Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout81-1119SIJtTS, 19~~ Case # -S 1114 Date of Ent Appearances: Plaintiff: Norman D. Law Mar. 19 al at Entry by Summons ( ) complaint Petition Defendant:The 7,oning Hearing Board Monroe Township Appeal Revival P M. ) _-j ) 3/18/81, Appeal Petition and Writ of Action in Certiorari, filed, ASSUmpS1t ( ) ~.~ ~~~.~0~`~~ l , ~'~ ~ F~ ~ C ~ ~ ~'+,C e~~r~~~~n'~ `~~l- U Trespass ( ) ~J~-E~-^rL ~ ~~Qs c~ ., Habeas Corpus ( ) 4/2/81, Reply to Petition for Appeal, Divorce ( ) filed. Grounds 4/2/81, Certification of Record, ECtUlty ( ) filed . Mortgage Foreclosure ( ) 4/8/81,Order of court, filed. 4/7/81, The Petition fails to aver Ejectment ( ) sufficent facts to enable the court to Quiet Title ( ) determine nature of the visitation so as to enable the court to properly pass on Replevin (. ) the subject matter. Condemnation ( ) By the Court, Dale F. Shughart, P. ( ) April 23, 1981, Petition for Stay Under Section ].1008(4) of The Pennsylvania Service by S H F: Municipalities Planc+ing Code .53 P.S. 11008(4) and Order filed. Date ofa Return: AND NOW, this 22nd day oC April, 1981, i.t is ordered that. ahearing be held in coi.irt- r.oom 3 of the GumbcrJ_and County Courthouse. Carli sle, Pennsy]vania rn~ I~ri_day, the 1st day of l~iay, 1981, at 10:00 A.M. to hear evidence, if any there he, why a stay of the decision of the Respondent should not be ordered. /s/ George I?,. }loffer, J. 4/29/81, Order of Court, filed. APID NUW, April 28, 1981, by request of Diane G Radcliff, Esquire, counse for the Petitioner, and with the concurrence of James D Bogor, Esquire, counsel for the Respondent, and Richard C Snelbaker, Esquire, counsel for the Intervenor/Township of Monroe, hearing in the above matter originally fixed for Friday, May 1, 1981., has been continued to Tuesday, May 5, 1981, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom No. 3. By the Court, George E. Hoffer, J. 4j30/81, Certificate of Service, filed. 4/30/81, Certificate of Service, filed. 5/5/81, Motion & Rule, filed. AND NCJW, May 5, 1981, upon motion of Diane G Radcliff, Esgvire, attorney for the Plaintiff, a rule is granted upon the Defendant, THE ZONITic BEARING BQARD OF MONROE TOWNSBIP, to show cause why the Court should not iCe- ceive additional evidence in the above captioned matter or alternatively should not remand said matter ktl THE ZONING HEARING BOARD Or MONROE TOWNSHI: for the purpose of taking additional testimony in the above captioned ma t Y n r__-_ LCnn t i n uad~SLER) -_. Taxation of Costs I Receipt of Fees $25.50 pd. atty Radcliff ~----_ Tt~t..3E CQPY FRO! F~tCORn !n r:.,.l:~,;~;~ v•hrr~', ~ tk:ie uiltfs ~"t icy h~r~d ~~ ~~„~ _~, ^i ri i!;~ t:~rii1 ,fit Carii^1s. t~8. ~.~ c yk:~st....~~ ._..__ proii>flnotasy ~ Rule returnable 30 days. George E. Ilotfer, J. 5/5/81, Answer of Township of Monroe (Intervenor) to Petition for Stay )08(4) of M.P.C., filed. 5/8/81, Order of Court, filed. :'1ND NOS7, May S, 1981, at 3:40 p.m., upon the adjournment to chambers the urt had an opportunity to review the legal memorandums submitted by Diane dcliffe, Esquire, a rn3 in view of the argument of the Supervisors of Monroe unship that Section 11008 Subsection 4 does not authorize a stay of any criminal oceedings and in view of no authority being presented by the petitioner sub- antiating their position, and, further, on the relation of Diane Radcliffe, guire, that there is an existing opinion in the York County Court which she aims confirms her position, This hearing will be continued generally pending receipt by the court a copy of the York County Opinion. ~ By the Court, George E. Hoffer,J. sJ8/81, Certificate of service, f,}.led, .,1~~ rU / 9 % i !7 ~ 1t .~~~_~!-(; i~ t,2~(_.~i) c9 /j~ ~w ~'~'; l I - l ~! ~ : ~ ~'.~ !/I! r ,7./ . (~ 5/28/81, Answer of Monroe Township (Intervenor) to Petitio ner's it ion for Rule to sh a.~ Cause why the Court should not receive Additional ridence, filed, 6/2/81 - Answer of. the Zoning Hearing Board of ~4onroe Twp. to Petition- ers Motion for the Receipt of Additional Evidence or for remand, filed. 6/2/~?1 - Answer of the Zoning Hearing Board of Plonroe Twp. to Petition for Stay under section 11008 (4) P1.P.C., filed. 6/12/81, Certificate of service, filed. ptlRSUP.~ ~ ~ ~ . P..,l.A. f.90.~ SEE O(iC;_.i' '.1' C~r~-.~.~5'.. .1.9.j?t A~3.-~ z1, ~~iVIL 19s~:fia 1, .. ., TW P f X, .~' .~ Ai'PLICATION FOR VARLANCF l~tOPbRdR TU6JNSI~IP~ P~~IP~SYLVANI,A ].. App].icanC No~msn D. I~arA 545 Devon Kor~d Camp }li].1, k'A ~ 17011 WI~.EY k BF.NN A'lIUII^~t~ti AT IAW 4V/~Pl'b MUMP-N lAtig ltl l.t.s III~NC., P£4NA, lTiU tl 2. Uwner of Affected Real EstFtE~•. Norman 17. Iraw 545 DI?van Road Camp Hi11, PA 17b11 3. Lteaeription amd location of affected Real FstAte: A long narrow tract of land containing approximately 1.557 acres, and located between PQTtnsvlvcrnia Route 74 and t1Te PennSy'l.vtttti.tt Rza~.tl.rn+;d trnekA in the Vill.nge of 13rixncltavil.l,e, Munroe '1'ownshi.p, Cumberland County, ]'ennsylvaltlc+, (see attached map). 