Management
Permit to be applied 1<11' and issu~d by Plaintiff b~I<)re any
p~rson ~ngag~s in Land Disturbanl:l: Activity, which laller tcrm
is ddined in said Ordinanl:l: to indude "Idjiversion or piping of
any natural or man-made watercourse,"
I), The activities averred in paragraph 6 hereinabove
l:Onstituted Lano Disturbance Al:livity,
10, DeJendants !iIiled to comply with the pernllllmg
requirements of the Ordinance bcforc cngaging in tbc Land
Disturbance Activity,
II. De/endants' Land Disturbance Activity docs not
comply with any of the substantivc requircments of the
OrdinanCl:,
., Plaintitrs Complainl. paragraphs 4-15,
4
I h~ ~IImplainl r~qu~sl~d prohihilllry and m,lIl<lallll'~ injulI~li\c' I'c'li~r'" In addililln,
il sllught an award III' "alllll'll~y 's I\:c's, ~\p~ns~s and C""" 111'111" I ac'li,,,1. ""
I'relimilwry IIhjc~lillns \\~I'~ lilc-d h~ Ih~ Illa~h, III Ihc' tll\\lIship's ~IInlplailll llll
NO\'~mh~r 17. I'NX, Th~ preliminary llhic'~lillns sllughlla) disnli",d IIrlh~ .."nplainl IIn
.iurisdi~tillnal grounds relal~d III lh~ ~\islcn~~ III' an ad~qualc' I'l'mc'dy al law ,111<1 stat~ ag~n~y
jurisdi~lilln. (h) dismissal IIrth~ ~IInlplainl IIn ground llrth~ p~lJ(lc-n~y lira prillI' a\:lillll, (~)
dismissal orth~ ~omplainl and dismissal orth~ elaim li>r ,llIlll'll~Y's 1\:" on ground or kgal
insuflki~n\:y or th~ pkading. Id) a slriking or lh~ ~"nlplaint IIn ground or a I;lilur~ III
s~gr~gat~ s~paral~ l:aus~s ora~lilln in s~parat~ ..,unls, alld (~) a dir~~tion Ji,l' a mllr~ sp~dlk
\:OInplaint. id~nljJyjJJg Ih~ llrdinan~~ s~~lions alkgcdly rill/aled."
DISC( JSSION
Illal:k v, ZIInin!; I karing liliaI'd
Nil, 1)5-5951 Civil T~rm
Th~ ~nahling a~t Illr tlw adoplilln or a storm \\'al~r manag~m~nt ordinan\:~ by a
municipality is Ih~ Storm Wat~r Manag~m~nt A\:t." Th~ hasi~ ~nabling a\:t Ji,l' th~ adoption
]1} Id.. elaim Jill' relid daus~,
]] Id
" Preliminary Objections or Del'cndants to I'lainlirrs Complaint. paragraphs 8-30,
" Act orO\:tober 4. 1978. P,L. 864. ** I el seq.. 11.1' oil/elided, 32 I',S, ** 680,1 el secr
Section ll(b) orthe act provides as rollows:
Within six monlhs following adoption and approval of
the watershed storm water plan [by the county]. each
munidpality shall adopt or amend. and shall implement such
ordinances and regulations. including zoning. subdivision and
development. building code. and erosion and sedimentation
ordinances. as arc necessary to regulate delelopment within the
municipality in a manner consistent with the applicable
watershed storm water plan and the provisions of this act.
5
1
of wnin!! and snbdi\'ision and land d~\ dOJ'llIl'nl ordinalK~s by tlluni~iJ'alili~s IS Ib~
I'~nnsyl\'ania Munkipalili~s 1'1 ann in).! ('odl',"
Jnrisdi~tionofth~ wnin).! h~arin).! hoard inth~ J'r~s~nt GIS~ 10 hl'ar a \'iolationofth~
township's stmlll wat~r llIana).!l'ln~lltordiniln~l' \\ as prl'dil'ilt~d upon Sl'~t ion (1011,1 (a) (II) of
tlw Muni~iJ'aliti~s Plannin).! l'od~, Ilns prl1\ision r~ads as li,lIo\\s:
Th~ wnin).! h~arin).! board shall hav~ ~:\dnsi\'~
jurisdklion to h~ar and r~nd~r linal adjudi~ations in lh~
following mall~rs: '" I a Ipp~als Irom lh~ d~t~rmination or Ih~
I,oning oni~~r or llIunkipal ~ngin~~r ill Ih.. lIt/lllillisl/'{//ioll or
allY /al/(/us(' Im/illalln' (1/' /)/'{/\'isioll/h,')'('orwilh rcli:r~ncc 10
s~dim~nlation and ~rosion control and storm wat~r managcm~nt
I:'
i,
I
,
A "Iand-us~ ordinalK~" is dclin~d in thc MunkiJ'aliti~s Planning Cod~ ilS "any
ordinancc or map adopted pursuant to the authority granted in Artides IV. V. VI and VII 101'
the Code 1:']/' The artides mentioned relate to onidal maps. subdivision and land
development. zoning. and planned residential devdopm~nt; none of these articles was
implicated in the notice of violation sent by thc township"s zoning onicer and code
enl(Jrcemcnt officer in the present casc,
It appearing that the notice which was appealcd to the zoning hearing board herein did
not involvc the administration of a land use ordinancc or a provision thcreof: it follows that
\,
.;
,
;,
the board did not have jurisdiction under Section 909,1 (a)(9) of the Municipalities Planning
Id, * II(b). 32 P,S, * 680,II(b),
I~ Act of July 31. 1968.1',1.. 805, ** 101 e/ seq.. as all/em/ed, 53 P,S, ** 1010 1 e/ seq,
See specifically Sections 501 (subdivision and development ordinances) and 601 (zoning
ordinances) of the Code, /d.. ** 501. 601. as amended, 53 P,S, ** 10501, 10601.
15 Act of July 31. P,L, 805. * 909,1 (a)(9). as added. 53 P,S, * 10909,1 (a)(9)(cmphasis
added),
II, /d., * 107(b). 53 P,S, * 10107(b),
6
('od~ 10 rl'soh~ Ihl' disPllll' hCllll'l'1I Ilrl' p;lnil's, ,\lIIr'IlI),oI, il is 11lHkr.slalldahk ,lral Ilrl'
11I."k,s lilllol\~d Ihl' ad\ il'l' a, 10 aPlw;r1, l'Olll;lIl1l'd illlhl' ,,,.Iicl' or \ iolalioll, alld Ihallhl'
hoard al'lcd ill r~'poIlSl' 10 Ih~ app~all\ hid, \I;IS prl's~'lI~d 10 ii, Ihl' ahs~I1<:~ orillrisdklioll
rl'qllirl's Ihallh~ hoard', (k~isioll hl' \ OIcall'd.
L'!)\mhiI.L '11' S iill:L'iJ1fj!l~_'GJ3li!\'h
N '1 >-'LX- (!1l.LLL1l!i1,LL\.'illJ
Wilh r~sp~~t 10 Ih~ prdiminar~ ohi~~liolls likd hy Ih~ Illacks 10 Ih~ lownship's
~omplainl al No, 9X-6101 I'quily T~nl1, ilmay h~ nol~d prdiminarily Ihal. in addilionlo
aUlhorizing lh~ adoPlion or slorm wal~r manag~m~nl ordinanc~s. J7 Ih~ Slorm Wal~r
Manag~m~nl A~I ~xpr~ssly p~rmils nllmicipal ~nli)r~~m~nl orsu~h ordinan~~s hy a~lions in
equily:
(a) Any actl\ II~ condu~t~d in \.iolalionorlhis acl .., or
ordinan~es adopled her~under '.. is hereby d~c1ared 10 be a
publi~ nuisan~~,
(h) Suits to r~strain. prevent or abale violalionorthis a~t
or orany .., ordinan~es adopted hereund~r. may be instituted in
equity or al law by... any ani:ct~d '" municipality.... The
expens~ or su~h pro~e~dings shall be re~overable rrom the
violator in su~h manner as may now or h~realier be provided by
law,]'
~
The Blacks' preliminary objections challcnging the township's complaint on the basis
orthe existence oran adequate remedy at law, state agcncy jurisdiction. and /ililure to state
a cognizable claim s~em to the court to be inconsistent with the statutory provisions
authorizing the adoption or storm waler management ordinances by municipalities and
providing ror their enrorcement in equity, Where possible. statutory provisions arc to be
17 See note 13 sl/pra and accompanying text.
"Act or October 4. 1918. P.L 864. * 15(a). (b). 32 P,S, * 680,15(a), (b),
!
7
gil'~n dk~1 ralh~r than r~gard~d as in((lns~qu~nliaJ." h'r Ihis reason, Ihl' prl'liluin.lr~
obj~elions so bas~d can nlll hc S11"tain~d.
Th~ Blacks' prdiminary ohj~clion pr~miSl'd uplln!hl' p~n(kncy ora prior .1l'lio"I1O"
h~~"mollkd by Ihl' ((I1II'!'s \acationllrth~ IlIning hcaring hllard's decisio" OIl No, I)X_)I)) I
Cil'il T~rm, Accordingly, th~ u1I11ion tll dismiss pursuant !o Pennsyll'ania /{uk or ('il'il
Pro~~dur~ 10~X(fI) will alsll b~ d~ni~d,
With r~gard IlIth~ Illacks' prdiminary IIh.i~clilln inth~ !llrlUlIl'a motion 10 dismiss
th~ township's r~qu~stli'r attllrn~y's I'~~s, P~nnsyll'ania adh~r~s llllhe "Am~rican ruk" as
th~ r~((II'~ry III' wunsd Ices:
Th~ ~ustomaril)' appJi~d "Am~rjcau rul~" prO\'id~s Ih",
Ih~r~ can b~ no r~co\'~r)' or counsd Ic~s Irom au adl'~rs~ pari)'
inth~ abs~ne~ ol'~xpr~ss slatulory allo\\'anc~ or attorney's Ices,
a clear contractual agreement bclweenthe parties. or SOIlle other
~slablished ~xccption permitting attorney's Il:~s in a gil'~n
siluation,'"
"Statutory prol'isions '" which d~part Irom the gen~ral . American Rul~' that caeh
pari)' is responsibl~ !l)r his or hcr own attorney's Il:es. arc gcnerally cnaetcd whcrc thc
legislatur~ wishes to cneouragc potcntial plaintil'ls to seck vindication nl'important rights anJ
to dcler delcndants Irom conduct I'iolating those righls,"" Normally, a s:atutory cxecption
to thc gcneral rulc will spceilieally idcntilY eounsd Iccs as a collectible itcm, See, e,g., Act
or Dcccmbcr 19. 1990. P.L. 1~40, ~~, as al1lel1ded, 23 Pa, C.S, 610R(a)(8) (1998 Supp,)
("rcasonable attorncy Ices" reeovcrablc in action undcr protcction Irolll Abusc Act),
Inthc absencc ormorc spceille statutory authorization li)r recovery orattorncy's Iccs
") See Act orOcecmbcr 6.1972. p,L, 1339. ~ 3. I Pa, C,S, ~ 1921(01),
211 Pelll1.ly/vallia State Police v. BellllY Ellterprises, /lIe,. 669 ^,2d 1018. 1022 (Pa,
Commw. Ct. 1995): see Act or July 9. 1976. P,L. 586. ~ 2. as amellded, 42 Pa, C,S,
~ 1726(01)(1) (1998 Supp,),
" Kras,\'I1oski v. Rasey, 454 Pa, Supcr. 78. 83, 684 A,2d 635. 637-38 (1996),
x
~t
lhanlan!!na!!c al I< 1\\ in!! wlkclionol" "'llhc C.\lll'lhl' 01" such procccdin!!s ,.. in such nlanncr
as may nO\\ or hcrcalkr hc pr",idcd hy la\\ ," lhc court is l'onslrainl'd to concludl' lhal
allorllcy's lecs arc nol rcco\crahk as a malleT Ill" Cllursc in a l'i\il action brllU!!ht hy a
municipality undcr Scclilln I ~ lll"lhl' Slorm\\alcr rvlana!!cmcnt /\cl. i"or this rcason. lhc
Blacks' prdiminary objectilln inthc lim1l0l"a motilln to dismiss thc township's claim li)r
allorllcy's lecs will bl' sustained,
With rcgard 10 thc prdiminary ol:icclion rcqul'sting lhallhc complainl hc strickcn 1i1l'
contravcning thc rnk that scparatc causcs 01" aclion should hc plcd in separale connts.22 a
revicw ofthc complaint docs not indicate such a breach, Thc complaint. in thc courl's view.
sets lilrth a single cause of action. lill' violalion 01" thc municipality's slorm watcr
management ordinance -- a claim authorized by lhe state's Storm Water Management Act.
~f .
(
r,
The requesl thaI the complaint be stricken 1i1l'Iack 01" eon Iim1lily with Pennsylvania Rule or
CivilProeedure I 020(a). therelilre. cannot he sustained.
Finally. with regard to the Blacks' prdiminary objeclionto the township's complaint
in the limn ofa motionli,r a more specific pleading, it has becn said that
Itlhe queslionto be decided when a prdiminary objection in the
limn of a motion lor a more specilic pleading is interposed .., is
whether [the I pleading is sul'liciently clear to enable an opposing
party to prepare a response ......2.1
"In general. when a party states a case in a manner that Iiilly advises an opponent of
the nature of the case and of the matters with which the opponent will be conlronted at trial,
there is no need lor a motion li)r a more specific pleading; the opponent should seek
discovery irhe or she needs more inlormation,"2" In the present case. the court is of the view
22 See Pa, R,C.p, I020(a),
2; 2 Goodrich-Amram 2d ~ 10 17(b): 21. at 265 ( 1991 ),
2" It!. ~ 10 17(b):24. at 268,
9
I
,
.
SII'\l'n.l, Wl'inf!arll'n, hq,
('awl A. Stl'inllnr, hq.
I\kNI'l's, \\'allal'l'.'\:. Nnri,'~
Illlll'inl'SI.
I',(), 1I11x I !f,(,
lIarrishnrg, I' A 171 OX-II fl(,
Athllnl'Ys li,r thl' 1.1Ining I karing liliaI'd
Ill' Sil\'l'r Spring TlIwnship
Ridlanl (', Sndhakl'r. hq,
Philip II. Spare. hq,
Snelhaker, Brennl'llllUJ & Spare. 1',("
44 West Main St.
I',(), lIox J I X
Mechanieshurg. P^ 17055
Allorneys lilr the Township
of Sil\'er Spring
,
j
i'
i
I
"
~
,
'.
;.
"
f
i
I
I
,
[
'.
.!
,
,.
11
,t
,~
\ '
, I
'I'(lWtlSIIIP OF SII.VFH ~;I'I<IIJ(;,
P III lIlt I J I ,
I II '1'111-: (,(1l1H'1' (IF ('UHI'lUIJ PI.FM; (lI-'
"IIHIH:I<I,Aflll ('(lllIITY, PI,;t11ISYLVAIII A
.
v.
'iB - (>i () 1
F()IJITY
.
\
"
i:'
JEFFREY L. BLACK ilnd
LAURIE A. BLACK,
Dt..!f.(~lldi1nLS
C I V I L ACT ION - EQU I'I'Y
,HJHY 'I'HIAI, DEI'lANDr:D
"
"
(/ I
" I'
" I
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Silver Spring Township, Plaintiff, and
Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire
Solicitor for Silver Spring Township
44 West Main Street
P.O. BOX 318
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
"
,
"
h
You are hereby notified to file a written response to the
enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereot or
a judgment may be entered against you.
"
DATE: March 30, 1999
/'~'I ----,
/ /1- \/( //
liLt..' I ' //{..v>~
ndrew C. Sheely, Esquire"
Attorney for Defendants____;
127 S. Market Street
P.O. Box 95
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
717-697-7050
717-697-7065 (Fax)
i
!
)it
~,
TOWNSIIII' OF ~;ILVI-:H SI'HII/(;,
I'I"inLi j I,
III TilE f'flllHT OF ('OHHOIl i'LE^:; fW
ClJl-lBI-:HL^lIIJ f'll1lllTY, i'Ernl~;YI,VAlII^
v.
'Ill - (,} () I
1':c.lIIITY
JEFFHEY L. IJLM:K dnd
L^URIE ^. IJL^CK,
Defendants
CIVIL N:Tlllll - I-:,lIJITY
JUHY TH1^" m:r'lAllDEIJ
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
. i
:'
Defendants, Jeffrey L. Black and Laurie ^. Black, by and
through counsel of Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire, hereby file this
Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint and respectfully
state as follows:
1. Admi t ted .
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Denied. It is specifically denied that real estate owned
by Blacks is topographically downstream from adjoining lands and
it is specifically denied that real estate owned by Blacks con-
tains a natural watercourse for storm water purposes, and strict
proof is demanded thereof at trial, hearing or otherwise.
5. Admitted in part/Denied in part. It is admitted that the
Final Subdivision Plan of I. Dale Black Et Ux. is recorded in the
Recorder Office in Plan Book 52, page 119 and that such plan is in
Defendant's chain of title. It is specifically denied that the
alleged watercourse is depicted as a "20' Drainage Easement" on
the aforementioned Subdivision Plan and strict proof thereof
(h~rn(ln<J(!d ill. t.riilJ, IIpflI inq or ()t.hflr'.."is(~.
6. Admitted ill Pdf t./l>PIlIPd ill Pill I.. It. is ddlllitu!d that
Drdpllditnt.:.; lIlovpd soi I dfld ol,IH'J Hld'-f~l i.lls Of} Lhf!i r propprLy Stlh~if'-
qUPllt 1.0 o(~l'()hpr 16, l'J~}~.
dilnls moved soil ami OtlWI
It i:. ~jpPC.if.i.<.'dJ ly dUl1iud that. Delf!lI-
lIIill.C~1 iil]S ill the area of the alleged
wat.(JI:cour:se subsequent to Oct.GtJcn 1 G, 1995 so as to prevent thf?
natural flow of stormwater throtl<)h Black real estate as alleged in
paragraph 6 of Plaintit f' s Complaint. By way of further response,
it is specifically denied that Defendants moved soil and other
mater'als subsequent to October 16, 1995 as to cause the accumula-
tion of water on adjoining lands as alleged in parilgraph 6 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
7. Admitted.
8. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 8 of Plain-
tiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no re-
sponse is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure. To the extent that an answer may be required, the
allegations are denied and strict proof thereof demanded at trial,
hearing or otherwise.
9. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 9 of
Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no
response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure. To the extent that an answer may be required, the
allegations are denied and strict proof thereof demanded at trial,
hearing or otherwise.
3
10. 1J"llll'd. 'Iii" ,t1IPqdll()II~; ('()/ll.llllf'd III pdldqldph 10 of
PJdint.itl '~; ('O/llpJ.llllt 1'()II~;t IIlIt,. ('()1lf.'111~;1()1I~; oJ J.1'v/ lo whIch 110
If!SI)(lIl~;P I~; II'JlII,.'d 11111:';1101111 10 fli/' PPIlII:;ylvdllid HIII,.~; of Civil
I'roc(~dulf>. To ttll' 1';';11'111 Uldl dll dll'sWf'1 IlIdY tH! n~qtlil'(~d, ttlp
all~qatiouB d['{l df!111f!d dud stl i(~t. ploof tlH~I(!ot (j(!lIlillHJed ill t.rial,
h~cJ.rinq or o'_h(!rwlsu.
11. 1J"nwd. '1'1", ill I '''J.1t ions contilin,'d in pilt"ilCjt"aph 11 of
Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no
response is n'CJuir(>d pUI'suant to the Pennsylvaniil Rules of Civil
Procedure. To the extent that an answer may be required, the
alleCjations are denied and strict proof thereof demanded at trial,
hearinCj or otherwise.
12. Admitted in part/Denied in Part. It is admitted that
Plaintiff directed the correspondence attached to Plaintiff's
Complaint to Defendant Jeffrey L. Black. Defendants are without
sufficient information as to respond to the allegations pertaining
to when Plaintiff became aware of the movement of soil and other
materials on Defendants property. By way of further response, the
allegations contained in paragraph 12 which aver that a land
disturbance activity occurred constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required, however, to the extent that an
answer may be required, the allegations are denied and strict
proof thereof demanded at trial, hearing or otherwise.
13. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 13 of
Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no
4
,
,
tPSI)(>I1~;P in lf~(p1il(>d fHJrSlJdllt. t.o tlip 1'(~l1flSylvdl1ld HlJlr~s ot ('lvll
J
"
1
,
I ~
, !
t
ProcpdllJP. To thp (lxt1'1I1 Llidt dll liflSWPJ llIilY IJ(~ J(~qlJiJ{!d, t.tH'
,tllf''fdt jCJII:; dIP (h~lIil'd dlld ~;tr let. pI()of Uu'rf'oJ d(>lIldllcl('d .It If i.lI,
heillilHJ or ot.l1prwise.
,
I
'.
;!
1.1. f)eniJ.?d. To Lh(~ contrary, Dc!f(~IHJaIlLs 1lI0V(~ItI(.-!nt of soi 1. and
other lIIilt.(~L'ials subseqU(.!lll to OCLobur 16, 199~) has not petmanently
impeded the natural drairwqc of stormwatcL
15. Denied. The alleqations contained in paragraph 15 of
"
Plaintiff's Complaint constitute cOllcJusions of Jaw to which no
response is required pursuant to the pennsylvania Rules of civil
Procedure. To the extent that an answer may be required, the
allegations are denied and strict proof thereof demanded at trial,
16. Denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff has various adequate
~
}
\ '
r
I
,
hearing or otherwise.
remedies at law which it has failed to pursue prior to the initia-
tion of the above-captioned action.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that judgment be
entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff and that all
,
,
costs of the action be imposed upon Plaintiffs, together with any
i
I
other additional relief as may be just and proper.
,
\
~
R.&!LMA~'!'JU!
~
, I
17. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon
which relief can be granted.
18. The incident and or purported harm described in Plain-
,
(!>
"
.1
"
5
i
.,
d
r 'J
I
,I..."
~....
ti It's COUtpld 1111 ""lY hdV" 1>""11 ",III';"d I>y 0' (''''ll r il>tll"d to I>y 'h"
Pia i 111. i t I .
JII. PJdilltift is S""kill<J Lo dpply (Jrdilldll('p II', _ 11 ill I"LIO-
dct. i V(~ fIldlHlUl <lIJa illS L D(! h!lldillll.s.
20. No lIiltural water' COllrse 0xists 011 ,lily adjoillilHj propr]rty
to the west of Defendants' property.
21. Plaintiff is estopped froUt seekillg th0 relief requested
in the Complaint.
22. No diversion or piping of any natural or man-made water-
Course occurred on Defendants' property after October 11, 1995
requiring compliance with Ordinance 95 _ 13 requirements for
obtaining a permit.
23. No soil or other materials were placed on Defendants'
property subsequent to October 16, 1995 which impeded the natural
flow of stormwater through Defendant's property.
24. Plaintiff has suffered no harm or injury as a result of
Defendants lawful use of their property.
25. Defendants are entitled to a trial by jury.
26. Plaintiff failed to exhaust all statutory remedies prior
to filing the above-captioned equity action.
27. The accumulation of water on property adjacent to Defen-
dants lands, if any, is the result of actions of persons or indi-
viduals other than answering Defendants.
28. Plaintiff is preempted from enforcing the provisions of
Ordinance 95 - 13 as it applies to Defendants.
6
7.9. Df.'fr!lldilnl~; W/'II' nol f('q\lif(~d to ohtilin f)ny pPfJllits lor
the ItlOVr!Itl(!Ilt. 01 SOl I dlld ot hPf It1dtPf Idl~; dft(~r OCt.O})(!I I(}, I <J<)'i.
\11I1':HEFOHE, 1J"/"IIILIIII ,; '''';1'''''111111 Y I '!fIU""L LllaL jud<JllIent. bo
ent.ored in favor oj 1J<'lr'IHI"nL" alld iUJilinst. Plaint.iff and tllat. all
costs of t.he action he iml'os"d UpOIl Plaint.iffs, t.ocJet.her witll any
other additional relit!!' as llIay b"just and propoL
Date: Harch 30, 1999
Respectfully sublllitted,
..- 1""---
/ /;({~ v' (' \. <~f .
Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire-
Attorney for Defendants
127 S. Harket Street
P.O. Box 95
Hechanicsburg, PA 17055
717-697-7050
717-697-7065 (fax)
7
VERIFICATION
Matter are true and correct.
1 unduIsLdnd thilt t1I1SWOI II stilt.C~l1Il..!lItS
11
~J
I
~
veri fy that thu stdU!llu!nLs lI1ddt' in l.hj~; ^1I~IWPI dlHI tl(~W
herein arc made subject to lh(? penaltins of IB Pa. C.S.A. Section
4904, relating to unsworn [alsi[ iCiltion to author Hies.
DATE: March '.", , 1999
.J /, J I" ,
'... ~. ' , .. .,
.:. .,,.....' . J '~'.' ._' ~,..:! _ _
JeffreY.'L. Black
.
r'
h
I
I
I
Ithrough Defendants' property. The relevant averments in
I
IPlaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein, by way of further
Iresponse.
!
21. The statements in paragraph 21 arc conclusions of law
to which no response is required, and, therefore, are deemed to
be denied.
22. It is admitted that Defendants did not provide any
piping across their property at any time to accommoddte flows of
water from lands to the west. It is denied that Defendants' did
not "divert" water as averred. On the contrary, it is averred
that Defendants' filling of their property obstructed the natural
course of surface water drainage in violation of Ordinance No.
95-13. To the extent that the statements in paragraph 22 are
conclusions of law, no response is required and said statements
are deemed to be denied.
23. The averments of paragraph 23 are denied in all
respects. On the contrary, all of Defendants' placement of "soil
or other materials" at whatever time has impeded the natural flow
of stormwater through their property. The averments in
Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by way of further
response.
24. To the extent that the statements in paragraph 24 are
conclusions of law, no response is required and said statements
LAw OFFICr.~
SNELlMKCR.
BRENNEr.1^N
& Sf-'M~E
are deemed to be denied.
It is admitted that Plaintiff has
suffered no phvsical harm or injury because of Defendants'
actions since Plaintiff owns no real estate within the drainage
-2-
,
I
f
iarca being obstructed by Defendants. ffowcvcr, in its municipal
iand governmental character of being interested in the disposition
of surface drainage on a township-wide basis, Defendants' actions
have indeed caused "harm or injury".
It is denied that
Defendants' use of their property is "lawful". On the contrary,
their obstruction of the natural dralnageway is unlawful for all
25. The statements in paragraph 25 are conclusions of law
the matters set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint, which matters are
incorporated herein by reference thereto.
to which no response is required, and, therefore, are deemed to
be denied.
26. The statements in paragraph 26 are conclusions of law
to which no response is required, and, therefore, are deemed to
be denied.
27. The averments in paragraph 27 are denied in all
:'
respects. On the contrary, the accumulation of water on upstream
properties is the result of Defendants' obstruction of the
natural drainageway across and through their property. By way of
further response, Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all
of the averments contained in its Complaint.
28. The statements in paragraph 28 are conclusions of law
.
!
to which no response is required, and, therefore, are deemed to
L^,N orFler,;
SNELOAKCR.
BRENNEMAN
ft SL>ARE
29. To the extent that the statements in paragraph 29 are
"
"
j.
"
[,
I
be denied.
conclusions of law, no response is required and said statements
are deemed to be denied. By way of further response, it is
-3-
I
Idenied that Defendants had no duty to obtain permits for their
I'movement of soils and other materials after October 16, 1995."
Ion the contrary, Ordinance No. 95-]] (more fully cited in
'complaint) became effective on October 16, 1995, thus requiring
Defendants to comply therewith including the obtaining of
requisite permits.
the relief sought in the Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests your Honorable Court to grant
By
& SPARE, P.C.
'cha
44 West Main Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318
(717) 697-8528
Attorneys for Plaintiff
-4-
,
,
!
i
I
I I hereby certify and verify (a) that I
!Township Manager in and for the Township of
YERI FICATION
am the duly appointed
Silver Spring, (b)
that said Township of Silver Spring is the Plaintiff herein, (c)
that I am authorized to make this verification on behalf of the
Plaintiff, (d) that, as to those facts in the foregoing
Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' New Matter within my personal
knowledge, I verify them to be true and correct, and (e) that, as
to those facts not within my personal knowledge, I believe them
to be true and correct based upon information from others. I
understand that any false statements in said Complaint are
subject to the penalties of 18 PA.C.S. ~4904 relating to unsworn
statements to authorities.
('''\ ii' \,'i, (,
/"-...J,'.;>-/\' _
William S. Cook
(Township Manager)
Dated: May ~ , 1999
<:: F;RTIf'L<:,6cTS,--OF~BRV LCE
I hereby certify that I am this date serving a true and
correct copy of the Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' New Matter
upon the attorney for Defendants by sending the same by regular
first-class mail postage paid addressed as follows:
Andrew C. Sheely, Esqulre
P.O. Box 95
Mechanicsburg, 17055
/ ~f'~
rd C. Snelbaker
SNE BAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P.C.
44 West Main Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318
(717) 697-8528
Attorney for Plaintiff,
Township of Silver Spring
Dated: June 1, 1999
SII.VI'R SJ>RIN( iT< )WNSIIIJ>
J>lainlilT
IN Till; ('OIIIU oJ. ('OMMON I'll, AS oJ.
('IIMIlI'RI^Nll ('( >t INTY. J>I'NNSYIV^NI^
v,
('lVII, J\( TIC IN - H)IIITY
,II'FFREY I.. BI.^CK.
Iklcndant
NO, 9l{-(, I () I H)IIITY TERM
OR!)I,:R OF cot IRT
ii,
^ND NOW. this!7 day oi'June, 1999. a pretrial eonl<:n:nee in the abovc matter is
SCHEDULED lilr Monday. August 23.1999. a13:30 p,m.. in Chambers of the undersigned
judge. Cumberland County Courthouse. Carlisle. Pennsylvania, Pretrial memoranda shall
be submitted by eounsel in aecordanee \\'ith C,C.R,!', 212-4. at least five days prior to the
prt'trial conference.
A NONJURY TRIAL in the above matter is SCIIEDULED for Monday. Scptember
27. 1999. at 9:30 a,l11.. in Courlroom No. I. Cumberland Counly Courthouse, Carlisle.
Pennsylvania,
BY THE COURT.
, ~-/--:,[. - /1
.J. csley Oler.,!r.. J, '"
I.
. /
'.'
Richard C. Snelbaker, Esq.
44 W, Main Street
Meehaniesburg, PA 17055
Attorney for Plaintiff
(:'ttU~1 be ryptWnll<n Jnu lu::tnlll<d ,n dlll'licJlel
TO THE PROTHO~OT,\RY OF CDtnERL.\\D COt\TY
P!~3se ~tSl ~h.: :'oilJw\n; ':~!l':
(C~e~k vnel
lor JLRi' :r::t Jt :h.: ",n: :e~:":1 -)( ;;'.t! .:cur:.
x
ior waJ Without J Jur:.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION OF CASE
(enlire caption mUll :e mled on full)
(check Jne)
A)SUm?~l:
TOWXSHlI' OF SILVER SI'RIXC,
Trespass
T"'F3SS (~tolor Vehide)
(other)
(P!3lJltiii)
VI.
JEFFREY L. BLACK and LAURIE A. BLACK,
(Deiend3nl~
pretrials will be
(Briefs are due 5
pretrials)
(The party listing this case for
trial shall provide forthwith a
copy of the praecipe to all
counsel, pursuant to local Rule
214-1.)
held
days
on
before
VS.
:-<0, 98 6101
Cd
EQUITY
!9_
lndic:lt~ the Jttorncy '.\'ho wm try ';Jse (or :he ?3r:y '.vho iil~s :hi3 ?fJ.cclpe:
Richnrd C. Snelhakcr,
(Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, P. C.)
Inc.k3t~ tri:li .;ounsel for other partles If ~nawn: And rcw c. Sheely t Esqu i re
T:1is (':!$e is re:!.dy fer t:iJ.!.
SP RE, P. C.
~
Sigr"c: Bv
Pr:nl SJ1~;~:
Richard C. Sne1baker
DJ"; June 1, 1999
At:or~~y :'Jr:
Plaintif f
,
..
I
\ '
,.
l
.\
.
..
~
~. I
TOWNSIIIP OF SILVJo:H SPHIIHi,
PI di Ill. if I ,
IN '1'111-: ('(Jilin (W ('()l'II'\(lN I'I.I':A:; (W
('III'IIH':HI.AlH> ('(JlIIIT\', 1'I':IHI:;YI.VAllI A
v.
911 - (>I 0 1
EVIIITY
JEFI"HEY J" BLACK and
LAUHIE A. BLACK,
Defendants
C I V I L N"I'I ON - 1';r.JlJI'I'Y
\\ .
"
DEFENDANTS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Defendants, Jeffrey L. Black and Laurie A. Black, by and
through counsel of Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire, hereby file this
brief pursuant to Rule 210-6 of the Ninth Judicial District
(Cumberland County) in support of their Preliminary Objections to
the Complaint in Equity filed by the Township of Silver Spring.
I. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND SUBSTAN-
':tLVJLFAC.T.,S"fJl.QI4._J;>LE;ltD_UHlS ..AND DOCKET ..ENTJU,ES
Plaintiff, the Township of Silver Spring!, commenced the
above-captioned matter on or about October 26, 1998. The Township
of Silver Spring is a second class township.2 The sixteen (16)
paragraph Complaint is characterized as an action in Equity. The
Defendants are Jeffrey L. Black and Laurie A. Black, adult resi-
1 Plaintiff's Complaint at paragraph I
2 Plaintiff's Complaint at paragraph I.
,knts who live and own plOP"lty in th(~ Township of SilV"I" SpriIH).J
J.,
I:
I
I
Il.
l'ilJiHjlaph .1 of t1lf, ('olllp)."nt all",!",; that DeJendant,;' ploprn-
ties ine "toporjraphicaJ Iy dOWIlStLbJlII of ldnds adjoining on UlC
west and containinq natural watercourse! tor stoI'ln water purposes
draining upstrealll lands . .
"
par"aqr"aph 5 of the Complaint
alleges that "said watercourse" is depicted ("20' Drainage Ease-
ment)" on a subdivision plan being in the chain of title of the
lands owned by Defendants. Paragraph 13 alleges that Defendants
are required to "keep open the natural watercourse" through Defen-
dants' real property.
paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ll, and 12 pertain to allegations
that Defendants committed certain land disturbance activities in
violation of a Township Storm Water Management Ordinance. Specifi-
cally, paragraph l2 avers that certain written notices were deliv-
I
'-
.,
,
ered to Defendants wherein the Township of Silver Spring purport-
edly notified Defendants of the Ordinance violations. The notices
are incorporated collectively as Exhibit "B" attached to Plain-
tiff's complaint. Several of the notices, attached collectively
as Exhibit "B", clearly advise the Defendants of their right to
appeal the notices to the Silver Spring Township Zoning Hearing
Board.4
,~
I,
i
: '
3 Plaintiff's Complaint at paragraphs 2 and 3.
I,
['
4 See "Exhibit B" attached to Plaintiff's Complaint,
of Enforcement Notice of Violations dated May I, 1998 and
1998.
page 2
May 19,
\
I'dJ"'p"pll 1.1 of I'I"intiff's i1ction in f''Iuity i111f''l''s 1.11,11
f)pff'f1ddllt'.'.; (~()fld\l(.t ild~j iIllJJ('df,eJ UH' f1dttlldl dldilhHJP of
stolmwat.p, .
P'lldq1dllil:; III dlld 1(1, l.'()JH~llIsj()IIS 01 Idw, dVf~1 Uldt d
Township Onllniln,," "utilO!!;:es <e'luity action and no rellledy at law
exists.
tions raise seve?["al notable juriSdictional objections, speciCical-
object ions to P I a ill t.i f( S i1eti.on in Equi ty. The P reI iminal'y Obje,e-
On or abollt November l7, 1998, DeCendants Ciled pr<elimillilry
Township ZoninCj llearinCj Board involving the notices referenced in
ly citinCj to a pcndinCj appeal at a decision of the Silver SprinCj
paraCjraph l2 of Plaintif Cs' equity action. 5 The Preliminary Objec-
tions also challenge the basis of Plaintiff's equity action which
fails to include allegations of fact necessary to support an
action in equity. Defendants' Preliminary Objections further
challenge Plaintiff's failure to allege several basic facts which
are necessary to support the equitable and other relief sought in
Plaintiff's complaint. Lastly, Defendants' Preliminary Objections
highlight the encroachment of Plaintiff's Complaint upon numerous
Rules of Court regarding civil procedure, rule violations which
action and which serve to work against judicial economy.
prejUdice Defendants ability to properly defend against the equity
5 See Paragraphs 2 through 7 of Defendants' Preliminary
Objections. S.",,,, .3,lJ?o Exhibit "A" attached to Defendants' Prelimi-
nary Objections and reference to the Court of Common Pleas Docket
NUmber 98 - 5951.
3
'1'1 If' TOWllShip of Si]v"r Sprill'l 'ist."d f)"II'ndilllt.S' 1'1'" illlillillY
U1> j(~cLiolls for ilnpJlnellt on NOV(!lIlbez If), I {)9B dnd Ltl(~ lIIatt(~rs rln~
llOW ll!ildy for disposit.joll by t.h" COllI I..
II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
A.
General rules of law regarding equitable and
legal actions by a municipality to enforce land
uses
B.
Whether Plaintiff's action in equity should be
dismissed on jurisdictional grounds where Defen-
dants are engaged in a statutory zoning appeal
involving administrative decisions made by agents
of the Township of Silver Spring and where Plain-
tiff's action in equity is based upon the same
administrative decisions pending in the land use
appeal?
Suggested Answer: Yes.
C.
Whether Plaintiff's action in equity should be
dismissed on jurisdictional grounds wherein the
activity alleged in Plaintiff's complaint is
regulated by statutory procedure authorized by
Municipalities Planning Code and statutes regu-
lated by various state agencies, especially where
the equity complaint is void of any averment
alleging that such remedies were unsuccessfully
pursued by a municipality?
Suggested Answer: Yes.
D.
Whether Plaintiff's action in equity should be
dismissed where a pending zoning appeal is
currently before the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County and where such zoning appeal
involves several of the same issues which serve
as the basis for Plaintiff's action in Equity?
Suggested Answer: Yes.
E.
Whether Plaintiff's Complaint fails to set forth
a cause of action for attorney fees as demanded
in Plaintiffs nWherefore Clausen?
4
"
Suggested Answer: Yes.
F.
Whether Plaintiff's Complaint fails to set forth
a cause of action in equity where the basis of
the complaint involves activity regulated by the
Department of ~nvironmental Resources and
where the Complaint fails to allege facts
demonstrating that such available statutory
remedies have been pursued?
,.
i .
Suggested Answer: Yes.
,
:\
G.
Whether Plaintiff's Complaint fails to set forth
a cause of action in equity where the pleading
fails to allege any damage or harm to the
community or Plaintiff to support an action in
equity?
Suggested Answer: Yes.
H.
Whether Plaintiff's Complaint fails to set forth
a cause of action in equity where the pleading
fails to aver sufficient facts to warrant equit-
able relief on the basis of subdivision plan
conditions or note violations?
Suggested Answer: Yes.
I .
Whether Plaintiff's Complaint fails to set forth
a cause of action in equity where no final deter-
mination has been made regarding the adminis-
tration decision made by the staff of the Town-
ship of Silver Spring?
Suggested Answer: Yes.
J.
Whether Plaintiff's Complaint fails to set forth
a cause of action in equity where the Ordinance
allegedly violated is a penal ordinance and where
the Complaint fails to allege any facts
demonstrating that Plaintiff has sought to
pursue any enforcement of the purported viola-
tions through the summary process?
5
Suggested Answer: Yes.
K.
Whether Plaintiff's Complaint violates Pa.R.C. P.
No. l020(a) by failing to set forth separate
causes of actions in separate counts?
i,
Suggested Answer: Yes.
\
I'
I
L.
Whether Plaintiff's Complaint violates Pa.R.C. P.
No. 1028(a)(3) by failing to specify the sections
of the Ordinance which Defendants allegedly vio-
lated?
.
Suggested Answer: Yes.
,.