4, Present zoning classification: Agricu7.tur~rl improvements: 1 story brick building. Present use: Commericial -Warehouse, shop and office facility. 5. The App].i.cant, NOrmAn D. Lacs, is seeking a variance from the agricultural zoning classification mo as to allow fox commercia]. use of this tract of lAnd. The variance if being requested pursuant to ~ 150h of the P10nroe 't'ownship Zoning Urdianunce. The Applicant avers that the property in question is unsuitable f:or nny use within the present Agricultural zoning c~,assification due to the topograrhy and ei.ze of the property and its proximity to the ra:~lrot~d tracks thus cre.ttirtg undue ttardHhip on the rtpp].icflnt. i'{ P F<~ -- 1 .G --- .a _- l 1 1 I.1 1 -'~ •~ . T i ""{ h1 F_ '_~ 7 t ~ F..: ~ _{ i ; e-~ T? .. ~ - ~ •. A P _ -~ 1 6. present improventa_nte coTCSist of a. one stony brick building previously used as a railraacl aeati.an a~~ci crealnry. Nor further improvemeccta are Gznti.cipated. 7. Atratr_?t>~c1 Co thi.rs n~!~~'[11'r~ttc{ci Ic; El copy of the m~-p of: khis tract of land, wh~.ch is in~coxporated by reference and made s pArt hereof. Respectfu:lJ.y submi.r.t~;e"'d'~, WTT_.RY & BEtTN 1 BY ~Ai'~; G. ~AD~~, "ESQUIRE Attorney fo App tcttnt ~~'It.E.Y & PENN A7f00.~1',vy AT l-AN' 11 {.LtiNI'RO• !'l Nh,~, ItP1A r '~ ! / + / p b ' ~ n I ~V~e ~n f~ ~ ~ i I NL.'1'I/~/BE II ~9 rl b OI vl OI n. s~ o°~ o~ o~ iI ~I .j ,,..,~ o "r~ ~~~u a ~~`~~g v~;,ae e~eue~ U..V 4r~ V.~~~~ l mn~ .' '~ ci b `9 ~ a T '1 Ac ~H~ ' ~a~~ °~,.,~ . y G G D C Z H ~~ r O ~, o b ~r iA ~?ti C>~ Q e L ~^ 10 ~ i~.ns, i p~~ ~, ~:u 2 ^~ n °" F u a ` ~ ~` 0 0 A':b/-TO:II~t .. .. T~~ ~~~~~ „i .p m ,' „ro ~n ~d~,~; ,~~N ~. ~, T. in i 4 ~~ ~T ~~ ~ T n ~? ~ "' 1 e.oa 4^ ~ t ~Z ~, ,:. ,o O n c~ _-- /, / I ~ $ V^~n p~ I j N~,7 •I/~/d ~f ~ SJ4A' -7^ 1 .~' ,f ~ _~ _ ,~ 4a44~ ~~Y C j I._~.. S 1 C H 41 ~....I I11 ~ n !~{ i f~~-~ III ~, ~~ ~, ~ ~e~, 8 ~ ~ ~~ oI° ooa ~; ~ y6 I ~ iguy a~ s'II o ~ ~^ nl~ g~ I?~ ~i ~ ~_ ~ `~~.II B n ~k P z .( .,. ,~,; ~:~~e ~m~waa "~:~ ~ f1 I {b i i ~ _~ ~~I r i8 l4 I I~ j ~ ~~ j iq 'o Ie ~~ '~~V u fZ ~.n ~~ ] ~ _i ~n ~~~~ n" 21 nA a ~,. ^oP n ov o~° ~ b ~4 "'~~ "`.B ~~ o:// s 1r40 II 1 it T~ ~° 1 2 3 4 5 ' s 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 is 17 18 is 20 21 22 23 24 25 E X. ~' .3 MONROE TOWNSHIP ZONING 1}EARI1dG BOARD PUBLIC HEARING - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X Request of Norman D. Law for a variance to Zoning Ordinances of Monroe Township - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x Monroe Township Municipal Building Route 174 RD 2 Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania Wednesday, January 21, 1981 Met, pursuant to notice, at 7:30 p.m. IBEFORE: RICHARD THOAIPSON, Chairman JACOB L. HEISEY, Member DONALD DECKI`9AN , Membe r JAP4ES D. BOGAR, Solicitor for the Board DALE ELICKER, Zoning Officer APPEARANCES: DIANE G. RADCLIFF, Esquire Wiley and Benn 204-206 Mumper Lane Di1_]_sbur.g, Pennsylvania 17019 (For the 1lpplicant) RICHARD C. SNELBAICER, Esquire 44 t^Iest Main Street _ l~lechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 (For_ the Township) -0- COMMONWEALTH RFPOf~TING COlvil'AN`( 17171 7fi1-7150 1,-~-1 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 13 ]3 14 15 1G ]7 1~ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ti4ITi1ESS Norman D. Law P,y Ms . Radc 1 i f f By Mr. Bogar By P9r. Snelbaker Charles B. Baker Dale rl.i.cker NUMIiE12 Exhibit No. 1 Exhibit No. 2 Exhibit rlo. 3 Z~OGJT1Sh].~~ S No. 1 P7o . 2 No. 3 No . 4 C O N T E N T S DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 4 -- -- __ -- 25 -- -- -- 28 -- -- 34 -- -- -- 36 -- -- -- E X H I B I T S FOR IDENTIFIC?1TION IiJ EVIDEI'ICE ! 9 9 11 11 25 25 30 30 31 31 31_ 31 31 31 -0- CnMMONWFAL.TH RFPC~RTING COMPANY t717i 761-7150 lrl I) I P R O C E E D I N G S 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 ]0 I1 l2 13 14 15 1G 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ?.5 3 ~ CHAIRP•'IAtd TFiOMPSOiv: I am calling this meeting to i I order, and I will turn it over to t}ie Solicitor. i I~IR. BOGAR: This is the time and place that has {~ f been set for the public hearing on the variance request of Norman D. Law for a variance to the zoning ordinances of Monroe Tocanship to allow for the commercial use of a certain tract of land improved with buildings. The property is i located between Pennsylvania Route 74 and a consolidated I rail track in the Village of Br.andtsville, Monroe To~~~nshi~. ~ The application for variance is made pursuant ~ 1 to Article XV, Section 1506, of the P•9onroe `1'o~~mship zoning t ordinances. The prosc~nt zoning classifical.ion of the land in 1 question is agricultural. I would like the record to reflect that tine t~ublic notice f_or this hearing was duly advertised in the "Carlisle ~ Sentinel" on December 30, 1980 anal January 6, 7.981. I would also like the record to reflect that ti:e ' 1 application submitted by Pir. Law was made complete on Decerf,er, I'i 8, 1.980, and the requisite application :f_ec~ was tendered. J l.f you want to proceed, go ahead. ~ Whereupon, ' SS NORP•1APJ D . LA11 having been duly s~,~orn, testified as follows: f COMMONWEALTH REPORTING COMPANY (7171 761-7150 • lr2 t J 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 . 9~ 10 I 11 12 l .3 1 ~~ 15 16 17 18 19 2u 21 ~~ 23 24 ', 25 II 4 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. RADCLIFF: Q Mr. Law, are you presently the owner of the tract of land referred to by the Solicitor of the hearing? A Yes, Z am. i Q And where is that tract of land located? ~ A Monroe Township, between Route 74 and the now Conrail line in the Village of Brandtsville. Q 4~hen did you purchase that piece of property? A The property was purchased in March of 1976. Q On that tract of land, are there any improvements ~ located thereon? A Yes; there is a building. The structure is f i approximately 30 by 50 feet, exterior dimensions. ~ I Q And the exterior dimension runs along ~-rhich road? A It parallels Route 74 and the railroad line.. I Q V7ho did you purchase that property from? A I purchased it from the Reading Railroad. Q Do you know what prior use was made of that builc'i~iG? A To my knowledge, a railroad sta non in the ear1:• 190U's, a creamery in the 1930's, and sometime in the 194U`s r it was a warehouse, and then somewhere i.n t_he 1950`s it was abandoned. 2 llas there ever been aari_ci_iltur_al. use to that hi_ece of pro~)erty, to the best of_ your knowledge? c~Mr.~oNwr_ni_rf i REP012TfNG C(')Mi'/1NY r7 i 7. 7G 1 -71 `_i0 lr3 1 2 3 9 5 s 7 ~, 8 9 10 11 12 13 1-t 15 16 17 ]fl 19 20 `> t 22 23 24 25 5 A Not to my knowledge, no. Q When you purchased the property, do you know what the zoning of it was? A Yes, I dial. Q 4dhat was that? A Agricultural. Q Subsequent to purchasing the property, did you seek information from this Township concerr~i.ng the zoning? A Yes, I did. n Who did you first see? P, The first person I saw was hlr. 47eibley, who at that time in 1975 was the Zoning Officer., and we discussed the zoning and my potential. use of the building. Q What was hi_s response to you? MR. SNLl3AY.ER: I am going to object to this. MR. BOGAR: We will note your. o}ejection f_or the record and al.l.ow you to testify. TNF WITNESS : t~ir . [~~rei_bl.ey and I met in this room in an evening for which I cannot: identify other than I }:now it was i_n 1975 prior to my purchase of the property. A~t that time, I informed him of my intentions to purchase the property and my subsequent intent to remode l the property -- renovate the property, I think, is a better word, arld he was pleased, as I think anyone else i.n this Township would have been, and has expressed that they were COMMONWEALTH REPORTING COMPANY 1717 7G1-7150 ~~ 6 lr4 t 2 3 4 5 s 7 8 s l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 pleased that something was being done with the property. At that time, I indicated to him that I was initially going to secure the property and use it for a ~ warehouse and shop facility. BY MS . RADCLI l:'F Q Did he give you any advice at that time? A Yes, he did. Of course, my intention of the meeting was to find out what difficulty there would be in i 1 my using t11<e property. i I At that time, he informed me of its agricultural zoning and that a variance could be~made available; once I han! completed my renovations of the property; that I should ' contact him. ~ I Q So he at that time advised you not to seek a - I I variance until after you had completed your renovation? ~ A Absolutely, and in each subsequent year that I contacted him to let him know what I was doing in the property: He indicated to me at that time there was no building permit I necessary for what I was doing in my removal of 10 feet of ~ i the property and my interior renovations of the property, and that until I lead completed my renovations, that there taas no necess-ity for me to make any application, at which time I then he would come over and go through the property. i At what point did you finish your renovations of this property and begin the cc~mmerci.al use? ~ COMMONW[Al_Tf-J REPORTING C0111PANY 171T 761-7150 t 1I~ 7 ~ ~ A Two years ago, we installed a phone and, of course, had a shop facility and had the property rewired. This year 3 in Jwie we installed an office and brought water into the q property. 