III. DISCUSSION
A. General rules of law regarding equitable and legal
actions by a municipality to enforce land uses
In general, there are three (3) types of actions which a
municipality can pursue in equity for purported land use viola-
)
I
t"':
tions. '1'raditionally, a municipality could pursue common law
principles of equitable relief in order to stop the use of proper-
: (
ty which was considered deleterious to the pupJJ~c health, more
commonly referred to as a "public nuisance". ~e~eEee1gy~-,,-,-
Borough of Ridley Park, 121 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 564, 551 A.2d 373
(1988). In order to obtain relief in the nature of a public
nuisance, the use of property must be characterized as an "incon-
~
\
~
"
.i;
:~
, ,
venience or troublesome offense that annoys the whole community in
6
1)(~(~1I vio!cltpd. '. SlIell dC't.lOI1~; dl(~ pl(~ltlispd upon UIP pI illciplf' tlldl.
d pl()p(~rf_y OWIlPJ lids tlH' t iqill 1.0 dccPpt OJ IPjc'ct flu' COIHliLiOllS
d~: poll I 01 d ~;ubdivisi()lI OJ Jdnd d(>v(~I(}pl1l(~llt lippl H:dt.ioll, or by
Cl. 20';, ';'J'/ A.2d 196 (I'J')I).
Lions. BOIlIWI v. Upper l-!,lket ieJd Towllship, 142 PiI. COllulIonwealth
rettJsifH} t.O IHln.:hafH~ n~i11 p'-Op(~rLy which contilins such n!str"ic-
The law is well established that equity has no jurisdiction to
Corporation, l64 Pa. Commonwealth Ct, 546, 643 A.2d ll20 (l994).
beilHJ pursued. Klein v. Shadysi.de Ileal th, Education and Research
diction is inappropriate when a statut.ory zonin() Appeal is alno!ildy
On the other hAnd, it is .impor-tant. to note that egulty juris-
procedure provided by the leqislature for the resolution of the
resolve a controversy where to do so would Obviate statutory
210 A.2d 256 (1965). Jurisdiction is generally stated as the
controversy. Commonwealth v. Glen Alden Corporation, 418 Pa. 57,
tXi.c::t, 52 Pa. COITUllonwealth 541, 417 A.2d 260 (1980). As set forth
209 A.2d 802 (1965); Lilshe v. NorthernYork.CQllnt:YSchOQLJ:J.i~
matter. Studio Theater, Inc. v. CityofWashi.ngtol1, 418 Pa. 73,
power of a court to entertain a jUdicial inquiry into a particular
directions of the legislation must be strictly pursued and such
in L,il.sl1g, "[w]here a remedy is provided by an act of assembly, the
9 Sgg Pgrri,gg.y:,._J:jo.rning, 440 Pa. Super 3l, 654 A.2d 1183
(1994), P.oyI5J_Stpl'Jl1__J'.O\oJ:r1phirLy._Teelillg, 160 Pa. COllUllonwealth Ct,
397, 635 A.2d 657 (1993), <l/:lpe.ilLclel1.igcl, Pa. , 653 A.2d
1234 (1994).
8
remody is oxcl\1siv(~". Ldshe, r}?, Pi}. C01t111l01lWf~dlLh at. ~}4B, .117 ^.2d
ill. ~(d '1"01 i Il<J , Lilri(, v. }wl'uhli<:illl ^lli"dJI, ,IJ~ I'd. (,1, (d, l~~
^.~t1 3(,", ](,~ (1%3).
As opposc~d to equity actiolls, numerous statutory remedies are
avai labl(~ to municipalities which seek lc) enfOI'ce violations of
land use ordlllilllCCS. For violations ot il zoninq ordinance, a
municlpality may proceed by initiating an enforcement action
pursuant to the Section (,17 of the Pennsylvania r'lunicipalities
Planoing Code, as amended, 53 P.S. l06l7 (1998 pamph). violations
of a land development or subdivision ordinance are governed by
Section 5l5.3 of the pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, as
amended, 53 P.S. Section lOS15.3 (l998 pamph). The procedures
available through the Municipalities Planning Code involve either
the filing of an enforcement notice for violations of a zoning
ordinance or for violations of a land/subdivision development
ordinance. The procedures are readily available to municipalities.
Notably, the Municipalities Planning Code provides exclusJYe
jurisdiction to municipalitles to proceed before District Justices
for violations of zoning, subdivislon and land development ordi-
nances once a determination haF been made by a zoning hearing
board or a landowner's failure to appeal a civil enforcement
notice issued pursuant to the relevant sections of the Municipali-
ties Planning Code.
In addition to the provisions of the Municipalities Planning
9
Code, a second class township, such as the Township of Silver
SprinCj, has leqislative iluthority to PU1SlW onlindnc<J violations
throllCjh the sUllullary, criminal [JLoccdure. 'I'll(! Second Class Town-
ship Code provides an exclusive statutory remedy for violations of
Ordinances involving property maintenance and water .10 These
provisions of the Second Class Township Code direct a municipality
to pursue enforcement of such violations throuCjh the sununary,
criminal process.11 Accordingly, the Township of Silver Spring is
authorized with a wide variety of statutory remedies authorized by
the General Assembly for enforcing municipal ordinances.
B. Plaintiffs action in equity should be dis-
missed on jurisdictional grounds where Defendants
are engaged in a statutory zoning appeal involv-
ing administrative decisions made by agents of
the Township of Silver Spring and where Plain-
tiff's action in equity is based upon the same
administrative decisions pending in a land use
appeal.1"
1053 P.S. Section 66601(c.l) (2) and (3) (1998 Pamph).
11 The Township of Silver Spring is a second class township.
Authority for initiation of a sununary offense for a violation of
an ordinapce adopted pursuant to the Second Class Township Code is
found at Section 601 of the Code, as amended, 53 P.S. Section
66601 (1998 pamph). A second class township is authorized by
statute to prohibit public nuisances, by ordinance, on public and
private property. 53 P.S. 66529 (1998 pamph.) A copy of the
upenalu provisions of the Ordinance in question is attached heret
as Exhibit JlAII.
12 The jurisdictional issues briefed in this section were
raised in paragraphs 8 through II of Defendants' preliminary
Objections.
IO
Pa. Commonwealth Ct:, at ~~7, 6q] ^.2d at ]]25.
Kl"in v. Shadyside Health, Education and Research Corporation, 164
civil enforcement proceedings against Defendants pursuant to the
the Township of silver Spring chose earlier this year to initiate
l'iHaCjraph l2 of l'laintia' s Complaint clearly indicates that
ties Planning Code.13 There can be no doubt that the factual alle-
statutory enforcement provisions of the Pennsylvania Hunicipali_
'lations advanced in paragraph 12 contradict the cosmetic legal
conclusion of law in paragraph 16 which claims that no adequate
remedy at law exists. Further, as illuminated in Defendants Pre-
liminary Objections and as noted by Cumberland County docket
Number 98 - 5951, Defendants in this equity action are pursuing
their statutory appeal rights to the action initiated by the
Township of Silver Spring. As such, the Township of Silver
Spring's filing the equity action ~9p~g~Uce is inappropriate
where a statutory enforcement action instituted by the Township
earlier this year is pending on appeal before the Court of Common
Pleas of Cumberland County. Klein, ~YPL~
In light of the pending statutory appeal, Defendants respect-
13 See Exhibit "B" of Plaintiff's Complaint. The notices
issued by the Zoning Officer of Silver Springs Township advise
Defendants of their right to appeal the notice to the Zoning
Hearing Board of Silver Spring Township. While such notices could
be deemed "evidentiary items" warranting a preliminary objection,
Defendants did not object to their attachment to the complaint as
they clearly show the Township's attempted use of a civil remedy
at law to enforce the purported Ordinance violations at issue in
the instant Equity Complaint.
12
fully L'eguest that this lIonor-able CO"' I d I "'" I ,,:: 1'1.. I '" I II '::
aetjon, or in the alternative, def(!l IlJllWI 1111 'tll' Ill'il dill JlJ"lllll-
inary objections until the! matt:(!l dCH'kl'l "11 ,( I'll!
'1,,'11 III till'
Court of Common Pleas of Cumborland ('Ollllly 1:; IlIlly If'!i"lvl'd.
C. Plaintiffs action in cquity should I", dJ flmJ flflod
on jurisdictional grounds wheroln lhe nctJvlty
alleged in Plaintiff's complnJnl Ifl regulntod by
statutory procedure authorlzod by MunlclpnlltJcfl
Planning Code and statutcfl regulnlod by vnriouH
state agencies, especially whore tho equity com-
plaint is void of any avcl'mcnt Illle'jlng lhat
such remedies were unsucccSsfully purHucd by a
municipality.14
Challenges to a complaint on Ihl' I'd" '" II I Jill 1 lid" 'I Ill" Ill'
permitted pursuant to Pa. R. C. P. No. I II/II (d) ,,,,,I I '1i)'I.
failure to pursue adequate statutory 1 I'1II1'd 11'1; .II I' "I"'" 111"0111 Y
First, regarding the allegations 01 1'''''1 "''''''lI'''''' "1">1' il
watercourse, assuming such allegations 1,0 I". 11"1', U,I' dCLiviti(!s
of Defendants would fall within the "xci"" I VI' jlll ";di"llon o[ Lhe
Pennsylvania Department of Conser-vat j 0" il"d Nill"ldl H"so"n:es or-
other state agencies which are char'lecl wiLh U", SLill"lolY duty of
regulating watercourses. 15 See '.lenera I J Y Od"II.'" S v. ('Ollllllonweal th,
1
Department of Conse,vCitiQn and Natura 1 Hc.sou rces,
Pi}. Corrunon-
wealth Ct.
,699A.2ci 775 (199/).
I r tru(!, the actions al-
14 These jurisdictional issues weln lilisecl 111 Snction I,
paragraphs 10 and 11, of DeU,nclants' I'rr,1 j",jlhU'Y Objections.
lSSee Paragraphs 5, G and 13 Oll'liLlntH['s Complaint.
I J
, ,
\ I
, I
leged in the Complaint fall within 32 P.S. Section 693.l16 and 30
Pa.C.S.A. 3301, provisions providing other state agencies with
legal rem"dies at law to refjulate the activity alleged in the
Complaint.
Second, the complaint is silent as to any allegation that
statutory remedies were pursued. Third, the complaint makes no
reference or indication as to whether the Township of Silver
Spring sought to pursue available recourse through the Second
Class Township Codel'
Again, complaints in equity are properly dismissed where
adequate statutory remedies exist. chQrtierF_Y~llgy__~C~ool Dis-
t-,:j-Ct~--'lirli-.i,ni_CLN<LJJ~jgl1-':lLbI2El)~_'-IJlel}~~, 340 Pa. Super 285, 489
A.2d 1381 (1985). Equity will not afford relief unless a statuto-
ry remedy permits irreparable harm or is inadequate. Borouoh of
coUegeville v. PhiJaclgJI2!JL.i1_~!!!:JllXbi\Il..jjEt~r_co~, 377 Pa. 636, 105
A.2d 722 (1954). Statutory remedies "are preferred over those
16 Section 14 of the Dam Act, 32 P.S. 693.1~, imposes the
certain mandatory duties upon the state agency. Thi~ section
requires that the state agency make determinations as to condi-
tions adversely affecting the safety of a water Obstruction or
encroachment and also permits the agency to order an owner of real
property to take such other action necessary to carry out the
purposes of the statute. The purposes of the Act, as found in
section 2 of the Dam Act, 32 P.S. 693.2L include monitoring of
water obstructions and encroachments, in order to prevent unrea-
sonable interference with waterflow and to protect navigation.
17 See Footnote 10 above.
14
found at conunon law... [and] eCJu i Ly wi II 1101. act to save Ii L1qants
from their failure to sLallltcnily protecL their interests where
the statutory remedy is adequate to prevent the harm. Chartiers
supra, 340 Pa. at 303, 489 A.2d at l39l, citirHj 1 Pa.Cons.Stat.
!il504.
In the case of Beaver Falls v. Samuels, 272 Pa. Super 76, 414
A.2d 676 (1979), the Superior Court stated that equity would not
bypass valid statutory procedures. The Court, indicating that the
municipality had not pursued available statutory remedies, held
that "equity will not inquire into a controversy where to do so
would obviate a constitutionally valid statutory procedure enacted
by the legislature." rd. 272 Pa. Super. at 79, 414 A.2d 678.
Defendants direct this Court's attention to the allegations
of the Equity Complaint. There are nQ allegations as to how the
Township of Silver Spring sought to utilize available statutory
remedies prior to initiating the instant equitable action. The
Township of Silver Spring relies on a simple, cosmetic conclusion
of law in paragraph 16 claiming that it has no adequate remedy at
law. Absent meaningful pleadings demonstrating efforts by the
Township of Silver Spring that it sought to pursue available
statutory remedies 9nd that such statutory remedies are unavail-
able, ineffectual or impractical, this Court should not assume
jurisdiction in Equity. Further, the Ordinance sought to be en-
forced by the Township of Silver Spring is not a zoning, subdivi-
15
J02B(il)(6) and 1',09.
'I'h(~ lJ(~rH!Idl rille in p(!Il11sylvill1ia r(~ql1in!s dismissal of an
equity iH.:Liol1 wilen dn ilction ill IdW is dlleddy pendinq OIl t.he law
side o[ court and ....lhieh arises ouL of the same controversy ilnd
involv(2s similar issues sou<Jht: in il subsequent action in equity.
Myshko v. Galanti, 453 Pa. 412, J09 A.2d 129 (1913). In Myshko,
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sustained preliminary objections
and dismissed an action in equity where Plaintiffs were simulta-
neously pursuing an action in contract involvlng similar issues
raised in the subsequent equity pleading.
As stated above, the Township of Silver Spring initiated a
civil enforcement action against Defendants earlier this year. The
issues in that case remain pending before this Court as indicated
at docket number 98 - S951.
Judicial economy is not served as a result of the multiple
actions initiated by the Township of silver Spring against Defen-
dants in these matters. In light of the pending statutory zoning
appeal of Defendants, Plaintiff's action in equity should be
dismissed, or at a minimum, limited to pursuit of issues which are
not part of the statutory zoning appeal.
E. Plaintiffs fail to set forth a cause of action
for attorney fees as demanded in Plaintiff's
UWherefore Clause".20
ZOThis issue was raised in Section III of Defendants' Prelim-
inary Objections, namely paragraph IS.
17
Challenges to wheUWI il complaint sets Co/ th a valid cause of
action are specHicillly P'''JlliLled pursuanl lo Pil. H.CP. 102B (il)
(!) which states as Collows:
(a) Preliminary objections may be Ciled by any party to
any pleading and are limited to the following grounds:
(4) legal insufficient specificity of a pleading (demur-
rer) ;
Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer admit as
true all well pleaded, factual averments, and all inferences
fairly deducible therefrom. /-letrC'P-oUt_an_I'I:gp-",rtY.<,lncLL.iaQiUty
In.sJJE!.f1c:.EL.c.9---..Y_. Pennsylvania Insurance c;ommissioner, 97 Pa.
Commonwealth Ct., 219, 509 A.2d 1346 (1986); aff'e] 517 Pa. 2l8,
535 A.2d 588 (1987). In short, a "deJllurrer admits those facts
that are well pleaded and says simply that their legal consequenc-
es are such as to excuse the demurring party from answering them
or proceeding further with the cause. In effect it implies, 'What
you say may be true, but so what? You haven't stated a cause of
action. ", ~hert?e1::_1L-..._S.bJ'-t:.t_~.r 16 Lebanon L.J. 162 (1976); cited in
Paone v. City of Scrantolb. 9 D.C. 4th 115 (1991).
When ruling on preliminary objections, courts need not accept
as true conclusions of law, unwarranted inferences from facts,
argumentative allegations or opinions. partn~r~V,-R~partment of
Transportation.,
Pa. Commonwealth Ct.
, 664 A.2d 208
(1995). Further, when reviewing a complaint in equity, Pennsylva-
nia courts have required an equitable action to allege all matters
18
essential to recovery, hold in{J thilt impl ied ill leeJations are not
supportive of equitable 1',,1 j{'f. tlamy v. Black, 367 Pa. 523, 80
A.2d 711 (l951).
Defendants first demurrer addresses Plaintiff's claims for
attorney fees in the "Wherefor-e clause" of its pleading. 21 The rule
of law is clear that this claim must fail. "The general (or "Amer-
ican") rule is that there can be no recovery of counsel fees from
an adverse party in the absence of express statutory allowance of
attorney's fees or a clear contractual agreement of the parties,
or some other established exception permitting attorney's fees in
a given situation." C:OmmonIoLealthofPennsylv_aniil,_ !)~p"rJ;me-')J:__ol
Tr"-m;_po):'t.,,.:t;t.9!l---'i:,___~m.i1:h, l45 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 164, 168, 602
A.2d 499, 501 (1992).
Plaintiff's complaint is void of any statutory authority,
contractual agreement or other established exception to the gener-
al rule. 22 Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that
Plaintiff's claims for attorney fees in the "Wherefore clause" of
its Complaint be stricken from the complaint.
F. Plaintiff's complaint fails to set forth a
21 See Paragraph 15 of Defendants' Preliminary Objections.
22 Cumberland County Courts have dismissed similar claims for
attorney fees in equity actions initiated by municipalities. ~ee
New Cumberland Boro~p v. Gates, et al~_42 Cumb L.J. 21 (1997)
(Opinion and Order of Judge J. Wesley Oler, Jr., at No. 97 -2720
Equity term).
19
cause of action in equity where the bas1s of the
Complaint involves activity regulated by the
State agencies and where the Complaint fails to
allege facts demonstrating that such available
statutory remedies have been pursued.'J
The standard oC review for review oC a demurrer as such
applies to preliminary objections is set forth above in Section E
and is incorporated herein.
As set forth above, complaints in equity are properly dis-
missed where adequate statutory remedies exist. Cbartiers Valley
SchooLJti_!LtI:i_<::_t_ -Y.__JLiT9ini_a J'Ia.rts_i9D~_Sj\Q_i'lLtl]l"'I1J::3' 340 Pa. Super
285, 489 A.2d l381 (1985). Equity will not afford relief unless a
statutory remedy permits irreparable harm or is inadequate.
~OJOu9b_9LColJ&gev i:LLEL_v:_,__PJliJAd",lp-hi_i'l_~URuxlLa.I1__\'Ia ter_c:g_._, 377
Pa. 636, 105 A.2d 722 (1954).
Review of Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege t~gt~ demon-
strating the unsuccessful pursuit of statutory remedies or exhaus-
tion of statutory remedies. In addition, in light of the stat-
utory action taken by Plaintiff as averred in paragraph 12 of the
Complaint, there can be no action in equity. As stated in the
Supreme Court decision of Namy v. Bla~k, 367 Pa. 523, 80 A.2d 744
(1951) :
"A plaintiff cannot file a statement which avers one
cause of action, and be permitted, on the trial to
prove, to prove a different cause of action. He must
i'
23 This preliminary objections was raised in Paragraph 17 of
Defendants' Preliminary Objections.
20
SLILe t~ll(! claim O!l which he wi 11 roly to reCOVQr So
cle'nly and concisely that the deCendant lTlay be fully
advised as to wllat he is called Upon to meet. 'l'he
n,j jef aCCorded by a decn,e ill eqllity lTlust confor-m to
I.h" "'IS" as made out by the plr~atlin'ls as well as the
ploofs. EvelY Cdct essenL.ial to entit.le the plaint.iCC
t.o tile relieC wllich he seeks mllst be averred in his
bill. "Id,367 Pa. at 526, 80 A.2d at 746. [Citations
omi tted].
In li'lht. of the absence of specific Cactual averments alleg-
iny unsuccessful actions taken by Plaintiff in pursuit of avail-
able statutory remedies previously discussed24, tile Complaint in
Equity should be dismissed. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully
request that tllis Court dismiss Plaintiff's action in equity, or
in the alternative require that an amended pleading be filed
setting forth appropriate facts to warrant equitable relief.
G. Plaintiff's complaint fails to set forth a cause
of action in equity where the pleading
fails to allege any damage or harm to the
community or Plaintiff.25
The standard of review for review of a demurrer as such
applies to preliminary objections is set forth above in Section E
and is incorporated herein.
In order to plead a valid cause of action for under a public
nuisance theory, it is necessary for tile Plaintiff to allege facts
24 See Pages 9 and 10, Supra.
2STIlis issue was raised in paragraph 18 of Defendants' Pre-
liminary Objections.
21
which all(!CJe inconvpni(!l1cP or t.roublpsolI\f' otlf~IlSf' t.O il whole
community.
^,S d(!t.il1(~c1l)y L1H' COI!\II\CJllw(!illtli ('Olllt. ill (jloff v.