5 Q And did you at that titre seek any additional help g from the Township? 7 A No, I did not. I was under some letters -- I had 8 had letters, and I }Zad had conversations with the Zoning s Officer, and this is the point at which we were being informed l0 that we were in violation of the zoning. I was in the midst 11 of renovation at that time. 12 Q L•J}Iat is the approximate size of your property? } 13 A Approximately it i_s an acre and a half. 14 Q Do you know how wide your property is at its 15 narrowest point? 16 A About 50 to 55 feet. At the crossing, it is about 17 55. At t_he extreme end, it is about 67 feet. 18 Q 63hen you say it is 55 feet ap}>roxi.mately at its t9 widest po.i_nt at the width, does that also include property 20 in the center part of 'the roe-~d? 2t 1~ Yes; I'm sorry; you are right; that center 7_ine ??_ of the highway to the legal right-of-way from t_he railroad '~; track; ghat i_s correct. 1 21 MR. 130GAR: If I cou]_d interrript for a moment. j•las '~ this submitted along with your application, this dra~oincl? Do COP.IMONWEALTH REPORTING COMPMJY (7171 ?r,1-7150 lr6 ~ 8 ~ 1 you wish to have that formally acknowledged? 1 7 2 MS. RADCLIFF: Yes, I would like to have it formally 3 admitted. 4 5 6 t3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1s 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BOGAR: That speaks for itself. I am referring ~ a on with the a~ lication. It to a plan that was submitted 1 g Ip 1 1 indicates on the plan that it is a survey for the property I owned }_~y Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company to be conveyed to Pdorman I,aw. It indicates that the date of t}~e plan is ~ I j January 15, 1976. j BY MS. RADCLIFF: ~ There is a bui.ldin located on this property; is Q g I that correct? I A That is correct. j~ i Q And i.t is the building that you are making, a commercial use thereof? I A That is correct. ~ Q [chat is the distance between that building and the railroad tracks? A It is probably less than 10 feet on the railroad side, and directly on~the PennDOT right-of-way, I orould say ' i several feet, three or four feet from that -- 15 foot -- if i it is. a 30-foot legal right-of-way, the center line to the ~ }~ corner of the building i-s almost several feet. It is very I t I close. Q Now I am going to show you some pictures of your COMh10NWEAl.TFi R[PORTING COh1F'ANY 1717 761-7150 lr7 ~~ 9 II 3 II 8 9 to 11 12 13 I 14 'I 1 ~ ~I 1s 1? 18 t9 20 21 2 2, 23 2.1 25 building and ask you to identify them. ~ (Picture handed to witness.) j A This is the building in its present condition with the exception of the chimney, which has ncx~ lien removed -- lowered. Q Does that adequately represent the distance from the road to the front of the building? A Yes. I~iR. BOGAR: );xcuse me. If you want i.o have these made a part of the record, why don't you go ahead and just number them on the back, and then that way we can keep track of them. MS. R1IDCLIFF: That would be Number 1. P1R, BOGl1R: The plan is part of the application. (Whereupon, the docurrent was marked as Exhibit Pdo. 1 for identification, and c•~as received i.n evidence.) BY 1`1 S,. R~DCLIFF: Q Does that adequately show the distance bet~,reen the back of your property and the railroad tracks? A Yes, it does. This is during some renovations early i.n 1976. Q To the best of your knowledge, would you know if your building is suitable for use as a residence? A I don't think so. I can't imagine who might caant to live there. I dou}~t it seri_ousl.y. ~'OM1~10NWEALT1i F2F_PORTING COMPANY 1717+ 7(;1 7150 lr$ 1 Z 3 4 5 s 7 s s ]o 11 12 ]3 1 ~- 15 IG 1? ]s 19 zo Zt 2 Z. 23 24 25 IO t Q Could you estimate how nany trains go by in one ' day? A Anywhere from five to maybe eight; something like ~ I that. Q 6dhen those trains go by, does that affect in any ' way the stability of that building? A I hope not; not in the last 30 years, although you certainly know that they are going by. ~ 1 Q Your building shakes then? A You can fee]. the vibrations from the trains moving 4 ~ by . i E Q If you were to convert this building into a residence, you would find that offensive? j A Definitely, very much so. ~ n Have ou eve ~ ~. y r ra~.sed any animals. ~ A Pdo . Q Do you .k now anything about animals and how trains ~ i affect them? 1 i A No, none whatsoever. Q To the best'of your knowledge, would you know i~ this piece .of property would be suitable for raising anin~ais of any kind? { A Not to my knowledge. I can't imagine