Borougl\ 01 S<!Ilelsvillr>, )1 I'it. CUllullonw""lth CL. .II'), .1),1 A.1<! J1fl
(1974),
"A pllblic Il\lisan(:o is arl illCOllVOllioIlCO or trouble-
some offense that annoys the whole COIIUlIllld ty, and not
merely some particular person, and produces no greater
injury to one peI'son than to another--acts that are
against the well-beinq oC the particular cOl1ununity--and
not dependent upon covenants. The difference between a
public and a private nuisance does not depend upon the
nature of the thine; done but upon the question whether
it affects the general public or merely some private
individual or individuals. . ." citing Phillips v.
Donaldson, 269 Pa. 244, 246, 112 A. 236, 238 (1920)."
GI'QffY. Borough of Sellersville, l2 pa. COl1unonwealth CI.. at 3l8,
314 A.2d at 330.
Review of Plaintiff's complaint yields no such allegations of
harm to the general public. Indeed, the only paragraph which
would appear to describe any actual inconvenience is buried in
paragraph 6 where it is alleged that Defendants actions cause
"such water to accumulate and pond on lands adjoining Black land".
Certainly this allegation does not meet the criteria for describ-
ing an offense that serves as an injury to the well being of a
particular community or the general public.26 See Feeley v. Bor-
26 The allegations of Plaintiff's complaint are akin to a
private nuisance theory, usually brought by one property owner
against another property owner. Absent allegations of inconve-
nience to a whole community, it would appear that the Township of
Silver spring has chosen to pursue a private nuisance theory on
behalf of one neighbor against another neighbor rather than serv-
ing as the advocate for the interest of the whole community.
22
oll<Jh DC f{idley Park, 121 I'a. Com/llonw"illU, Cl. ',(,,1, ',',I ^.2d :l'/J
(It)BB). FurUH~r, it this dIPdS i~j ~jlJb j(.(., to d WdU~I. course as
averTed in Plaint.ill's Complaint, t11(!Il t.l1(~rL' IIIlJSt. be specific
alleCJc1tions of harm othC!r than that. whic~1 St.ilU)S water: accumulates
in the area. ^ccordinejly, Defendants r.espr,ct[ully request t:hat
PlaintiCf's act10n in Equity be dismissed.
H. Plaintiff's complaint fails to set forth a cause
of action in equity where the pleading fails to
aver sufficient facts to warrant equitable relief
on the basis of subdivision plan conditions or
note violations.2?
The standard of review for review of a demurrer as such
applies to preliminary objections is set forth above in Section E
and is incorporated herein.
As set forth above, a municipality has been permitted to
pursue an action in equity to enforce certain restrictive cove-
nants, deed restrictions and explicit conditions noted on a subdi-
vision plan.28 However, when reviewing such covenants, deed re-
strictions and conditions noted on a subdivision plan, Pennsylva-
nia law holds that restrictive covenants are to be strictly con-
strued against persons seeking to enforce them or claiming the
benefits thereof and in favor of the free and unrestricted use of
27This issue was raised in paragraph 19 of Defendants' Pre-
liminary Objections.
28Seg Footnote 9.
23
the (lro(l(Jrty. ^Il doubts and ambi'luitiDs in th(2 Jan'1ua'1e of th"
COVC!J1ilnl il[(! to lHJ n!solv('d ill fdVOI of tllu property O\o/lH~r.
Schulman v. S(211 ill, 1.11 I'd. 106, n I, 141, ^,ld 613, 616 (1%11).
Restrictive covenants are not Cavored by the law and should be
strictly construed iHJainst the party s(!ekin'1 to en Coree such
restrictions. Doylestown Township v. Teeling, 160 Pil. Conunonwealth
Ct. 397, 635 ^.2d 657 (1993), appeal denied,
Pa. , 653 A.2d l231
(l 991).
Review of Plaintiff's complaint reveals no allegations of the
existence of any restrictive covenants. The deed references at-
tached to Plaintiff's complaint are silent as to any restrictions
on the use of Defendants' lands and make no mention of any subdi-
vision plan. The only allegation in Plaintiff's complaint as to
any restriction is found in paragraph 6 which alleges that an area
on Plaintiff's subdivision plan is depicted as a 20' drainage
easement.29 Defendants direct the Court's attention to Plaintiff's
reference to this Plan which fails to demonstrate or allege where
this purported drainage easement is located on Defendants proper-
ty. Absent from Plaintiff's complaint are any allegations that
any drainage easement is clearly delineated, described or defined
in a Note or otherwise on the Plan, or incorporated in a deed as
29 The Complaint is void of any allegations describing where
the easement is located or that such easement area is a public or
private easement.
24
i,
n
i i,
[
r
I
!
I
11,<";".
.,.-
f
I"
"
Accordinqly, DeCendants 1'<'spectfully request that this Ilonor-
,
~ I
L
, '
.
~;
,I
;1"
it!
to prosecut.e by the Township of Silv"j Spl ilHj and wh('If' th', (:orn-
plaint is void of d IlecJdL iO!ls t.hdt P' ()Sf'C\lt lOllS hdV(' pI ov(~n i nef-
foctual.
able Court dismiss Plaintiff's action in Equ1ty on the> basis that
the Complaint has not alloqed the ['equi s it" [actual averments to
, .
support the actions raised in Plaintiff's complaint.
J. Plaintiff's complaint fails to set forth a
cause of action in equity where the Ordinance
allegedly violated is a penal ordinance and where
the Complaint fails to allege any facts
demonstrating that any Plaintiff has sought to
pursue enforcement of the action through the
summary process.3l
The standard of review for review of a demurrer as such apply
to preliminary objections is set forth above in Section E and is
incorporated herein.
Review of Plaintiff's Complaint again reveals no allegations
demonstrating any attempts by the Township of Silver Spring to
enforce the Ordinance in accordance with the provisions of the
Second Class Township Code.32 Accordingly, Defendants respectfully
request that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's action in
Equity on the basis that the Complaint has not alleged the requi-
31 This issue was raised in paragraph 21 of Plaintiff's pre-
liminary objections.
32 Se~ Footnote 11.
26
~li t(~ f ilCtU.l1 dVpr 1!\(!Ut.S t.o ~HlppOr t t.1lt' act i OilS r d i sud in P] a ill-
t. i C f 's camp 1 iI I n L.
K. Plaintiff's complaint violates Pa.R.C. P. No.
1020(n) by failing to 8et forth separate causes
of actions in separate counts.JJ
Due to the variety oC equitable actions which can be pursued
by a municipali ty as addressed above, adh8rence to the Rules of
civil Procedore is warranted to insore that a Defendant is aware
of actions being pursued by a Plaintiff. Defendants challenge the
sufficiency of Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. I028
(a) (2) which states as follows:
(a) preliminary objections may be filed by any party to
any pleading and are limited to the following grounds:
(2) fa..ilure of the pleading:toconfQrm tQ__l.g_W._~QLX1!.l.e-9f
C..9..JlJ:J:. . . .
(Emphasis supplied). Specifically, Plaintiff's hybrid, no count
equity action fails to comply with pa-,--J3-,i:.~._102_Q__C<!J which
states:
(a) The plaintiff may state in the complaint more than
one cause of action against the same defendant heretofore
asserted in assumpsit or trespass. Each cause of action and
<!Dy~cia~g<!IDAE~~elated thereto shal.l be stated in a
peparate count containin~emand for relief. (Emphasis
supplied) .
Review of Plaint,;.ff' s Complaint reveals attempts to plead
33 The challenges asserting rule violations were raised in
Section IV of Defendants preliminary Objections, namely paragraphs
23 through 28.
27
soveral possible! (:,lllfj(~S of dc-Lion lIiddpll in s.iXt.f..-'(!U (l()) pdra-
fJraphs. Some of tltf' pdl,lCpdpl1~-: dPIH~dl to Idis(~ II tIH~()JY of d
public nuisance, while othel piilil<Jlilphs attempt to pursue a theory
of Ordinance violations. S"veral otlwr para'1raphs would appear to
pursue an act ion based upon purported subdivision plan conditions
or covenants Cound in deeds. Also, as stated above, Plaintiff's
seek to pursue a claim for attorney fees, while not supported by
law, is also not set forth in a separate count.
If Plaintiff has set forth sufficient facts to support such
theories as to causes of action," then the Court should require an
amendment of the pleadin'1 so as to prevent against carefully
hidden claims in unrecognizable counts. see generally KrYes~i_y~
?qhQt.t_~l.i'l~s~Tecl:lllologies__Inc., 9 D.& C. 4th 399 (Lackawanna
County, 1991); Slus_aw v_.Lehigh Airport, 11 D. & C. 4th 551, 552
(Lehigh County, 1991). Neither Defendants or the Court should be
required to determine what cause of action or what relief is
sought in the Complaint, especially when the rules of equity
pleading require sufficient facts to avoid jurisdictional chal-
lenges. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court require Plaintiff to file an amended pleading
setting forth the causes of action in equity which it intends to
pursue, or in the alternative, dismiss Plaintiff's complaint in
34 The issues surrounding whether Plaintiff's pleading in
equity set forth sufficient averments of fact to support any
action were previously addressed in Sections E - J of this brief.
28
ilS (!ntirety for lh(~ reasons ~H~t. forth dboVf~.
L. Plaintiff's complaint violates Pa.R.c. P. No.
l02B(a)(3) by failing to spec1fy the sections of
the Ordinance wh1ch Defendants allegedly
violated.Js
Defendants' last preliminary objection requests a more spe-
cific pleading. This objection is authorized by Pa. R.C.P. 1028
(a) (J) which states as follows:
(a) Preliminary objections may be filed by any party to
any pleading and are limited to the following grounds:
(3) insufficient sp~cificityin a pleading;
Averments in a complaint which subject a party to any con-
ceivable theory of liability are subject to challenge by prelimi-
nary objection. ~,"-e t::()Jl!lQr Y:..._l;1l!"9heny General HospitAL 501 Pa.
306, 461 A.2d 600 (1983). A motion for a more specific pleading
is designed "to insure that an adverse party's right and ability
to answer and defend will not be unduly impaired by a pleader's
vagueness in stating the grounds of his suit, and to insure that
the adverse party is adequately informed of the issues he must
meet." 5 Standard Pa Practice ~25.52, at 209 (1962). See al!,;Q
PhiladelVhia County Intermediate Unit No. 26 v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of ~duc~tion, 60 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 546,
522, 432 A.2d 1121, 1125 (1981).
35 These issues were raised in Section V of Defendant's pre-
liminary objections, namely paragraph 30.
29
t
I;
r;
\ ~
, '.
I
,
I';
R(~vjew of Plaintiff's COlllpldinL reveals thilt Plalnlill lidS
"
! \
not ..11<:'J<:d 1.111> sections 01 tllr. oldill'IlIC" wllich W"Ie I'll 11'01 '"dly
, ..,
I.
I, .
&'
viol atf'd. Spr>c if i c,lll y, pill '\ill apll 11 of lIle pl<:ilclin'J is ,) tt'xt
book example oC blanket-based pleadin'J, namely a nOIl-specif lC
reference to an ordinance violation wllich d08s Ilot adequately
inform Defendants as to the issues which they must meet in an
'.
,"
answer to a pleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests
that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's action in equity,
or in the alternative, to require Defendant to file a more specif-
ic pleading.
IV. CONCLUSION
, .
'.....
i;
h
In order to prevent erosion of the special relief warranted
by an action in Equity, Plaintiff should be required to pursue
i
statutory remedies at law before seeking to engage this Court's
~
I
)
:~
.
"
equitable powers. Where there is a statutory appeal pending
involving an action at law initiated by Plaintiff, and where
Plaintiff has not cited to any other statutory remedies pursued by
it or where there are no allegations that such remedies are inef-
fectual or impractical, Plaintiff's complaint in equity must fail.
Further, if Plaintiff is intending to seek equitable relief on
; i'-
~J
various theories, then Plaintiff should be required to set forth
:' ,
each equitable action or theory of relief in a separate count and
30
"
cite to the speeil ic: allLhority tor each cOlluLill the complainL to
allow Defendants to prOp(!f ly i1nsW(~r and d(?fQnd <lcJainst Plaint.if f's
action.
Date: November 22,
1998
RespectfuII(ju nittect,
A'duJ t ~ Iv_
Andrew C. Sheel
lIttorney for
l27 S. I.larke
P.O. Box 95
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
717-697-7050
7l7-697-7065 (fax)
squire
ndants
Street
,
31
,
\
EXHIBIT "A"
I.
,'I.
SECTION 502
SECTION 503
SECTION 504
SEcrrON 505
recoverable from the violator in such manner:L' may now or hereafter
bc provided by law.
PENALTIES
Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Ordinance,
or who shall fail 10 comply with any written notice from Silver Spring
TO,,"TIship which describes a condition of non-compliance, shall be
guilty of a summary offense, and upon conviction thereof, shall be
subject to a fine payable to Silver Spring Township of not more than
one thousand (51,000) dollars for each viol:ltion, recoverable with cost.
In deiault of payment of the fine, such person shall be liable to
imprisonment for not more than thirty (30) days, A new and separate
violation shall be deemed to be committed for each day after receipt
of the aforesaid no lice that such violation exists,
In addition, the Tovmship may institute injunctive, or any other
appropriate action or proceeding of law or in equity for the
enforcement of this Ordinance, Any COUrl of competent jurisdiction
shall have the right to issue restraining orders, temporary or permanent
injunctions, "'Tits, or other appropriate forms of remedy or relief.
APPEAL TO THE SIt VER SPRING TO\\'''iSHlP BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
Any persons aggrieved by any action of the Township may appeal to
the Board of Supervisors within twenty days of that action.
TNSPECllON OF PROPERTY
Upon presentation of proper credentials, duly authorized
representatives of Silver Spring Township may enter at reasonable
times upon any property within the municipality to investigate or
ascenain the condition of the subject propeny in regard to any aspect
reg'.1.lated by this Ordinmce.
The Imdowner shall grmtto the Township, or its agents, access to the
site of the work at all times, wbile under construction, for the purpose
of inspecting the work.
SEVERABTUTY
Should any section or provision of this Ordinance be declared invalid
by a coun of competeD! jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validi ty of any of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance.
SiM:r Spring TOwnship Stonn Waler ~fan3gemenl Ordinance
Anld. V . 29
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Andr"ew C. Sheely, ES'luin!, hereby certify that I am this
day servinq the foregoinq DeCendants' [Jr"joC in Support of prelimi-
nary Objections to PlaintH C' s Complaint upon the following named
individuals this day by depositinq same in the United States Hail,
First Class, postage prepaid, at ~lechanicsburq, Pennsylvania,
addressed as follows:
Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire
Philip H. Spare, Esquire
SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P.C.
44 West Main Street
P.O. Box Jl8
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Date: November 27, 1998
tk/~ t2c J\
ndrew C. Shee
lre
: 13 entitled "Silver Spring Township Storm Water Management
On October 11, 1995, the Township enacted Ordinance 110. 95-
effective on October 16, 1995.
Ordinance" (hereinafter called "ordinance"), which became
wa ter.
described above, thereby preventing the natural flow of storm
and other materials generally in the area of the watercourse
October 16, 1995 Defendants installed on Black Land certain soil
(Complaint, paragraph 7.) After
(Complaint, paragraph 6.)
The Ordinance requires a storm l'/ater Management Permit to be
Ordinance to include "[d]iversion or piping of any natural or
in Land Disturbance Activity, which latter term is defined in the
applied for and issued by the TownShip before any person engages
man-made watercourse." (Complaint, paragraph 8.)
The Complaint alleges that the activities described in
paragraph 6 constituted "Land Disturbance Activity" and that the
the Ordinance. (Complaint, paragraphs 9 and 10.]
Defendants failed to comply with the permitting requirements of
the Land Disturbance Activity by Defendants does not comply with
any of the substantive requirements of the Ordinance.
Additionally,
(Complaint, paragraph 11.)
The Township notified Defendants of the requirement to
comply with the Ordinance which notice included written notices
LAW OFFICES
SNELBAKER,
BRENNEMAN
8: SPARE
dated November 3, 1997, May 1, 1998 and May 19, 1998.
(Complaint, paragraph 12; Exhibit "B".)
Defendants filed voluminous Preliminary Objections on
November 17, 1998. The Township promptly listed the Preliminary
-2-
Objections lor ',nJuml'nt:. D"Il'ncJ,'nt:; I irecJ a 13r1ef in support of
their Preliminary Obj"ction:;. 1~js Briel is filed in oPPosition
'to the Defendants' Prelimin"ry Objections.
II. I SSUEJ,i PRESEII1'ED
,I
I A. Whether the Storm Water Management Act authorizes the
.1 Township to proceed in equ1 ty to restrain, prevent or abate
' violations of its Storm Water Management Ordinance?
I
'I
' B. Whether the Township may proceed with an equity action
',to restrain or abate storm water ordinance violations despite
i Defendants' appeal of a Zoning Hearing Board decision?
SUggested Answer:
Yes.
SUggested Answer: Yes.
C. Whether the Storm Water Management Act permits recovery
of attorney's fees?
Suggested Answer: Yes.
D. Whether the Township may pursue an action in equity to
restrain or abate violations of its Storm Water Management
Ordinance in spite of Defendants' suggestion that the Department
of Environmental Resources or the Fish Commission regulations
should control?
SUggested Answer: Yes.
LAW OF"FICES
SNELBAKER.
BRENNEMAN
& Sf:lARE
E. Whether the Township has pleaded more than one cause of
' ,
I actlon requirement separate counts pursuant to Pa.R.c.p. 1020(a)?
I ,. w::::::t::, A::::~:i"t w~~ '""ioie"tiy 'peoifio oith
I, regard to violation of the Storm Water Management Ordinance?
Suggested Answer: Yes.
II
'I -3-
I,
:,'
I
'I
"
I
"
I
I
II
'I
II
I I I. ARGUMENt
I
I
10f
A. The Storm Water Management Act Authorizes the Township
to proceed 1n equity to restrain, prevent or abate
violations of its Storm Water Management Ordinance.
This equity action is based upon the Defendants' violation
the Silver Spring Township Storm Water Management Ordinance of
1995 (hereinafter called "Ordinance"). The purpose of the
Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and welfare by
minimizing storm water problems such as increased downstream
flooding, eroding and/or silting of stream channels, polluted
water, overloading of drainage facilities and reduction of
groundwater tables.
(Ordinance, Sections 102-03.) Provisions of
the ordinance are designed to:
a) Manage storm water runoff, soil erosion and
sedimentation, both during and upon completion of
a land disturbance activity, by regulating
activities which cause such problems.
b) Utilize and preserve existing natural drainage.
r.) Encourage recharge of groundwaters.
d) Maintain and/or improve the existing flows and
quality of streams and watercourses in the
municipality and the Commonwealth.
e) Preserve and/or restore the flood carrying
capacity of streams.
f) Provide for proper maintenance of all storm water
management structures.
(Ordinance, Section 103)
LAW OFF"rCES
SNE:.SAKER.
BRENNEMAN
8: SPARE
864, No. 167, as amended; 32 P.S. ~~ 680.1 et seq. (hereinafter
in the Storm Water Management Act, Act of October 4, 1978, P.L.
The specific enabling authority for the Ordinance is found
-4-
LAW OFFICES
SNELBAKER
BRENNEMAN
8: SPARE
called "Act"), The Act requires municipalities such as the
I
Town~hip to develop watershed storm water plans and to implement
,
'ordinances necessary to
I
'I
I
implement such plans.
32 P.S. 5 680.11.
A separate section of the Act devoted to civil remedies
provides:
civil remedies
(a) Any activity conducted in violation of the
provisions of this act or of any watershed storm water
plan, regulations or ordinances adopted hereunder, is
herebv declared a public nuisance.
(b) Suits to restrain. prevent or abate violation
of this act or of any watershed storm water plan,
regulations or ordinances adopted hereunder, mav be
instituted in eQuitv or at law Qy the department, any
affected county or municipalitv, or any aggrieved
person. Except in cases of emergency where, in the
opinion of the court, the circumstances of the case
require immediate abatement of the unlawful conduct,
the court may, in its decree, fix a reasonable time
during which the person responsible for the unlawful
conduct shall correct or abate the same. The expense
of such proceedings shall be recoverable from the
violator in such manner as may now or hereafter be
provided by law.
(c) Any person injured by conduct which violates
the provisions of section 13 may, in addition to any
other remedy provided under this act, recover damages
caused by such violation from the landowner or other
responsible person.
(Emphasis added) 32 P.S. ~ 680.15.
The statutory remedies expressly include actions in equity. The
Township is further authorized to proceed in equity by Section
502 of the Ordinance itself. The general requirement that
statutory remedies be exercised or exhausted does not apply in a
case such as this where the equitable remedy is also a statutory
remedy. Millersville Borouqh v. Fruitman, 125 Pa. Cmwlth. 660,
-5-
f.
r{
I
[
I
(
I
,
,I
il
I
I
557 A.2d ll76 (1989). Where the statutc authorizcs an equity
action, use of such a "remedy is not restricted or limited by the
existcnce of another statutory remedy such as a summary criminal
proceeding." 6illersville, 557 A.2d at 1178.
None of the cases cited in Defendants' Brief involve a
municipality proceeding in equity as expressly authorized by the
storm Water Management Act. Under Defendants' argument, those in
violation of an ordinance could force a municipality to initiate
repeated summary criminal proceedings and litigate land use
appeals for months or years before being permitted to seek relief
through an action in equity. Such a result would be contrary to
the express provisions of the Act and contrary to common sense.
The legislature clearly intended the use of equity
proceedings to supplement existing remedies. In addition to the
Act's broad range of civil remedies, the Act provides:
"It is hereby declared to be the purpose of this act to
provide additional and cumulative remedies to abate
nuisances."
32 P.S. ~ 680.16(b).
Where the statute expressly provides that the remedies permitted
are "additional and cumulative", Defendants' attempts to dictate
the manner in which the Township should enforce its ordinance
B.
The Township may proceed with an equity action to
restrain or abate storm water ordinance violations
despite Defendants' appeal of a Zoning Hearing
Board decision.
mUst be rejected.
LAW OFFICES
SNELBAKER.
BRENNEMAN
8: SPARE
Defendants' appeal to this Court from a decision of a Zoning
Hearing Board does not prevent the Township from seeking
-6-
equitable relief.
In support of their argument to the contrary,
Defendants cite to the case of Kt('Lo.-'[._,51!.<lQY.s ide Hea 1 t~
[IEducation and Research CoroQXi}tion, 164 Pil. Cmwlth. ~4G, 643 A.2d I
,I
111120 (1994). There are several important distinctions between
the scenario in the Klein case and the situation at bar. First,
in the Klein case, the appellants in the statutory zoning appeal
were residents who also were the Pla1ntiffs in the subsequent
equity action. In the case sub iUdice, the appellants from the
zoning hearing board decision are the Defendants in this equi,ty
action. Second, the Klein case involved zoning matters and had
nothing whatsoever to do with the Storm Water Management Act or
storm water ordinances.
In the Klein case, much of the Court's analysis focused on
whether the case involved "operational" ordinance provisions in
addition to, and distinct from, zoning ordinance provisions. The
Court took pains to compare and contrast the case of Township of
Plymouth v. County of Montqomery, 109 Pa. Cmwlth. 200, 531 A.2d
49 (1987) with the case of PennSYlvania Coal Co. v. Conemauqh
Township, 149 Pa. Cmwlth. 22, 612 A.2d 1090 (1992). The Court
emphasized that the ordinance at issue in the Klein case involved
only formal zoning provisions, and did not involve non-zoning
municipal regulations. The Court concluded that the trial jUdge
LAW OFFICES
SNEL8AKER.
BRENNEMAN
& SPARE
"was correct in disallowing the use of an equity and declaratory
jUdgment proceeding when the issues exclusively involved are
zoning matters, that can be fully adjudicated in the statutory
zoning appeal." Klein, 643 A.2d 1125. However, in the case at
-7-
:1'
,
II
i!
: bar, no zoninq ordinancen .1rc at isnuc.
. t
'.
The only ordinance violations alleged in the equity
, ,
..
!
\
Complaint involve the Storm Water Management Ordinance. As
"
discussed in the foregoing section of this Brief, such equity
1!
:',
"",
'i .
I
actions are expressly permitted by both the Storm Water
Management Act, 32 P.S. ~ 680.15(b), and by the Township
Ordinance. This Court should not allow Defendants' appeal from a
Zoning Hearing Board decision to be used as a shield to prevent
"
,.
the Township from seeking equitable relief pursuant to the Act
C. The Storm Water Management Act permits recovery of
attorney's fees.
and the Ordinance.
Defendants have objected to the portion of the ad damnum
clause in the Township's Complaint which requests that Defendants
be ordered to pay Plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees. The
Township relies upon the authority contained in the Storm Water
Management Act for its request of attorney's fees. The Act
"The expense of such proceedings shall be
recoverable from the violator in such manner as may now
or hereafter be provided by law."
'I
I
i
,
I
I
.
\
provides, in pertinent part:
32 P.S. ~ 680.15(b)
Part of "the expense of such proceedings" for the Township will
LAW OF'F'ICES
SNELBAKER,
BRENNEMAN
& SPARE
include attorney's fees. This Court is urged to allow the
request for attorney's fees based upon this broad statutory
authority.
The case of New Cumberland Borouah v. Gates. et al., 42
-8-
Cumbo L.J. 21 (1997) cited by Defundants is not controlling. In
'the Npw Cumberland casp, no statutory authority for recovery of
,I
,
'the expense of such proceedings was prcsent.
:i
'I
ii
'I
:1
I The Storm Water Management Act expressly authorizes
I municipalities to initiate actions in equity to abate, prevent or
i restrain violations of storm water management ordinances. 32
I P.S. ~ 680.15(b). The Act also addresses certain activities to
be undertaken by the Department of Environmental Resources. The
D.
The Department of Environmental Resources and/or the
Fish Commission do not have exclusive authority to
regulate violations of thp. Township storm Water
Managemcnt Ordinance.
powers and duties of the Department are set forth in a "laundry
list" contained in the Act. 32 P.S. ~ 680.14. One of the
enumerated purposes of the Act is to: "[e]ncourage local
administration and management of storm water consistent with the
Commonwealth's duty as trustee of natural resources
"
Clearly, the legislature intended local governments to playa
role in storm water management and Defendants' arguments to the
contrary must be rejected.
Defendants' Brief cites to the case of Odette's v.
Commcnwealth. Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources,
Pa. Cmwlth.
, 699 A.2d 775 (1997) for the proposition that
Defendants' activities as alleged would fall into the exclusive
L....w OFFICES
SNELBAKER.
BRENNEMAN
& SPA.RE
jurisdiction of the Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources.
(Defendants' Brief, pp. 13-14.) The Odette's case
involved the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act, 32 P.S. ~~ 693.1-
-9-
f
693.27. If the Defendants wish to plead such a defense in an
"
"
Answer, they may do so; however, the Township's Complaint does [1
,
not make such allegations. \
I'
Defendants' contention that the provisions of "30 Pa. C.S.A. !
Section 3301 et sea." (cited in paragraph 11 of the Preliminary
Objections and on page 14 of Defendants' Brief) have anything
.
whatsoever to do with this case is baffling. Title 30 of Pa.C.s.
Sections 3301 et sea address the "Propagation and Sale of Fish."
,.
Contrary to Defendants' assertion, the facts of record do not
suggest that the matters complained of subject to the exclusive
jurisdiction of any state agency.
,.;
E.
The Township's Complaint sets forth one cause of
action which does not require separate counts.
r'
,
r
,
r'\
The Township's Complaint sets forth only one cause of action
,
,
violation of the Storm Water Management Ordinance. The
reference in the Complaint to the location of the watercourse
1
depicted as "20' Drainage Easement" shown on Plan Book 52, Page
119 and referenced in the deed recorded in Deed Book "P", Volume
32, Page 726, is not an attempt to set forth a separate cause of
Although the Storm Water Management Act declares that
,
\
~
.
,
action.
violations of storm water ordinances are "public nuisances", the
:.Ii
~ I
!:
Township has not pleaded a separate cause of action for a public
, ,
LAW Ql"FICtS
SNEL8AKEA.
BRENNEMAN
8: SPARE
nuisance. The only cause of action here is one of ordinance
violation. The Rules of civil Procedure do not require a
rewriting of the Township's Complaint into separate counts.
\
-10-
i
:
F.
The Township'9 Complaint is sufficiently specific
regarding viol~tion of the Storm Water Management
Ordin~nce.
P~ragraphs 7 through 11 of the Township's Complaint are
5uff1ciently specific to ~llow the Defendants to properly respond
to the averments. The Complaint specifically references the
Ordinance in question.
(Complaint, paragraph 7.) The Complaint
refers to the fact th~t the "Ordinance requires a Storm Water
Management Permit to be applied for and issued by Plaintiff
before any person engages in Land Disturbance Activity.
"
(Complaint, paragraph 8.) The Complaint avers that the
activities complained of constituted "Land Disturbance Activity".
(Complaint, paragraph 9.) The Complaint avers that the
"Defendants failed to comply with the permitting requirements of
the Ordinance before engaging in the Land Disturbance Activity".
(Complaint, paragraph 10.) Finally, the Complaint avers that the
I "Defendants' Land Disturbance Activity
of the substantive requirements of the
,
does not comply with any
Ordinance." (Complaint,
paragraph 11.) In sum, the Complaint avers that the Defendants
did not seek a permit as required and conducted activities which
do not comply with any of the substantive requirements of the
Ordinance. It is not necessary for Plaintiff's Complaint to
provide a list of Ordinance sections violated where the entire
Ordinance was completely ignored.
LAW OFFICES
SNELBAKER.
BRENNEMA.N
8: SPARE
IV. CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons set forth hereinabove, Defendants'
Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint should be
-11-
,
f~
..
t '
.
i
,
I
I
, ,
.
\
t,
o
.~.
.~ !
:',
\
dismissed and DeCendants should be ordered to promptly file an
Answer.
Respectfully submitted,
SNELBA~REN EMAN & SPARE, P.C.
/~) '.
By .,(,.-:
icnard C. Snelbaker
philip H. Spare
44 West Main Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318
(717) 697-8528
Attorneys for plaintiff,
Township of Silver Spring
~"
~
Dated: December 4, 1998
-12-
.0
.0
0
r:,
<:9 " ::;
z " ;, 7-
< :;: " :r:
<( ~ " ~
.J --'
::2 " :-
~ f-. " Vl
UJ <: ^ z
Z ~ z Z
" :(
Z ~ ow
< '" " "-
UJ " Z rj
'" ~ " 0
'" ~
a::l 0 ~ '" ~
'- ::J
c, I- :t '"
" <: Vl
< U
Z
<(
J:
u
ow
:::
;!
Ii
q
:! TOWNSIIIP OF ~;J LVEIl ~;PIlJtIG.
i Plaintiff
IN TilE COUll'!' OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Ii
I
vs.
ClVIL ACTlotJ - EQUITY
"
il JEFFREY I.. BLACK ,lilt!
II LAURIE A. BLACK,
Defendants
No. 9H- .: 11/
EQUITY
tUL':U_~
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 a 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 against 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 lose money
or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE 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.
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
SNELB
/
N & SPARE, P.C.
By
eys for Plaintiff
9. The (l(;tivitie~; dvcrred in Pdr(l(Jr.tpll (, hereinabove
constituted Land Disturbance Activity.
,I
10. DeCendants Cailed to comply with thp p0rmitting
requirements of the Ordinance before engaging in the Land
Disturbance Activity.
II. Defendants' Land Disturbance Activity does not comply
with any of the substantive requirements of the Ordinance.
12. When Plaintiff became aware of Defendants' Land
Disturbance Activity, it notified Defendants of the requirement
to comply with the Ordinance, which notice included written
notices dated November 3, 1997, May 1, 1998 and May 19, 1998,
copies thereof being attached hereto collectively marked "Exhibit
B" and incorporated herein by reference thereto.
13. Defendants are required to keep open the natural
watercourse through Black Land.
14. Defendants' conduct aforesaid has permanently impeded
the natural drainage of stormwater.
15. The Ordinance authorizes its enforcement by this action
in equity.
16. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests your Honorable
Court to:
A. Enjoin Defendants from maintaining the
LAW OFFlCE:S
SNELDAKER.
BRENNEMAN
8: SPARE
impediment of the natural watercourse on Black Landi
B. Order Defendants to remove the materials
placed in said natural watercourse;
-3-
,
I
I
:1
"
"
ii
II
,I
;1
,
ii
I
"
I'
Ii
Ii
Ii
c. Require Defendants to maintain said natural
watercourse for ttle trilnnmin~ion 01 lJIJDtrcam
stormwater;
D. Order Defendants to pay Pla1ntiff's reasonable
attorney's fees, expenses and costs of this action; and
E. Order such other additional relief as may be
just and proper.
By
-~
~chard C. Snelbaker
44 West Main street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318
(717) 697-8528
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LAW OI"FICCS
SNEL!3AKER.
BRENNEMAN
& SPARE
-4-
BUNI Dt.ED
n.~c:...~"'I",1
MADE lb.
~~. a ~~. I
'~!Jttl OV'tt.()J,;;~:" .'(,1-:.;,7~~"~
....,..,,..JJ >_ 01 'CJ ^r~ 23 I"II~ ;u
C>{,>( - "'"Y AprU
In tho yr.r n1oetl)('D bundred au..!
.1VbtY-....D 11997.
B~V~F~ I. OALa BLACa .Dd OOROTHY F. BLACRb hi. wif.,
of"6V69 ..rt..ill. Road, Baol., '.balll..nta, 17 25
aRAlTORS
Aile
JBFFRBY L. BLACK .Dd LADaIa A. BLACK, biB
vlt., of 533 South Fourth Straat, Newport Doroagh1 .Iwport,
Plrry Couoty, PIDDlyl~.aia, .1 t.D.ata by thl Int reti..
CRANTBBS
WITWZSSETBc\ Ybat 10 conlld.ratioo of ONE ('1.00~
DOLLAR io haad pat tbe receipt vblreot il bereby
ackDowiedgld, tb. ..ld graotora do bereby 9raot ead COovIY to
the .aid vraDt..., their beir. .Dd ...190.,
ALL that clrtain pilc., parcel or tract ot laod .ttuat. to
Stlv.r Sprtng Town.hip, Cumberlaad countYi Plnn.ylvaata, aora
particularly bounded and daaaribed .1 tal OWl, to witl
BECISNINC at an troD pin at tbe northv.at cornlr ot
the prop.rty ber.lo d..crJbed In thd clnter at the State
Diqbway leading trom Barri.burg to Sterrett. Cap, Pa. Rout.
944, (.aid iron pin beinq 0.2 all..t more or Ie.., to thl
c.nter 11ne ot Old ~il1ov Hill Roadl at cornlr ot land. now
or form.rly ot Clorge J. and Eleanor E. Wal1acI, thence .10D9
tho conter line of laid Stat. Biqhway and land. DOW or
tormerly of Frank Cole.cott, North 95 degrele 30 minute.
Eaet, (by .urvey) a cU.etancG ot 120.00 feet to. point I
thence by landa at I. Dal. Black and Dorothy P. Black, South
02 degr.e. 10 minute. 00 ..cond. Ze.t, . diet.ace ot 30.02
teet to an iron pin on the dedicated right-of-vay ltal of 'a.
Route 944, tbe Wertzvl11e - Enol a Road, thenca continuing by
.ame and contlnuiDq South 02 degree. 10 minut.. 00 .econd.
Eoat, a dilt.nce ot 259.33 flet to aD iroD pinl tb~nc. along
aame, South B9 d.qr... 53 minute. 00 .econd. Ne.t, a distance
of 130.00 teet to an iron pin at IInqle iroD, tbloCI along
landa now or formerly of Ceorql J. ~.llace and Eleanor E.
Wallace, North 00 degree. 07 minute. 00 s.cond. Kest, .
diatance of 249.91 teet to an iron pin at dedicated
riqht-ot-way linor thence continuing by .ame and continuing
North 00 deqre.. 07 minutea 00 aecond. w..t, a diatance ot
4.38 fe.t to a pinr thance continuing along lame and
continuinq North 00 degree. 07 minutes 00 oecond. WeBt aad
through the riqht-ot-way of Pa. Roote 944, a dietanol ot
25.71 t.lt to . pin, the place ot BEGINNING.
Thl pare. 1 i. ~e.iqnat.d e. Lot 12 in that aurvey
and aubdivi.ion plan prepared by Nalker AS8ociate., dated
February 2, 19B7 and revi.ed February IB, 19B7. Lot 12 ha. .
groe8 area to the center at the road of 35,547.00 squarl
teet, more or leal, with a net aroa to the dedicated
rigbt-of-way line ot 31,930.6 .quare teet, more or 1....
ONDER AND SOBJECT TO TaB building .otb.ck line a.
.hown on the .urvey and plan afore. aid.
said .ubdiviaion plan waD approved on Harch 25, 1987
by the SlIver Spring Township Board ot Supervisors aDd
revI.wed on February 19, 19B7 by tbe Cumberlaad County
PlaDninq CommI..ion. The plan i. recorded in Cumberland
County Plan Book 52 at Page 119.
GRANTING al.o to tbe Grant.e., thair balr. and
...iqna, an .aoement and riqht-of-way SixteuD (16) f~.t in
width for ingreas, agre.. and regr..a leadinq trom Stat.
Biqhway PA Route 944 in a .outhvesterly direction Itarting at
. point marklnq tho we.tern edge ot the within granted
.eaement, which i. North 96 degree. 30 minute. !a.t, t
dl.tanee of 20 !~3~, =o~~ v~ ly.., ZZum that poin~ marking
the northeeat corner of the property hereinbefore described
(Lot 2 Cumbnrland County Plan Book 52 at Pcge 1191, ond
extendiDq in a louthweeterly direction to . point on the
ea.tern border or the h.reinbltore de.crlbed lot a di.t.no.
of 100 t.et, more or 1..., in lenqth tram tbl cIDter line of
PA Route 944.
,
~OOK? 32 PACE 7aJ
.......--..---.-...-..-.
,,-
EXHIBIT A
HEJNO . part of that prop.rty conv.y.d to the
Gt.nlor. herein, by dIad ot 010r91. B. natch, lor~.rly
CIOlti_ I. Quackanbulh, aDd Carr nate-h, hlr hUlband, dated
Jun. J2, 1?62 and r.corded to Cuab.rland County D..d Dook 0,
VoI'I.. 20 at '.9. 240.
Tht. 1. . conyeyanel batva.n parant and child and t.
thar.lor. ...apt Iro. '_"Dlyly.nJ. r..lty tranat.r t.....
~nd the ..1d 9,antor. will 91n.rally WARRAUT AND
PORBV.~ DEPEND the prop.rty blr.by cODvlyad.
IN WITHES8 wa.a.or~ ..id 9rantorl h... har.unto ~.t
thatr hand. a d ..t)I' tb. aay and ya.r firat above writt.n.
SBAL!D AND Dr. IVIA 0
In TU: nun cu 0 ......
~ ?-ti~,j,j
~~~ .Ai..,,/!.mLI
(SULI
ClaTIPICATI or RISXOIHCI
I hlr.bI carti'!l that tb. p ael..
9,.ot... har.ln ... to .0Vlt
533 S. 4th Str..t
N.wpoct, Fa. 11014
r..id.nc.k:~
nll!1!ls
COMMONWEALTH or PBNNSYLVANIA.
. ss.
COUNTY or PZRRY I
On thil, the ).,""P~.y ot April, 1987, betore me a
NotarI Public, the und.r.i9n.~ officer, personally appear.d,
I. Oa . Blaok and Dorothy P. Black, bi. wite, know n to me (or
.atiat.otorily prov.n) to b. the p.rlon. vhu.. name. are
lublcrib.d to the witbin in.trumeat, aDd acknovled9.d that
,they .secuted the .... tor the purpol. therlin contained.
.,: t~.\, .:.'... """
l~ '''~ii):~A~.':'':,.'.. IN "I'I'..88 "O&RIO., I have ber.unto ..t IIY hend and
ji' ',~ ~l""'Q1"!",.,....l.
,':. .1 ,:,f)n~"(('H'~'.,
. : ~t B'I~~)t.,.,:_.;
.1'':; f' ~:,: ..... : '.", ~
.. .(.J ,.... "C'.
il.~ 'I''''';;, - 111::-;;;.:. i
:<.'.<" ' tJ'J.. ". ,~':"'"
" \,. 'I~' '..
Ir, '...~ j' ,",.,'
'. ,.)....., "'1'" .'
""''''''"'2'( ,< ""
'holf':"'D .."
:.........
~OT~~C} tl~C
n~l-' ;}'';\: 19ii1
Mr COHHidslO~ XXP RBSI
~ 32 fl.SE Tl7
--......... .,.-.. .-...-..--.........