what. i Q Is this land, your 1.557 acre tract of land, in pastureland? f CORIMONWFAL_TH RCF'ORTING COMPl1NY ~717i 761.71.9n lr9 I) 1 ;ii 3 II 4 5 G 7 s lU 11 12 13 1 ~1 15 1 fi 17 Is 19 20 21 32 23 24 25 11 i R I wouldn't call it pastureland, no. Q G4irat would you describe it as? I 1 R t•Jell, it is just -- it is not even level. It is Timothy and weeds is what it is, and scrub trees. It is J not suitable for certainly pasture, I don't think, no. It i is 7.,200 feet long; that is the only thing I can tell you fcr sure.. Certainly nothing else can be used on the property, t and I don't think anything could be built on the property ~ either. t Q Do you know of_ any setback lines that you have on that property? R I am aware of them, and I do not believe t'riat anv additional properties could be placed on the property. I i don't think there is enough room. • A7S. RhDCLIFF: I don't believe tae have any further questions. MR. BOGAR: Do you want these made a part of_ the record? • 1`iS . R~DCLIFF : Yes . MI2. BOGt~R: ' Vde w.il.l indicate that there are two , pictures introduced labeled Number 1 anc, 2, and these pictures will speak for themselves. (G•Jhereupon, the document ~•:as marked as Exhibit Number 2 ~cr ~ identification, and ~•~as received in evidence.) ; COP•1MON4VEALTH REPORTING COMPANY 17171 7G1-7150 _rl_U ~~ i ;II 3 II 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 10 I 11 12 13 14 15 1G 1? lII is 20 21 2 2, 23 24 25 12 MR. BOGAR: That's it? MS. RADCLIFF: Other than a short statement that I I would like to make. It is our position in bringing this variance -- if you would like to ask him questions first. MR. BOGAR: Perhaps the Board might have some ~ questions or someone else might have something. ' i MR. HEISEY: What type of warehousing and shop s i facility did you envision when you purchased t}iis property? T}lE 14ITIJESS: At that time, I was working for a company out of California. We were in the utility businses,~ and it has been my business for 15 years; a water utility business, to be specific. We at that time and to date -- although now it is my business -- are testing and calibrating industrial water • i meters, and what we do is we are a mobile operation. lve go to the water utility site, to their plant sites, factories, test and calibrate their industrial water meter. The shop facility is a backup to the field operation. Basi-cally, it i.s not a full-time ongoing pro}.osi- tion. curing the 10-month period of the year that tae are in the field, there is no one in the property. During this pe_ri.od -- I will correct myself_ in saying that.}~ossibly one ~ w week Ollt of each month we will devote some ti_nte to being in the shop facility in complementing our field operation. During January and February, we close the yield COMMONWEALTH REPORTING COMPANY (717 7[1-7150 Lrll ~{ 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 •~ 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 IG 17 18 19 20 ?.1 22 23 24 25 13 operation, and it is my intention to utilize the shop facility then on a full-time basis, although that still itas not happened. ~Je don't even have centralized heating in the building. I.4R. }iEISEY: How much time elapsed between the time you purchased the building and the time you began. yo>r.r renovations? 5 THE 6JITNESS: I had no sooner purchased the building and a wind storm came along and removed the roof and proTptly dropped it into the street. At that particular point, we had to redo the i entire roof, and I would say that was i_n ].976. ode din not secure the building in 1976. I would say it was in 1977, the latter part of 1977, when we secured it; in other words, boarded the building up and put doors on the back and frort~ and removed -- I should say demolished a 10-foot secti.o~ on the back of the building. I am assuming most of- the fellows here are ~ ai__i_1_ar with the bui]ding and have 1_~cen aware of its existence -or quite some time; buL- we straightened that end of it un a-~d ~'I secured it and put it under lock and key. So I would say the latter part of 1977 or the ear=_~ part of 1.978 we had that building secured under lock and =,~~. and with a phone in it, and at that time it c•,ras just a c•:~re- house. COMMONWEALTH REPORTING COMPANY r717r 761-7150 1r12 2 3 4 5 s 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 14 l5 IG 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 ~) 19 Then through 1978 and 1979 and 1980, we continued i to make interior renovations; electricity. We rewires the 1 entire building, end it has a1.1 been inspected. I have had ! an electrical inspector inspect every ounce of wort' that has been done in the building. Registered plumbers are the only ones that have ~~rorked on the building. 11s I said, it has been a long, slo~•r process, but it is one that I have hopes that I can continue; and at the ~ most, I don't see more than one man, if ever, on a full-tine I basis in the shop facility to repair water meters for municipalities and for private water companies in about 'r a 200-mi:le radius, which is t}ie area which ~,°e cover. 1 I MR. HEISEY: Subsequent to yo~_ir purchase of. the property, had you ever advertised this property for sale I or lease? ~ TI}E 6~7ITNESS : No . There have been a considerable ~ 1 amount of people interested in purchasing the property, but ~ it has never been _listed with a real estate agency. There were quite a few conversations in c•rhich there I 1 were people that were going to buy the property, but nothinc 1 that was settled. I am the only owner since the heading ; s Railroad, but never have I advertised it for sale. .de have ~ discussed the sale, but it never happened. One fellow who was seriously interested ~:~anted to bring a waste scrap paper business into it. He wanted it fcr COMMONWCALTH F2EPOR7ING GOMr'AfJY ~717~ 7~1-7150 1r13 1 2 3 4 5 s 7 i 8 9 10 I 11 I 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 1~ ?.o 21 ?~ 23 ,, ~ 25 15 the railroad side, so that he could -- he wanted to denolish the entire interior and bring waste paper in there, bail ' 1 it, and put it on boxcars and ship it someplace. MR. IiEISEY: fie contacted you about this operation? TIIE WITNESS : Yes . I~4R. HEISEY: Do you know how he became aware of the r s property, you being the owner of the property? I TIIE WITNESS: Probably the same way I did. I:e passed the property, and -- at the moment, I am not absolutely; certain how he became aware of it. I really don't knor:. I just know that there was one fellow in particular that comes to mind who was very seriously interested in purchas?r:g it r1R. HEISEY: I have no further questions. P~1R. DECKMAN: When did you establish your business a.s such; not t}1;e business at the present foundation. You al]_uded that you had worked for another company. THE WITi1LSS : Right . MR. DECKMAN: And then apparently you went into business yourself here at sometime and then purchased this building, according to the Wrap there, On January 15, 19?E. So when did you yourself. undertake private o:-~ner- ship? TIIE CdITPdESS: I~ly cor.uorati.on, the Pennsylva*~ia corporation, was formed t:wo and one-hal_f years ago, and t~1at CC~MF:IONWL!\Ll'll RF('OI:TINC; COF.1F'/1PJY (717 761-7150 1r14 16 t -is when I formed my own company by purchasing the assets of 2 the company that I was working for. i 3 MR. DECF:MAN: So technically that happened then ~ after you had acquired this building? 5 i THE WITNESS: That is correct. 6 MR. DECKr1AIJ: You kind of alluded to this also in 7 that you indicated that you are there perhaps one week a s g month. I am interested in what the present traffic is into g your establishment. to You indicated that perhaps during tcao months out 11 i of the year, you may be there full-time. F3ut. if you are j i 12 servicing water deters and applicances and such for other I t3 municipalities, what type of traffic do you see no~•r and in ~ q the f uture? 15 THE WITNESS: Very minimal. because my basic is business would be one of pick-up and deliver. I would not 17 be outside of -- I have had this Dillsburg stop in to see is me. I have had White Rock Acres and a few people stop is in to see me, but most people know me and have known me for 20 the past ].5 years i-n the waterworks fie]_d. I usually call on 21 them. I don't foresee -- if I understand your question, you 22 are referring to trucks pulling in and pulling out and that 23 type of thing. 2~k MR. DECKI~IAN: Yes. 25 THE WITIJESS: I don't foresee that at all; an COMMONWEALTH REPORTINE COMPANY 17171 761-7150 1r15 1 2 3 4 5 10 I 11 I 12 13 14 15 1G 17 18 is 20 2] 2 2; 23 2 -1 25 17 occasional car or an occasional pick-up truck, but I do not ever foresee a constant procession of trucks pulling in and out of there. I~1R. DiJCKMAtJ: Of course, you had indicated you had purchased the assets of the company that you were working for, and you indicated in a1i earlier statement that you hope that you can continue working here and so forth. I I Speculating on longevity for a moment and using any measure that you wish to use as a yardstick -- and I i i will throw this out as an example; perhaps gross income or sales -- from the time that you actually started until noc•~ + and looking to the future, has your business been increasing i in.business or sa]_es or gross sales or however you might measure your graph on a chart? THE ~^JITidESS: Jell, in the five years that we have introduced the fie]_d service in Pennsylvania, i••laryland and Delaware, why, of course, we have had very good success in representing it because we were covering about a 200-rr.ile radius. I foresee that radius because of exf>enses declining. I do not expect to exceed a 150-mil_e radius this year. As a result, our gross revenues will be affected by that declire.