-...-----..--...-...."..... ..........--......-----.......-...-. ~....~ '-",-,,'-p'
EXHIBIT A
1.1\ 1'.HII,t ~\l
j ',,~
, '.I
\) r,';" I r ,1'_
.I ., IJ"'
, "
;. ,
,
, I, /..
...,'.1',
'II"~ 1,>1;1;1)
r-.bdt,thc I~~{(l(by nf rrl,t~'(""'1"
nillt'ly lin" (Illl)"l
in Ih~ }'r:u ollr tholl"and ninc hlllldrf'd :ll1ct
Ikl\\t"'1I n()r~On IY F. BI.ACK, :1.11 lIIHt"/Il:urird widow, of (If)(I()
\\'nl/villr HO:Hf. rllflla, Curnhrrl:lnd COllnly, I'Cllll<;yl,,:lt1i:J, Or:lnlor,
;lOci
JI'll'ni'Y L BI.M'K ,",d I.AIJIIIi' A Bl.ACK, hi, wife, of 6q71
\\,{'rt/vill~ HOi1d, Fllola, Cllmhcorl:l11(1 COtlllly, l'enno;ylvi1nia, Gr:lIlICOCo;, a"
ICflallt<; hy the clltirt"liro;
wrrr'i'SSi"IlI, Ihol in con,idcrolion of the 'UIII o( ONE ($ J ,(0) DOl.LAR il1 hol1d paid,
Illl' rc(.'C'ipt whercof is hereby :1cknowledged, the !i:lid Gr.antor does hereby grnnt and co/wcy 10 the
SOlid Grantee!i, Iheir heirs i1nd assign!i:
AI.!, TIIAT CERTAIN property locoled Of Silver Spling Town,hip,
CUl1Iherland COllnty, Pellno;ylv;lIIi:l, more particuli1rly hounded and descritx'd
a" follows, 10 wil:
IlUilNNING i'll :111 iroll pin inlhe center of the slale highway leading from
Ilani"burg [0 Srcrre!'s Gilp; rhence nlong Ihe center line of said slate highway
by lallus now or fomlerly of rmllk ColescolI, Nonh 86 degrees 30 minule,
"",, 3(XJ fcetlo.n iron pin illlhe cenler of 'oid SLlIe highwoy; Ihence .Iong
lolld, now or fonnerly of Ado C. Ewillg el .1, of which Ihis lract was fonnerly
a pan, the following courses and dislonces: Soulh J I deg~es 36 minules Ea"
133 fcello 0 pin; Soulh 38 degrees 51 mioules EasllOO,8 feell~ an iron pin;
thence SOllth () degrees I tl minulcs \Vc~1 tl5.0 (celiO a pin; thence Sotllh 18
degrecs 15 minules \Vest II.l97 feel: thence Soulh ti degrees 10 minules En!il
22(,,811 fCCllo 0 pin; Ihence Soulh 4 degrees 32 minules West 80 feel; thence
SOlllh 17 degrees 29 minute." En~r 258.77 feel 10 a pin; thence SOllth 4 degrees
,lD minute." West 125.21 fectlo ol point itt corner of liUH.JS now or fomlcrly of
Cllri.<;fi:J1l \Vaggoner; Ihence Ollong !iaid lands now or (onnerly of ChristiOln
W:lggollcr, Norlh 83 degrees 48 minules West 519.05 feet to a pin at corner of
lands of Franci!i E. Stoner and Carrie B. Sloner; Ihence along SOlid lands of
Frands. E. SIOrlC'r nnd Carrie n. Sloner, NOrlh n degrrc5 07 minutes \Ve!il C).U
(cetto an iron pin in the cenfer of s:1id highwil)', plllce of Oeginning.
TIlE i\nOVE DESCRIBED tmcl of lond being improved with 0 one-"ory
frallle dwelling ilfld a frame barn. 111e above description is nccording 10 il
sllrvry on the ground l11:Jde hy \V. B. Whillock, Reg. Eng. on Decemher (i,
195,\,
BEING Ihe ,sa"'e propeny which Georgio IJ, 11"ICh, fonnerly Georgia B,
Quaekenhu,h ond Corr Holch, her hu,bond, by deed doled June 22, 1962 ami
Recorded in the Recorder of Deeds Ofnce in Cumberland Connty in Deed Book
Q, Vol"",e 20, Poge 240 granled and conveyed unlo I. Dale Black and Dorolhy
1', mack, hi, wife, The said I. Dole Block has since deponed tl,is eanhly life
whereupon rulltillc hy operation of law incident to len:mcie5 by the: entirelies
vesled ill the said Dorothy F. Hln.ck, his widow"
'1'1 liS IS A TRi\NSACnON FROM MOniER TO NATURAL SON AND
!Ji\UCH ITFR-IN-LA W AND IS 1llEREFORE TAX EXEMPT,
GRi\NTOR IIERElN RESERVES TO HERSELF, rOR AND DURING llER
NATUIIAL LIrE, A LIrE ESTATE IN AND TOTHE ENTIRE PREMISES,
eUI:' 1113 ,';,,- $75
EXHIBIT A
Signed, \Cillcd illld delivered
ill die prc~cllc:e of:
(~dlC;:.JI.~~~~-
;rte'. 1'( jL>",~rY!
l '
. (hti LI/.t/ F .,/~ ,1~1.( f.._
DOI(()TIIY F ;ft.J\fK, illllll1lCIII,lIr1cd \~Ilhl\';
ISI'AI.I
,\NI) 1/11..' !:..lId Ur.1Il101 \\111 \...llr.lIlll:~lltlally lliL' I'lllP{'''Y h("rrhy (1'11\")'."
IN \VI INESS \VIIEI~E()I;, Ihe ~ald (jlillllur ha\ hCfCllll[O "clllcr hand ,tllll \t'.d llit, d.l} .11111
year (j,\l ilbove wfillcn
COUNTY 01' CUMUERLAND
COMMUNWE,\L'1l1 OF PENNSYI.V ANIA:
: 55,
01llhi5.lhe /314 day of _/~~'~_,,___, AD, 1995, oel",e tire Ihe
undersigned officer, personally nppca;e-dDC.iROillY F. BI.ACK, an unremarried widow. known
10 mc, (or ~:J1bfiIClorily proven) 10 be the persoll whose flUIIlC j~ subscril>cd 10 Ihe wilhin
instrumclII, llnd acknowledged lhut she exccu(ctJ (he same for the purposes thefein contained
IN WITNESS WIIEREOF. I hereunto 5ell1lY halld alld official ,e.1.
~lfIo1ISo,"
OIo:vlt.rsE ~dJ5IU,,.tlbtyF'lU(;
MrdloYlC!b..rQlho, Curr'bIl1.'V'dr.o..on:y
_~~z:' ~c:.'t-:-/kt.--
NOlary Puolic
~.~ or PonnsVlvnnia } ss
! "1I~' of Cumberland
j :11r.tJ in Iho office lor tho recording or OeHci
I AI ~:\ .,d lor Cu.miJcrlo,:'d CounIV"p..._
jlfJW Book ~ Vol _ Page :LL'.
: I.. ,s mv hand UllcJ {(Jill of office 0
I : .I,., ~ liS ---1.\. .
i 7- ' - '''".
1995
~.., ;~.
.,. , .;
f.'_~ ...... .' ,,- 1!:: .
......: uq~~..:'... ;r'~{io(,
~i 4;i.~~~I.~t'\'--
';,,,~:r".' .. jv!,.,..
Al'.v:"tr, .::..~, ....~ ~ .
..1, T".~ ',-'-~'.l!''''r.l
"'~'::~ <>1';'('(".' \,.1",
'.(-. - ~......
" " ..... 1\. <=::!1:.' 1/".;.: ~.
,,~Oc:.l~.Xt. Z __ ~'./l
.; ~!::':~~~-..'
~t ....6'~~..~.:.'~..~.C'Il.:
\. ,Iv,. f rIP'.
vo
<.n
-"
.CC'
.-
)..,
-C
I, ..
,,,' ,
',' ,
1.' .
:. r I
'I ;"
:Ii
, ">
C-:J',
en
" ,
c) -', .
1..:., I,
;~ "I
-r" I
-., ,_. r.,
, ,
."
aOOK 118 rACE 576
EXHIBIT A
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP
'..
f~
William C. Dunn. Chairman
W.yne M. Pecht. Vice-Chairman
J.n N. LeBlanc
Maribeth J, R, Bucher
Maria Lewis
t ·
.'
I
,
,.
[1
r
"
,
I,
I
November J. 19'17
CERTtFtED MAIL Oz 259 223 60t
Mr, Jeffrey L. Slack
6'16'1 Wenzvllle Roa<l
Enola. Pa 17025
f
I
Dear Ml', Black:
On October 15, 1'1'17 in our phone conversation [ did approve Ihe ad<lilional gra<ling In<l
plaelllg III' lop soil, "OU hyullI see<ling, to st"hiti/e the hill area "s ree'''"llle,,,JcU hy l'lllllhcrl.lI1u
Counly Conservallon Olslnel. I also pOinted out to you thatthc Townshifl ['oglnccr has reque>lCU
that you immediately open the <lrainage arc::. as not to impede the waler !low from a n;II11r;iI \\;lIer
course.
,.J
r
In my lellcr 10 you on October 3, 1997. I slated Ihat your lanu <lisrurhance was" \ ",I"III'n
of Ihe Silver Spring TlI\vnship Storm Water Managemcnl and Lanu Di>lurhanec Oruinance, Since
then you lolu me this prujccl was staned in 1994, which is before this nrdin;lncc was ;lunl'lcJ,
~
"
.
,
PIc"sc suhmit In Ihe Township within 30 days how ynu will he ahle III 111 eel Ihe:;lfIh
dislllrhance rC4ulrelllcols Ill' the urdinance,
. ;~
Endused pi case lind the section of the Silver Spring Township Zuning 0"lin;1I1CC ',I illch
would apply 10 your projccl.
Sincerely,
1, "u !IlL.
...11"" i
I
l
'. ~
t,
,'.,
t,
James E, I [all
Zoning Onicer
Enelosure
JElI'sah
EXHIBIT B
(.'I"~' (.HIi\k Pih . .\ll.th..LlllL~hllr,-:. p:\ 17(J')') ~V)l . (717\ 7(Kl.ll!-'='. -1-, 7(.,(,.IN)(, F..\X
" '.
---
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP
William C. DUDD, Chairman
WarDe M. Pecht. Vicc.cluirman
Jan N, LeBlanc
Maria L. Lewu
Jackie E.kin
I:
'\
I;
r,
ENFORCEMENT NOTICE OF VIOLA nON
Ceni!ied Mail # Z 121 480590
DATE:
May I, 1998
TO:
Mr, Jeffrey Black
6969 Wenzville Road
Enola, Pa 17025
LOCATION OF PROPERTY IN VIOLATION:
6969 Wertzville Road
Enola, Pa 17025
YOU ARE IIEREl3Y NOTIFIED that you are in violation of Section 204 of the
Silver Spring Township Zoning Ordinance in the following respect:
Land Disturbance is in violation of the Silver Spring Township
Stormwater Management Ordinance 1995,
.
YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED that you must commence compliance with the
above referenced Wiling ordinance immediately upon delivery of this notice, such compliance to be
completed by:
May 29, 1998
EXHIBIT B
6475 Carld, Pike. Mechanicsburg, PA 17055.2391 . (717) 766,0178. (717) 766.1696 FAX
May 1, 1998
Enforcement Notice of Violalion
Page 2
YOU ARE FURTIiER l'\OTIFIED that you have the right to appeal this notice to the Silver
Spring Township Zoning Hearing Bllard within thirty (30) days from the date of deli very hereofin
accordance with the procedures set forth in said Zoning Ordinance. A copy of the Zoning Ordinance
may be examined at the Silver Spring Township Municipal Building, 6475 Carlisle Pike,
Mechanicsburg, Pa during regular business hours,
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that your failure 10 comply with Ihis notice within the
time specified above, unless extended by appeal to the Zoning Hearing Board, constitules a violation
which can result in (a) abatement of the violation by injunctive action through the Court of
Common Pleas of Cumberland County, and/or monetary penalties after hearing before a District
Justice ranging from a minimum of$25,OO to a maximum of $500,00 per day plus the costs of such
action and including the Township's reasonable attorney fees incurred in prosecuting this
enforcement.
(l'lH$ 4L
(IJames E, Hall
\I Zoning Officer
Silver Spring Township
~ L ~'u~~
Jerry L, Zimmerman
Code Enforcement Officer
Silver Spring Township
.
cc:
Board of Supervisors
Mr. Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire, Township Solicitor
Mr, William S, Cook, Township Manager
Mr, Kelly Kelch, Assistant Township Manager
JEHlsab
EXHIBIT Il
I,
SILVER SPIU~G TO\X!:'-ISHIP
WUlli.m C. Dunn, Chunn,n
W'rne ~l. l'e<:ht. Vice.Ch,lrm,n
l,a ~, LeBl,nc
Maria L. Lew;,
Jackie E,kin
Ao\IE:'/DED
F." FORO:'.1F:'1T 'iOTICE OF VIOL.-\ no"
C~r:::~ed :-VIall =z 1: I ~80 59:
DATE:
'I'" '0 'ca8
." ....~ ~" I..
TO:
:-VIr lef.":e'; Black
696~ \\1 er::';dle Roac
E~ola. Pl : 7025
LOC.\ TIO" OF PROPERTY 1:'1 VlOL.\ TlO,:
I'ju.j'? \Vc;.:\"lil~ Roac
E~oia, Pl ! 70:5
YOL'\RE HEREBY \iOTIF1ED ::m :-ou are :n violation of Orcinance '\u::::e: "5-: J
5~c::on jOi Sii'.cr ~p:::l:; TlJ..H:si~i: S[Jr:Ti'.\ate~ \lanagemer.t Ordinance t99S
L'..'. Dl.....'r~onc'~ , .."".
_.j..... ...,..... '.ll,..I, .. .""'\\,... l~:
1'01. .\RE HE:U:SY FLRi'-:.E", '\OTiFTED that :;OU :nUSt ~omme~ce compiia~:e ,,\It:: the
.leave re~cr'~~c~:: ':0f1l:::;,JrJII1JnCl:: :~:T,c::iiJ.tely '..lpon delivery ot'thls ilotice. such ;;~m~::2.:;:e::) be
i.:::mDie~~:.i :\
!t.:~e :., : ,)OJ,
YOL' A...RE iT", THER '.'OTiFTED that 'ou h<lve the ru!ht :0 acpd this not:ce :: :~e Siiver
. ...,
S~ring To\\'r.sh1~ Z~l!I~g He~r;ng 303.r.: within :hir:y (30) days from ~he ::lte of .:e~ive~: :-:~~eofin
ac:orcance ',',1::' ::1e ~rc(~::iures 5er :.:)r:h :n said Zuning Ordinar.ce. .\ ~opy af the Zcnir.~ lJ:-::::Jnce
mJ.Y be e,:ar.:lr.e:: .1[ :he Sii:-er Sor.ng T 0'.\'nshtp :-V[unic:pal 3uildir.g, 6,"75 C:c::;;ie Pike,
\[echJ.mcs~',,;~~. p~ ":~;:-":-::; ~e~~lo.r ':'~s;r;~ss heurs
EXHIBIT B
'.
"
+ '. ~ ,"
~ '''' ," ~ -.
'....~ - . -. '..
?~. '~~~~. .':.~"" .
- ':,:.':': -'3 .
",Iav : '), 19Q~
Enforc:mer.t :;ot:ce 'Jf \'Ioiat:on
Page:
YOL' .-\RE N.RlliE:Z :;OTIFIED that your :iiiure to complv with this notice witbn :~e ::me
speci:ied aoo\ c, unless c,~:cr.dcd by appcJ1 to the Zorung Heanng Bo~d. constitutes a violanor. wfuch
can result In (a) abate:ncm of the violatIon by injuncnve actIon through the Court ofCommc~ Pleas
of CumberiJl1Cl Count:,', Jl1dior mcnet~J penJ1ties after hearing before a District Justice rang:r.g :7om
a rrunimum of525 00 to a rna:umum of5500,00 per day plus the costs of such action and inducing
the Township' '; reaso<1Jblc lttarney fees incurred in prosecuting this enforcement,
~,,~ tfuc
/ / .
;, James E, Hail
Zomng OF.:cer
Siiver Spnng Tuwnship
~,\t i ~,JA;M'{/\'~"
.j, .
] erry L. Zimmerman
Code Enforcement Officer
Silver Spring Township .
cc' Boarc of Super..isors
;.Ir R.Jc~"rd C Snelbaker, Esq., Township Solicitor
;.Ir. \Vii!i"~ S Cook. Townshio :-.lanal1er
:VIr Kei!y K Kdc~, ,-\ssistam Township :Vlanager
JEHisab
EXHIBIT Il
I
~
r
1
,
I
i
vim I F I C^T I 011
I hereby c(>l'tily and verily (.,) that
am tIll' duly appointed
:1 Township Manilger in and for the Township of Silver Spring, (b)
I'
that said Township of Silver Spring is the Plaintiff herein, (c)
that I am authorized to make this verification on behalf of the
Plaintiff, (d) that, as to those facts in the foregoing Complaint
within my personal knowledge, I verify them to be true and
correct, and (e) that, as to those facts not within my personal
knowledge, I believe them to be true and correct based upon
information from others.
I understand that any false statements
in said Complaint are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.
~4904 relating to unsworn statements to authorities.
(
~, \
'-----.
William S. Cook
(Township Manager)
Dated: October
0<6
, 1998
TOWI>SIIIP 01' SILVEH SPHING
Plaintiff
IN TilE COUH'!' OF Cor1MON PLEAS OF
CUMIJEHLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V,
qR - 6101
EQUITY
JEFFHEY L. BLACK and
LAURIE A. IJLACK,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OFA~~EARANCE
TO: CURTIS R. LONG,
PROTHONOTARY, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CARLISLE, PA l7013
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendants in the
above-captioned matter.
I;~vernber 4, 19 9 8
By "/;"tc'v(..\C~
Andrew C. Sheely,~Scf~~
PA ID 62469
Attorney for Defendants
127 S. Market Street
P.O. Box 95
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
717-697-7050
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, i\ndrew C. S/H'(>)y, E'''luirr', hereby certiCy thai. r elm this
day serving the Coregoing Praec1pe for Entry of Appearance form
upon the following named individuals this day by first class mail,
postage prepaid, from Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as
follows:
Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire
SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE,
44 West Main Street
P.O. Box 318
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
P.C.
Date: November 1 , 1998
//L~c<~_( ~ji~{
Andrew C Sheely, EsqU~-
,
I'
I ,
~
. .
~
.
"
~
I
,
"
.
I;".
I
i
,
I~
.II'II'RI'Y 1,1111\('1-; alld 11\1:1(11
,\, III.I\CK,
IN 1111 ('()\II(I (II ('()~I~I(I~ I'll ,,\S(ll
CI:~lIlll{l/\Nlli(ll'NIY,I'INNSYI \',\~Ii\
I\pp,II:lIlh
\,
,( 'IVII ,\(' 111)\1 --I i\\\'
!ONINii III:ARINii BO^RD 01
SIJ.VI:R SI'RIN(j TOWNS' III',
^pp<:lk,
: Nil, 'IX-:"I:, I CIVil II'Ri\l
TOWNSI III' OF SII.VU{ SI'RIN(i.
PlairllilT
: IN Till: COIIKI OJ- COMMON I'I.I:^S i >I-
: CIIMIlLRI.^ND l'( 1I INTY.PI:NNSYI ,V ANI^
\'.
: CIVIl. ^CTION -- U)t IJTY
.ILFFRI:Y L. BI.^CK and l.^lIRIL
^. BJ.^CK.
Ddcndants
: No, 9l{-61 () I U)IIITYII,RM
./
IN RE: CONSOLIDATION OF ACTIONS
BEFOI~E HESS and OLER, .1.1.
ORDER OF COURT
^ND NOW. this 10th day of Man:h. 1999. pursuant to Pennsylvania i{ulc of Civil
Procedure 213(a).' the above-captioned actions arc consolidated at No. 9X-61 0 I Equity Term
by the court on its own motion,
I Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 213(a) provides as 1()lIows:
In actions pending in a county which involve a common
qucstion of law or nlct or which arise li"OIl1the same transaction
or oecurrencc. the court on its own motion. or on the motion of
any party may order a joint hearing or trial of any maller in issue
in the actions. may order the actions consolidated, and may
make orders that avoid unnecessary cost or delay,
PIlAEC1PE rOil L1~1'ING eM;E rOR ,\RGUMENT
--_._-
(Mu:Jt be typewritten i100 suhnitted ill duplicate)
TO TilE PROTIIONOTAHY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Plca.se list the within ITk1ttc.r for the next Argurent Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION or CASE
(entire caption rmJSt be stated in full)
TOW~SIIII' OF SII.VER SI'I(I:-;I;,
(Plaintiff)
vs.
JEFFREY L. BUCK and
LAlIRIE A. BLACK,
( Defendant..)
No. 98-610]
Civil
19
1998
1. State matter to be argued (i.e.. plaintiff's rrotion for new tridl, defendant's
demurrer to complaint, etc.):
Defl'ndants' Pn...limlnary ObjL'l'tiolls to Plaintiff's Complaint
2. Identify =unsel who will argue case:
Snelbaker, Brt..>nneman & Spnre, P.C.
(a) for plaintiff: Richard C. Sndbaker, Esq., and/or Philip II. Spare, Esq.
Address: 44 ,lest lIain Strc'ct
lIechaniesburg, pA l7055-0318
(b)
for deferrlant:
Address:
Andrew c. Sheely, Esquire
127 South lIarket Street
lIechanicshurg, pA 17055
3. I will notify all parties in writing wi thin two days that this case has
been listed for argutlent.
4. Argunent COUrt Date: December 9, 1998
& SPARE, p. C.
~
TOVINSIIIP OF SILVER SPRING
Plainti ff
IN TilE COURT OF COr'!1'lON PLEAS OF
CU~lIJERLAND COUNTY, PI':Nm;YJ,VAN I A
, '
"
98 - 6101
EQU1TY
!,
vs.
JEFFREY L. BLACK and
LAURIE A. BLACK,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
t
ACCEPTANCE OF, SERVICE
,
I, Andr~w C. Sheely, Esquire, hereby accept service of the
Complaint filed by the Township of Silver Spring in the above
captioned matter on behalf of Defendants Jeffrey L. Black and
Laurie A. Black pursuant to I'a__.__J~._C_._I'. No. 402 (b), and further
state that I am authorized to do so.
i
i
t
Novemb8r 3, 1998
,yLl'lev ()~
Andrew C. Sheely~
I'A ID 62469 ,-----
Attorney for Defendants
127 S. Market Street
P.O. Box 95
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
717-697-7050
i\
"
~ '
,
"
j,
,
i
i
~
'I
I
I
,
t
:t
\
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
t
I, ^ndt-ew C. Sheely, 1';"'1"1''', Il",."hy ('''rtify that I am this
l'~
day serving the foregoing Acceptance of Service form upon the
following named individuals this day by Cirst class mail, postage
prepaid, from Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire
SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P.C.
44 West Main Street
P.O. Box 318
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
.',
Date: November I ' 1998
I
_ill
Andrew C
f
Sheely,
~/VJb .
E quO e
i
I~
J \
I ~
!
! ~
,.'
-':
.':;;
(
SILVER SPRI~G TOWNSHIP
WilU= C. Dunn, Ch,irm,n
Warne M. Pecht. Vice.Ch3irm;a.n
Jan N. LeBlanc
Mari:l L. Lewis
J ,ckle Eakin
AMENDED
E:"FORCE~tF.'lT 'lOTtCr: OF v10LAT10N
Certified ~1<JJl :Z12t 480 S92
DATE:
:-Vlav 19, \998
TO:
:vir Jef:re:' Black
6969 \Vertzville Road
Enola, Pa \ /025
LOCATIO:" OF PROPE.RTY 1:'1 VIOL.\T10:":
6"6') \V~rtzville Road
Enola, Pa \ '7025
YOL- ,\lZE HEREBY 'iOTIF1ED that :,ou are in violation or' Ordinance 'iumcer 95-\3
Section 3D; Sii\~r Spllll'; Tuwnship Stor;nwater \lanage;nent Ordinance \995
L:lr.d Db~urbance A..:ti\"lt:
YOL ,\RE 1-\!::'RlBY FLRTI-'.ER 'iOT\F\ED that you must commence compliance '.,Ith the
above referenced <:'-"1111'; ,"UI"""CC :mmediatel\' up,)n deliver;.' ofthl5 notice, 5uch compliance to be
completed '::l~
JU:H~ 1.3. 1')\.)~
YOC-\R::. FLR THER 'iOTlFIED that ycu have the right to appeal this notice te the Silver
Spring Township lOl1lng Hearing Board within thir.y (30) days from the date of delivery hereof in
accordance '-"Ith the prccdures set forth In said Zuning Ordinance, ,"" copy of the Zoning Ordinance
may be examined at the Silver Spring To..vnship :-Vlunicipal Building. 64/5 Carlisle Pike,
'YtechanicscUfS. P::l Jurin~ re~ulo.r busin~ss hours
-::--
-"'"
"\
,: >'\
IJ
,,..'~ CJr!is:< ?"" + ~.t.:~hJn:coouq, ?,\ \-,;,,-:,9\ + 17\'\ 7(,(,.0\73 + ~7(7) 766.\(,% FAX
~lay 19, t9o,
Enforceme~t :"otlce of Violation
Page ::
yO\.: ,-\RE FLRTHER ~OTIFIED that your failure to comply with this notice within the time
specified above, unless extended by appeal to the Zoning Hearing Board, constitutes a violation which
can result in (a) abatement of the violation by injunctive action through the Court of Cornmon Pleas
of Cumberland County, and/or monetary penalties after hearing before a District Justice ranging from
a mirumum of525.00 to a ma:umum of5500.00 per day plus the costs of such action and including
the Township', reasLJIIJble lttorney fees incurred in prosecuting this enforcement,
a",~ ;-&~
I'
I /
(/ James E, Hall
Zonmg Officer
Sliver Spring Township
~.\1 i }tl;'<<.I/V~;"
Jerry L, Zimmerman
Code Enforcement Officer
Silver Spring Township "
cc Board of Supervisors
:VIr R.lchard C Sndbaker, Esq , Township Solicitor
:VIr William S Cook, Township :Vlanager
~lr Kelly K Kelch, Assistant Township Manager
JEHJ sab
recoverable from the violator in such manner as may now or hereafter
be provided by law,
SECTION 502
PENALTIES
Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Ordinance,
or who shall fail to comply with any written notice from Silver Spring
Tov.mhip which describes a condition of non-compliance, shall be
guilty of a summary offense, and upon conviction thereof, shall be
subject to a fine payable to Silver Spring Township of not more than
one thousand (Sl,OOO) dollars for cnch violntion, recoverable with cost.
In default of payment of the fine, such person sh:ill be liable to
imprisonment for not more than thiny (30) da\s, A new and separate
violation shall be deemed to be committed f, each day after receipt
of the aforesaid notice that such violation ex' "
In addition, the Township may institute injunctive, or any other
appropriate action or proceeding of law or in equity for the
enforcement of this Ordinance, Any court of competent jurisdiction
shall have the right to issue restraining orders, temporary or permanent
injunctions. v.Tits, or other appropriate forms of remedy or relief.
SECTION 503
APPEAL TO n~E SIL\'ER SPRING TO\\fl\;SHlP BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
Any persons aggrieved by any action of the Township ma:, appeal to
the Board of Supervisors within twenty days of that action,
SECTION 504
INSPECTION OF PROPERTY
Upon presentation of proper credentials, duly authorized
representatives of Silver Spring Township may enter at reasonable
times upon any propeny within the municipality to investigate or
ascertain the condition of the subject propeny in regard to any aspect
rego.1lated by this Ordinance.
The landowner shall grant to the Tov.mhip. or its agents, access to the
site of the work at all times, while under construction, for the purpose
of inspecting the work,
SECTION 505
SEVERABILITY
Should any section or provision of this Ordinance be declared invalid
by a coun of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of any of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance.
Silver Spring TOwnship Slann Waler ~1anagement Ordinance
Aniele V . 29
TOWNSHIP OF SILVER SPRING,
Plaintiff,
IN THE COURT OF COH~lON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
98 - 610l
EQUITY
JEFFREY L. BLACK and
LAURIE A. BLACK,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS
~~P_L.AJJ~T_I_E-F'-'-.S_-':QIolP_L}\ I.~T
Defendants, Jeffrey L. Black and Laurie A. Black, by and
through counsel of Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire, hereby file these
preliminary Objections pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. I028 (a) and 1509 et
seq. to the Complaint in Equity filed by the Township of Silver
Spring, Plaintiff, and respectfully state as follows:
I. Plaintiff co~nenced the above-captioned matter on or about
2. On or about October 16, 1998, Defendants filed a Notice of
October 26, 1998.
Appeal docketed to 98 - 5951 in the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County to a written decision of the Silver Spring
Township Zoning Hearing Board. A copy of the Notice is Appeal is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
3. The Notice of Appeal docketed to 98 - 5951 involves
jurisdictional and other challenges to the May 1, 1998 enforcement
notice and the May 19, 1998 amended enforcement notice as averred
in paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's complaint and attached as Exhibit
"B" to Plaintiff's Complaint.
pendin'l on appeal before t:h(~ Court oC COllunon Pleas of Cumberland
County.
lO. Questions involvinq the Pennsylvania l-Iunicipalities
Planning Code arc stiltulory in nature requirilH) adherence to the
exclusive statutory zoninCj appeal procedure rather than
simultaneous statutory and equitable remedies.
ll. Initial jurisdiction involving the allegations set forth
in Plaintiff's complaint is within the exclusive control and
jurisdiction of state agencies, including the Department of
Environmental Resources pursuant to 32 P.S. Section 693.1 et seq.,
the Pennsylvania Fish and Game Commission pursuant to 30 Pa.C.S.A.
Section 3301, et seq.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this
Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's action without prejudice
pending the full and final resolution of the Notice of Appeal
docketed to 98 - 5951 involving Silver Spring Township's
enforcement notices, the Township's pursuit of such violations
through appropriate State agencies, or in the alternative, defer
ruling on the instant preliminary objections until the matter
docketed to 98 - 5951 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland
County is fully resolved.
II. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION PURSUANT TO pA.R.C.p.
1028(E_~) PENDENCY OF A PRIOR ACTION
3
12. Paragraphs 1 through jl are incorporated herein as if set
forth at length.
13. The Township of Silver spring is unable to proceed in
equity when a statutory zoning appeal is being pursued by
Defendants from a determination of the Silver Spring Township
Zoning Officer involving the same enforcement notices which are
subject to the instant action.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this
Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's action without prejudice, or
in the alternative, defer ruling on the instant preliminary
objections until the matter docketed to 98 - 5951 in the Court of
Common Pleas of Cumberland County is fully resolved.
III. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A
DEMURRER PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 102~~1
14. Paragraphs I - 13 are incorporated herein as if set forth
at length.
15. Subparagraph "D" of Plaintiff's "Wherefore" clause
requests relief in the nature of attorney fees.
16. Under the facts alleged in the Complaint, there is no
cause of action for attorney fees.
17. The Township of Silver Spring has no authority to
institute equitable actions involving, regulating or controlling
watercourse, streams, dams or encroachments without first pursuing
such issues through appropriate state agencies, including the
Department of Environmental Resources pursuant to 32 P.S. Section
4
693.1 ,,' ""'I., till' P('III1~;y1v'llIiil Fish iHld Game Commission pur'snant
to ]0 Pa.C.s.^. S(~(~t 1011 JJOl, et tH~q.
lB. PLIIII! lIt." "olll!,lillll! III Equity talls to sot forth a
I
ir
cause of ilctioll ill ,,'ljUJl.y wll",,' no dama<jc or harm 1S alleged to
have occurred to Plillllti1f, or the whole conununity in general.
19. PlaintifC's Complaint in Equity fails to set forth a
cause of action wh(ne the documents referenced 1n Plaintiff's
complaint are silent as to the relief requested by Plaintiff.
20. Plaintiff's Complaint in Equity fails to state a cause of
action where no final determination has been made regarding the
enforcement notices issued by the Township of Silver Spring Zoning
Officer.
21. Ordinance 95 - IJ is penal in nature and the Complaint
fails to allege that any efforts have been undertaken to institute
I
\
enforcement of the action through the summary citation process or
other remedies at law.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this
Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's action in Equity, dismiss
Plaintiff's claim for attorney fees as requested in Plaintiff's
"~Iherefore" clause, direct the Township to enforce purported
Ordinance violations through the summary process, or in the
\
~
I..
:~
, !
alternative, require that Plaintiff file an amended pleading to
set forth adequate causes of action.
5
V. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION OF A
HORE SPECIFIC PLEADING TO Po.R.C.P. 1028(0)(3)
29. Paragraphs I - 28 are incorporated herein as if set Corth
at length.
30. Plaintiff's complaint fails to set forth the Ordinance
sections which have been allegedly violated.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court require that Plaintiff amend its complaint so as
to allow Defendant to frame a proper answer and defense.
Date: Novernberl7, 1998
ReS.,!?-!?-r. c tf. ull . ,s
/lid:.(1i
Andrew c. Shee sire
Attorney for Defendants
127 S. Market Street
P.O. Box 95
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
717-697-7050
717-697-7065 (fax)
7
. '
3. On or a~uut May I, 1998, the Silver Spring Township zoning
\
, '
officer and code!] enforcement officer sent a letter entitled
, ,
~ '
I '
\ "
"Enforcement Notlce of Violation" to Jeffrey Black advising
Jeffrey Black that he was in violation of Section 204 of the
Silver Spring Township zoning Ordinance in the following respect:
Land Disturbance is in violation of the Silver Spring
Township Storm Water Ordinance of 1995.
4. On or about May 19, 1998, the Silver spring Township
"
\
;',\
'if
zoning officer and codes enforcement officer sent a letter
entitled "Amended Enforcement Notice of Violation" to Jeffrey
,.
Black advising Jeffrey Black that he was in violation of Ordinance
Number 95 - 13, Section 301 of Silver Spring Township Stormwater
Management Ordinance of 1995 in the following respect:
Land Disturbance Activity.
~
, ;
r
\ ,.
,
"
j
,
,
5. The "Enforcement Notice of Violation" and the "Amended
Notice of Violation" advised Jeffrey L. Black of his right to
appeal the each Enforcement Notice to the Silver Spring Township
zoning Hearing Board.
6. Ordinance No. 95 - 13 (hereinafter referred to as
"Ordinance") of Silver Spring Township is a Storm Water Management
Ordinance.
i
I
7. Section 501. 04 of the Ordinance is entitled "Civil
.
\
~
:
,
Remedies" and states as follows:
Suits to restrain, prevent, or abate a violation of this
Ordinance may be instituted in equity or at law by the
Township. Such proceedings in equity or at law may be
initiated before any court of competent jurisdiction. In
cases of emergency where, in the opinion of the court, the
circumstances of the case require immediate abatement of the
:..
ii
" J
" ,
2
. :
,
) 'i
i
1\..,
\. .~
I
unlawful conduct, the court may, in its decree, fix a
reasonable time durinq which the person responsible for the
unlawful conduct shall correct or abate the same. The
expense of such proceedings shall be recoverable from the
violator in such a manner as now or hereafter be provided by
law.
A copy 01 this sectiun of the Ordinance is attach('d hpreto as
Exhibit "B".
8. Section 502 of Ordinance No. 95 - 13 entitled "!'_en".lti~"
states as follows:
Any person who shall violate any of the prov~s~ons of
this Ordinance or who shall fail to comply with any written
notice from Silver Spring Township which describes a
condition of non-compliance, shall be guilty of a summary
offense, and upon conviction thereof, shall be subject to a
find payable to Silver Spring Township of not more than one
thousand ($1,000.00) dollars for each violation, recoverable
with cost. In default of payment of the fine, such person
shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than thirty (30)
days. A new and separate violation shall be deemed to be
committed for each day after receipt of the aforesaid notice
that such violation exists.
A copy of this section of the Ordinance is attached hereto as
"
<
Exhibit "C".
..
9. The Pennsylvania MuniCipalities Planning Code, Act of
July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, No. 247, re-enacted and amended by Act
170 of 1988, as amended, 53 P.S. 10101 et seq., provides no
authority for the imposition of criminal penalties for zoning
violations.
~
,
f>
,'.
; }
j!
10. The Second Class Township Code, Act of May 1, 1933, P.L.
103, No. 69, Section 1601 (3) and (4), re-enacted and amended by
Act of November 9, 1995, P.L. 350, No. 60, as amended, 53 P.S.
Section 66601 (c.l)(3) and (4), requires that enforcement of
3
,-.
"
ordinances enacted prior to May 7, 1996, be enforced by a civil
enforcement proceeding before a district justice or in eguity.
11. On or about June 17, 1998, Appellants filed an appeal to
the zoning Hearing Board in accordance with the instructions of
the Amended Enforcement Notice raising various issues and
defenses, including jurisdictional challenges.
12. Appellants zoning appeal was publicly advertised for a
public hearing on July 13, 1998, continued by the zoning f1earing
Board until July 27, 1998 and completed on August 10, 1998.
13. Immediately at the outset of the initial two (2)
scheduled hearings before the Zoning Hearing Board, Appellants
challenged the enforcement proceeding on the basis that the Silver
that the zoning Hearing Board did not have jurisdiction to render
any decision in the matter in light of the penal provisions of
Ordinance No. 95 - 13.
Spring Township zoning officer and codes enforcement officer had
no authority to institute such enforcement proceedings where the
Ordinance in question contained penal provisions and on the basis
14. At the continued public hearing on July 27, 1998, the
Zoning Hearing Board concluded as a matter of law that it had
jurisdiction to hear the instant case pursuant to Section 909.1(9)
of the pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. Section
10909.l(9), as amended, and further directed that the Township
proceed with it's case in accordance with Section 616.1 of the
Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, as amended, 53 P.S.
!
(
10616.1 (d).
.,
,
,
4
15. The final formal lll'aring was held Oil f\llgust 10, 1')98
wherein Silver Spring Township and the Appelldnts appedred and
presented evidence.
16. On or a~out September- 22, 1998, the Zoning Hearing Uoard
issued written Findings of Fact, a Discussion and Conclusions of
Law, together with an Order (hereinafter referred to as
"Decision') denying Applicants zoning appeal.
17. The Zoning Hearing Board's decision denying Applicant's
appeal to the Amended Enforcement Notice constitutes an error of
law as follows:
a. The Silver Spring Township zoning officer and codes
enforcement officer have no authority to initiate enforcement
notices and direct appeals of enforcement notices to the
zoning hearing board where the Ordinance contains penal
provisions which authorize imprisonment as a possible
penalty; and
b. The Silver Spring Township zoning officer and codes
enforcement officers have no legal authority to institute
enforcement notices for non-zoning violations where the
Ordinance in question does not authorize enforcement actions
for alleged violat~ons and where the Second Class Township
Code directs the Township to proceed in accordance with Rules
of Criminal Procedure; and
c. The Zoning Hearing Board has no jurisdiction to hear
appeals from alleged ordinance violations where the Ordinance
in question contains penal provisions which authorize
imprisonment as a possible penalty; and
d. The enforcement notice issued by Silver Spring
Township was void ab initio requiring dismissal of the
entire proceeding before the zoning hearing board; and
e. The procedure utilized by Silver Spring Township with
regards to enforcing this Ordinance as approved by the
Zoning Hearing Board violates Appellants rights to
substantive and procedural due process of law.
18. Appellee's September 22, 1998 Order and Written Decision
5
constituluH dl\ (!l lot of Idw, .dlll~if' ot diBCll'! Ion ,IIHJ .i~i Ilol
supported by t.he record ill th..l.:
a. tlll! decisioll is IJ..sed UpOIl conjecture and
speculation, the dee1~. ion COilS iders ilnd roI ios upon ev.idonce
inadmiss'lhl(! in d crimiudl Ploc(!(!dill<j dUel whf!ro 511v(![ SpI"izHJ
Township f"iled to nn!et till!! 1. burden of (noDf in
demonstriltinq thilt dny viuldLiolJ of thu relevant ordilll.lnc.:e
occurred in question ther'-'~y n~quirin(J dismissal of the
amended enforcement notice; and
b. the substantial weiqht of the evidence presented
during the hearing indicated that the enforcement notice
constituted an impermissible, retroactive application of an
Ordinance so as to affect property rights and uses of
property prior to the effective date of the Ordinance in
question thereby requiring dismissal of the amended
enforcement notice; and
or in the alternative,
the written decision fails to make appropriate
distinctions between the condition of the property before and
after October 16, 1995 so as to conclude that a violation of
the Ordinance occurred; and
c. The substantial \"eight of the evidence presented
during the hearing indicated that the enforcement notice
failed to comply with the criteria of the Pennsylvania
Municipalities Planning Code thereby requiring dismissal of
the amended enforcement notice; and
d. The substantial weight of the evidence presented
during the hearing indicated that the enforcement notice
issued by the Zoning and Codes Enforcement Officers is
invalid and preempted by the actions and directives of the
Cumberland County Conservation District thereby requiring
dismissal of the amended enforcement notice; and
e. The substantial weight of the evidence presented
during the hearing indicated that Silver Spring Township is
estopped from enforcing the relevant provisions of Ordinance
No. 95-13 as it has been applied to Appellant'S property
thereby requiring dismissal of the amended enforcement
notice.