~ Right now we have reached what I feel is about a $200,000 gross peak that I am in hopes to be able to rr.ain- tain if I decrease my service areas. COF.9MONWEl~LTH REPORTING C0~IPANY 1717 7G1-7150 1r16 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 ]4 15 Is 17 18 I~ 20 21 2 2, 23 24 25 is As a result, I do feel I will be getting into other service areas other than liquid measurement. I am already doing altitude valves and pressure-reducing valves. I am also anticipating doing possibly rebuilding chlorinators; all in the clean water end of the business; all in the water utility end of the business; all service that will be generated through the consulting engineers and my contacts with the water utilities. 6Je ar.e going to be doing efficiency tests on wells. We caill also be doing potometer testing. These are all field operations. They have nothing to do with possibly your consideration of traffic into the building. i9e are a service company, okay, which means I go to the customer. MR. DECKAI[~N: i2ight. In other words, looking at the existing building of 3U by 50, you probably are not even using all the square feet that is in there at the present time THE WITNESS: No. GIe presently arcs utilizing ~ probably 50 percent of the building in shop and office space. i The remainder i.s in warehouse space, which is unheated. j MR. DECKMAN: So as far as expansion goes, the building itself would be adequate for "Y" number of years? . THE WITNESS: Absolutely. As a matter of fact, f i is w' in -- or if ou are not if you are am 1 r ith the build g y , the building has from the ground roadside open all the caay to the rafters of the ceiling i.n about a third of the building, COMMONWEALTH REPORTING COMPANY (717 7s;1-7150 lr]_7 :ii 3 II ,tl G 7 8 91 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 21 25 l9 which means a second floor would have to be installed to even be able to heat it. So right away t}ie square footage, ~ I from .an interior standpoint, could be increased. Right now, I would say the interior square footage -'- I installed a second floor in one section of the buildinc -- I would say the square footage would potentially be 3,000 i square feet, which would be more than I will ever need. A1R. DECICr•4Ar1: Looking at some of the rural townships that surround this immediate area, like P•lonroe, and goincl up to, let's say, perhaps Boiling Springs that ha~-e their OWT1 water company, and so forth, looking to the future again, what type of service do you see that perhaps your es~abiishment might render to serve our own r~.iral public? In other words, right now people are not on any water meters. You alluded to again like clil.orinators, and ~ so forth; but if we qet into the large municipalities that i surround the area, for example, like Car].i.sle and Harri~hurc, . c etcetera, why, naturally they would receive a direct se~-c=ice from you. Of some of the things you are anticipating, is there anything in there that might be of service to our ' i rural.. communities? THE [4ITNESS : We have already serviced a lot of well meters in the area of Boiling Springs, and I kno~•; tine South t`Siddletor. Township secaer plant, and i!9r. I3aors has alreaa;.~ COF•1MONWEALTH REPORTING COMPANY (717! 7G1-7150 • Lr18 t 2 3 4 5 s 7 8 s to ' 11 12 13 14 15 is 17 18 is 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 I contacted me on some liquid measurement instruments. But the potential i-n the area obviously is in tl~e residential area; and at the moment, my service is not designed or it does not appear that it will be designed to service the residential end of the business. This is not to say that that might not change. If the radius of my service area continues to decline, I will have to consider that as a possibility, i definitely. Residential meter and residential meter repair i is not something that is growing. There are no longer 30 i nor 40-year products on the market anymore -- or I should say ~ I reparable products. They are all now in the vain of throw- ~ i t away type of products. I MR. DECKA'lAN: This is a lot of our items in our society today. Just two points of consideration, not necessarily for discussion; however, I will throw .them out. ( The point of the creamery, back when that was established, I think that would be an agribusiness, and never at one time taas that a bottling plant. However, it ~~as ' a loca]. pick-up plant for the local farmers. I mean, in other words, f_armer_s brought -- at that time it could have been cans rather than tank trucks as you know it today. To I i the best of my knowledge, it was never a bottling plant; I unless you know that it was a bottling plant, Jake. It was j just a pick-up, which -- COMMONWEALTH REPORTING COMPANY (7171 761-710 1r19 1 2 3 4 5 s 7 8 9 10 11 12 i 13 14 15 1Fi 17 18 19 20 21 ,t 2 2, 23 2-1 25 21 r9R. HEISEY: It was referred to as a receiving station. 