6
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Appellants
respectfully request that this Honorable Court:
(1) Reverse the September 22, 1998 decision of the Zoning
Hearing Board and dismiss the amended enforcement notice issued by
Silver Spring 'l'OIm::;hip and Leturn all monies paid by Appellants to
appeal the amended enforcement notice; or
(2) Reverse the September 22, 1998 decision of the Zoning
Hearing Board and permit the Appellants to continue to Use their
property as it presently exists and return all monies paid by
Appellants to appeal the enforcement notice; or
(3) Remand the matter back to the zoning hearing board for
the purpose of determining the extent of any violation as claimed
by Silver Spring Township in the enforcement notice so as to
provide Appellants with direction as to how to comply with the
Ordinance in question.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: october/L 1998
ALe~
Andrew C. Sheely, Esquire
Attorney for Jeffrey L. Black
Laurie A. Black, Appellants
127 S. Market Street
P.O. Box 95
Mechanicsburg, PA l7055
717-697-7050
717-697-7065 (Fax)
7
,I
BEFORE THE
ZONING HEARING BOARD OF
SILVER SPRlNG TOWNSHIP, PENNSYL V AN1A
:,
,
Application No, A-98-2
~.
f
,
j',
"
In The Matter of
Premises located at
6969 W crtzville Road,
Eno1a, pennsylvania
JEFFREY L. BLACK and
LAURIE A. BLACK
FINDINGS AND ORDER
Jeffrey L. Black and Laurie A. Black (the" Applicants") appeal from an Amended
~.
Enforcement Notice of Violation (the "Enforcement Notice') issued by Mr. James E. Hall, the
Silver Spring Township Zoning Officer (the "Zoning Officer") and Mr, Jerry L. Zimmerman, the
Silver Spring Township Code Enforcement Office (the "Code Enforcement Officer"), on May 19,
1998. The Enforcement Notice alleged a violation ofScction 301 of the Silver sP~g Township
Slol1O Water Management Ordinance of 1995 (the "Ordinance"). The Silver Spring Township
Zoning Hearing Board (the "Board") has evaluated the Applicants' request in accordance with
~
"
!
the applicable sections of the Ordinance and the pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (the
"MPC").
Y;
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. A Public Hearing was originally scheduled to be held on Monday, July 13, 1998,
at the Silver Spring Township Municipal Building, 6475 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Pennsyl-
vania, for the purpose of considering Applicants' appeal. With Applicants' consent, the hearing
was continued until July 27,1998, at which time the Board addressed certain preliminary issues.
The hearing was then further continued, with Applicants' permission, until August 10, 1998, at
which time the Applicants and Silver Spring Township (the "Township") presented testimony,
and provided other evidence, to the Board.
2. Notice of the July 13, 1998 Public Hearing was published in the June 23, 1998
and June 30,1998 West editions of The Patriot News. Harrisburg, PA. Notice of the hearing was
also posted on the premises, reflecting the relief sought by the Applicants as well as the date,
time and location of the Public Hearing, On June 25,1998, written notice of the Public Hearing
was mailed to the Applicants at 6969 WertzVille Road, Enola, Pennsylvania. This notice was
sent via postage paid certified U.S. Mail No, Z-121-480-615. The date, time and location of the
July 27, 1998 continuation hearing was announced publicly at or before the end of the July 13,
1998 hearing, and the date, time and location of the August 10, 1998 continuation-hearing was
announced publicly at or before the end of the July 27,1998 hearing.
3, Applicants are the joint owners of properties located at 6969 and 6971 Wertzville
Road, Enola (the "Premises"),
- 2 -
4. A nalural drainage swale (the .Swale') is located on the Premises. This Swale
allows storm water runoITto reach the Simmons Creek,
5, The Final Subdivision Plan, dated February 21, 1987, of!. Dale Black, depicts a
'20' Drainage Easement" located within the Swale,
6, For approximately three or four days in December of 1994, the Applicants
undertook certain excavation, earth movement and fill activities on the Premises. Apparently,
this work consisted, in large part, of relocating a demolished house to an area within the Swale,
then placing dirt and other fill on the house for the purpose of covering it over,
7, Stydinger Bros. Excavating ('Styclinger") performed the work that was done in
December of 1994, Styclinger was paid by the Applicants in early January 1995.
8. Stydinger was unable to completely cover the house due to a lack of sufficient fill
material on the Premises.
9, Subsequent to December of 1994, the Applicants arranged for various contractors
to haul additional fill to the Swale.
10. On October II, 1995, Silver Spring Township enacted the Ordinance. The
Orclinance became effective on October 16, 1995,
II. The Ordinance provides that a "Land Disturbance Activity, as defined in [the]
Ordinance, shall not be initiated until a Storm Water Management Permit has been issued."
Ordinance ~301. The Ordinance contains no provision addressing preexisting nonconforming
activities,
- 3 -
~..
I
I
I.
,
~,
12. In late Summer or early Fall of 1997, a Mr, Donald Aloan (a relative of the
Applicants) spent approximately three days moving earth on the Premises. One of the primary
pllIposes of this work was apparently to level off and cover over the fill that had been dumped in
the Swale since 1994. This process included moving earth from other portions of the Premises.
13. The eanhmoving and fill activities on the Premises have essentially created a dam
across the Swale, thus causing water to back up onto an adjoining property,
14. In approximately July 1995 and October 1997, the Cumberland County
Conservation District (the "Conservation District") responded to complaints about the
earthmoving and fill activities on the Premises,
15, On or about October 2, 1997, the Conservation District advised the Applicants to
take certain corrective measures to insure compliance with Department of Environmental
Protection Erosion Control Rules and Regulations.
16, By letter dated October 3,1997, the Zoning Officer advised Jeffrey Black that a
"major land disturbance" had occurred and directed Mr. Black to cease all further activities in
violation of the Ordinance. The Zoning Officer (on October IS, 1998, as confirmed by a letter
dated November 3, 1998) did however approve the additional grading, hYdro-seeding and
stabilization recommended by the Conservation District.
17. On May I, 1998, the Zoning Officer and Code Enforcement Officer sent an
"Enforcement Notice of Violation" to Jeffrey Black. This initial "Enforcement Notice of
Violation" erroneously identified the zoning district in which the Premises are located.
- 4 -
18. On May 19, 1998, the Zoning Officer and Code Enfo!l:ement Officer sent Jeffrey
Black an . Amended Enfo!l:ement Notice of Violation' (as previously defined, the 'Enforcement
Notice'), The Enfo!l:ement Notice informed Me, Black that he was in violation of Section 301 of
the Ordinance, and further noted that a 'Land Disturbance Activity" had occurred.
19, The Enfo!l:ement Notice staled that failure to comply with the notice could result
in, among other things, monetary penalties (i.e., fines).
20. The Ordinance provides that, '[i1n default of payment of the line, such person
shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than thirty (30) days.' Ordinance 9502.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Proper notice of the Public Hearing, including all continuations thereof, was
given.
2. The Board has jurisdiction to consider the issues raised by Applicants. Section
909.1(a)(9) of the MPC provides that the zoning hearing board shall have exclusive jurisdiction
to hear and render final adjudications with respect to "[a1ppeals from the determination of the
zoning officer or municipal engineer in the administration of any land use ordinance or provision
thereof with reference to sedimentation and erosion control and storm water management insofar
as the same relate to development not involving Article V or vn applications." MPC
9909,I(a)(9), The Zoning Officer has Iletermined that the Applicants are in violation of the
Ordinance; the Ordinance constitutes a land use ordinance addressing stonn water management;
- 5 -
and the earth moving at issue did nm involve a development involving Article V ('Subdivision
and Land Development') or Article vn ('Planned Residential Development") applications,
Applicants suggest that the Board bas no jurisdiction wbere criminal penalties and imprisonment
are possible under the applicable Ordinance. However the cases cited by Applicants in support
of this proposition involve enforcement proceedinlrs. The matter before the Board is not an
enforcement proceeding, Rather, the Applicants have simply availed themselves of their "right"
(as noted in the Enforcement Notice) to appeal the notice to the Board. This Board, as discussed
above, bas exclusive jurisdiction to bear sucb appeals.
3, Applicants argue that the Enforcement Notice is unenforceable on the grounds
that it is preempted by the actions and directives of the Conservation District. The Board rejects
this argument. The Conservation District's authority with respect to earthmoving activities is
derived from the Clean Streams Law, 35 P,S, 9691.1~. and Chapter 102, Erosion Control
Rules and Regulations (25 Pa. Code 9102,1 ~). The pwpose of these regulations is to
prevent the pollution of the Commonwealth's waters:
This chapter controls accelerated erosion and the resulting sedimentation of
waters of this Commonwealth thereby preventing the pollution of these W!!tets
from sediment and from fertilizers, pesticides and other polluting substances
carried by sediment.
25 Pa. Code 9102,3. In short, the focus oftbe Clean Streams Law, and its implementing
regulations, is water mllllil:i,
- 6 -
The Ordinance, meanwhile, was enacted pursuant to the Storm Water Management Act,
32 P.S. ~680.1 ~. - wll the Clean Streams Law. ~ Ordinance ~I04. The Storm Water
Management Act focllEes primarily on the Q.lIantitv of water, as opposed to the WlillitY.. As
described in Section 3 of the Storm Water Management Act, the pwpose and policy of the act is
to:
(I) Encourage planning and management of storm water runoff in each
watershed which is consistent with sound water and land practices,
(2) Authorize a comprehensive program of storm water management
designated to preserve and restore the flood carrying capacity of Commonwealth
streams; to preserve to the maximum extent practicable natural storm water nmoff
revmes and namral course. current and cross section of water of the
Commonwealth; ....
(3) Encouraee local administration and manaeement of storm water
consistent with the Commonwealth's duty as trUStee of natural resources....
32 P.S. ~680.3 (emphasis added), Moreover, the Department of Environmental Protection
summarizes the objectives of managing storm water as fo\1ows:
:;:::~~:~e~v:~f~t~rm water manaeement i~ to orevent or miti'i:ate the adverse
\ c at t h~ ~onvevance of excessIve rates and volumes of storm water
rnncll. Early efforts in managing storm flows consisted of simple routing of
storm water through gutters and sewer systems with the objective of removing the
storm water as quickly as possible, It has been recognized for sometime that
simply bypassing the storm flows really shifts the location of the problem aJ}d
very often aggravates the problem by compounding flows downstream,..,--
A more effective approach to storm water management often appears to be to
illaintain as nearlv as possible natural nmoff flow characteristics,
DEP Storm Water Management Guidelines and Model Ordinances, p,1.
- 7 -
In the instant case, the Township is concerned with the need to maintain a natura!
drainage swale and is addressing the amount of water accumulating on neighboring properties as
a result of the Applicant's earthmoving activities. These are wholly different concerns than those
that were addressed by the Conservation District.1 Accordingly, the Board concludes that the
Enfon:ement Notice is llll.l preempted by the actions and directives of the Conservation District
4, The Applicants raise several issues with respect to the validity of, and perceived
deficiencies in, the Enfon:ement Notice. The Board finds Applicants' arguments in this regard to
be unpersuasive, The Applicants state that the Code Enfon:ement Officer should not have signed
the notice, that the notice fails to name one of the co-owners of the property (Le" Laurie A.
Black), that the location of the property is inaccurately described., and so forth. The Board
concludes, however, that the Enfon:ement Notice provided sufficient notice to Applicants and
that strict compliance with Section 616,1 of the MPC was not required. Section 616.1 addresses
enforcement notices to be sent in connection '.vith the violation of a ~ ordinance, No zoning
violation is alleged here, however. Rather, the Enforcement Notice addresses a storm watCl:
management issue arising under the Ordinance - an ordinance which is clearly separate and
'. -
distinct from the Township's Zoning Ordinance, Moreover, Section 909,I(a)(9} of the MPC
notes that a determination with respect to a storm water management ordinance may be made by
II The testimony presented at the Public Hearing by Mr. Brian K, Jaymes, District
Technician with the Conservation District, supports this point Mr. Jaymes specifically testified
that he does not deal with storm water manal!ement issues, except to the extent that they involve
erosion problems.
I'
I
,
,
i
"
- 8 -
the zoning officer 'or municipal engineer". In the case under considerdtion, the determination
was made by the Township's Zoning Officer, However, if the determination had been made by
the municipal engineer, would the engineer's notice need to have been in compliance with
Section 616,1 of the MPC? The Board does not believe so, In sum, the Applicants were
adequately informed of the Ordinance violation (as is demonstrated by the fact that they filed a
timely appeal and thoroughly addressed and briefed the issues) and the Enforcemrot Notice will
therefore not be dismissed.
5. The Applicants suggest that the doctrine of estoppel bars Silver Spring Township
from enforcing the Ordinance against them, The Board disagrees. The Applicants rely in
substantial part on the Zoning Officer's November 3, 1997lener in which he approved the
additional grading, hydro-seeding and stabilization reco=ended by the Conservation District,
As discussed earlier, the Conservation District was addressing water quality - i.e" they were
attempting to avoid water pollution. The Zoning Officer was simply indicating that the
Township would not object to these efforts. The Township at no time, however, suggested that
they would not require compliance with the Ordinance - an ordinance whose focus is on the
ql1antitv and rate of storm water runoff, not its quality, In fact, the Zoning Officers
November 3, 1997 letter expressly requires the Applicants to submit to the Township within 30
days a plan for complying with the requirements of the Ordinance. Any sl1ggestion (as is made
by the Applicants) that the Zoning Officer is 'speaking out of both sides of its mouth" by
approving the Conservation District recommendations but requiring compliance with the
- 9 -
"
,
BEFORE THE
ZONING HEARING BOARD OF
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA
f'
Application No. A.98.2
,
r-
JEFFREY L, BLACK and
LP URIE A. BLACK
Premises located at
6969 WertzVille Road,
Enola, Pennsylvania
In The Matter of
ORDER
\
"
"
AND NOW, this~ day of September, 1998, it is hereby ORDERED that the appeal
,-
.
,\
of Jeffrey L. Black and Laurie A. Black from the Enforcement Notic .be DENIED.
7,
,-
;,f(
~ t
. ;
- 12 -
,
I.
: '
28.A..rtielcV
5.01.02 Revoke a Slorm Water Mana~ement Permit
Ba.~ed upon a report from the Township Engineer that the emting site
condition or further constructioo is likely to endanger propeny or
create hazardous conditions. the Township may:
501.02.1
Revoke a permit.
501.022
Require protective measures to be taken and assign a reasonable
time period for the necessary action,
501.02.3
Authorize protective measures to be done and lien all cost of the
work against the propeny on which work is required,
A permit which has been revoked cannot he reinstated, The applicant
may apply for a new permit in accordance with the processing
procedures in Article Ill.
501.03 Notification of Suspension or Revocation of a Storm Water
Mana~ement Permit
In the event of a suspension or revocation of a Storm Water
Management Permit, the Township shall provide wrinen notification
of the violation to the landowner and/or applicant at his last known
address. Such notification shall:
501.03,1 Cite the specific violation, describe the requirements which have
not been met, and cite the provisions of the Ordinance relied
upon.
501.032 Identify the specific protective measures to be taken.
501.03.3 Assign a reasonable time period necessary for action or in the
case of revocation, identify if the Township has authorized
protective measures to be performed at cost to the landowner,
501.03.4 Identify the right to request a hearing before the Board of
Supervisors if aggrieved by the suspension or revocation.
501.04 ~
Suits to restrain, prevent, or abate a violation of this Ordinance may
be instituted in equity or at law by the Township. Such proceedings in
equity or law may be initiated before any coun of competent
jurisdiction. In cases of emergency where, in the opinion of the court,
the circumstances of the case require immediate abatement of the
unlawful conduct, the coun may, in its decree, fix a reasonable time
during which the person responsible for the unlawful conduct shall
correct or abate the same. The expense of such proceedings shall be
Silver Spring Township Slenn Wiler Mao.agemcnt OrdiDucc
recoverable from the violator in such manner as may now N hereafter
be provided by law.
SECTION 502
PENAlTIES
Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Ordinance,
or wbo sball fail to comply with any written notice from Silver Spring
Township which deScribes a condition of non-compliance, shall be
guilty of a summary offense, and upon conviction thereof, shall be
subject to a fine payable to Silver Spring Township of not more than
one thousand (51,000) dollars for each violation, recoverable with cost.
In default of payment of the fine, such person shall be liable 10
imprisonment for not more than thirty (30) days. A new and separate
violation shall be deemed to be commilled for each day after receipt
of the aforesaid notice that such violation exists,
SECTION 503
In addition, the Township may institute injunctive, or any other
appropriate action or proceeding of law or in equity for the
enforcement of this Ordinance. Any COUr[ of competent jurisdiction
shall have the right to issue restraining orders. temporary or permanent
injunctions. writs, or other appropriate forms of remedy or relief.
;t;~AL T~ ~ SILVER SPRING TO\VNSHTP BOARD OF
SUPERV1S0R~
SECIlON 504
Any persons aggrieved by any action of the Township may appeal to
the Board of Supervisors within twenty days of that action,
INSPECTION OF PROPERTY
Upon presentation of proper credentials, duly authOrized
representatives of Silver Spring Township may eD!er at reasonable
times upon any property within the mUl'Jcipality to investigate or
ascenain the condition of the subject property in regard to any aspect
regulated by this Ordinance.
The landowner shall grant to Lie Township, or its agents, access to the
site of the work at all times, while under construction, f.yr the plUpose
of inspecting the Work.
SECTION 505
SEVERAJ3ILITY
Should any section or provision of this Ordinance be declared invalid
by a coun of competeD! juriSdiction, such decision shill not affect the
validity of any of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance.
SIMr spriac TOwnsh.ip Stonn Walcr ~bn.alCmenr OrdiMncc
AnidcV..29
"
i,
~
~
I ~
Exhibit .C"
SECTION 502
SECTION 503
SECTION 504
SECTION 505
recoverable from the violator in such manner as may now or hereafter
be provided by law.
PENALTIES
Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Ordinance,
or who shall fail 10 comply with any written notice from Silver Spring
Township which describes a condition of non-compUance, shall be
guilty of a summary offense, and upon conviction thereof, shall be
subject to a fine payable to Silver Spring Township of not more than
one thousand ($1,000) dollars for each violation, recoverable with COSt.
10 default of payment of the fine, such person shall be liable to
imprisonment for not more than thirty (30) days. A new and separate
violation shall be deemed to be committed for each day after receipt
of the aforesaid notice that such violation exislS,
10 addition, the Township may institute injunctive, or any other
appropriate action or proceeding of Jawor in equity for the
enforcement of this Ordinance. Any court of competent jurisdiction
shall have the right to issue restraining orders. temporary or pennanent
injunctions. writs, or other appropriate forms of remedy or relief,
~EAL TO THE STl. VER SPRTNG TOWNSHTP BOARD OF
SUPER VISORS
Any persons aggrieved by any action of the Township may appeal to
the Board of Supervisors within twenty days of that action.
!NSPEcrrON OF PROPERTY
Upon presentation of proper credentials, duly authorized
representatives of Silver Spring Township may enter at reasonable
times upon any property within the municipality to investigate or
ascertain the condition of the subject property in regard to any aspect
regulated by this Ordinance.
The landowner shall grant to the Township, or its agents, access to the
site of the work at all times, while under eODStruction, for the purpose
of inspecting the work.
SEVER.~TLITY
Should any section or provision of this Ordinance be declared invalid
by a coun of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of any of the remaining provisioDS of this Ordinance.
SiMf Spline Towusttip Stonn Walc:r ~an.atemcnc Ordinance
Anidc: V . 29