1`1R. DECKrdAN: Right, which would put that into I an agribusiness. I don't know if you care to make a comment ' on that or not. THE 6~ITNESS: I am assuming that regardless, that was all prior to zoning anyway, so it might be a moot point. r~IR. DECI:MAN: The other point of consideration 1 I will just throw out: do you feel it is good business to invest without terms of writing or just ors the verbal state- j 1 i went of one individual that you would maybe invest most of ~ your life savings or undertake a tremendous remodeling or renovation project without something to record? ` TIIE 1•JITr1ESS : Let me say this : 15 years in the utiliL-y business, I have done ever_ythincl on a handshake, anc my business today is all done on a handshake. ; I do not operate under contract. I deal directlh with directors of public works, city engineer., city managers,. borough managers, plant managers, and when they ask me to service a product,•I don't ask them t.o sign a contract. On that basi.s,• I have always done my business that way. - This is not to excuse the basis i-n which I made that assumption here, and that•was there should have been a ~ written statement. I should have had it signed. I do not deny my mistake in not having my conversations in cariting ;with COP.IMONWEAI_TH REPORTING COMPANY (717• 7ti1-7150 1x20 22 i the Township. I did not think it was necessary. However, I 2 realize now obviously my mistake. 3 Flere again, as I said, I don't disagree with a:hat 4 you are saying. I feel that you are absolutely correct. 5 Hopefully, though, my good faith and my intent is more s important. 7 MR. DLCY.MAP1: j9hat assurance do we have that s perhaps -- of course, some amendments could probably maybe _ ~ be put to this; but assuming that your wishes would be to Honored, and once that variance is changed, what assurance it do we have that things don't more or less change overnight l2 and we see something that is completely derrogatory to our I 13 general trend of thinking? 14 TF1E 41ITNI;SS: Any guarantees that you want, you 15 can have. However they can be arrived at is fine with me. ir, That would be a matter of the attorneys possii~ly, if that 17 is at all possible. I don't know. 18 Niy intent is -- and that is my ]_ivelihood and is my profession for 15 years. At the moment I am in hopes ?~ to be in the same profession 15 years from no~~a, and assut^inc 21 that I do not outgrow the building and the building's use, 22. I expect to be there in that building. It has adequate 23 water supply. Thal- is probably the primary reason I bought 2~1 that building. There is an eight-inch well. on that property=, •'~ 25 foot i.n depth, with a 10-foot column of ~~al-er i_n it. I COMMONWEALTH REPORTING COh1PANY 1717 7fi1 7150 1r21 3~ 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 is 17 ]8 19 ~ ~ 31 2 2, 23 21 T,5 23 have a 250 gallon-a-minute capacity from that well ttitithcut lowering the level of the we]_1 when we tested the v:ell this summer. i The well is potable. It is good water, and that is the basis that I would need i.n any location. Were I to i go in the City of Harrisburg or wherever I might go, I ctiGS1c need some adequate amounts of water in order to test r^~eters , if we got our testing operation in line i_n this area. N1R. DECKt~IAi7: One ]_ast point of consideration. iti~?at i was more or ]_ess the selling point, or_ what was the basis of your selection for this building as compared to a builcir~g i_n a municipality or next to a railroad station or a bus dek~ot or numerous things of this nature? THE GJITNESS : Price. I saw an opportunity, I ho~~e, , and I sol.i.cited the railroad. It took them over. a year tc even make a decision on my offer. I made an offer in ear]_y 1975 , and i.t a~as not until T~larch of 1976 that we final]_y consummated the coat_a~ on that property. T~IR. llECY.MI~TJ': 6dhat was the date yor.r made your =il_t ~ offer? `P1TE i^7ITLIESS: I:t was early in 1975. I ha~-e the literature and I have the wr_.iting and file mailing ~::ne-re I sent a do posit w.itli an offs~r, and i.t took ti4em aver a _~_-, and th.i_s is the period i.n whi_cll Peadi_ncl Railroad ~•ras con~r~or~v~~~~i_~~~r r~r~c~~iNC c~r~.mnrvv ~~i~~ psi-7i:~~ 1r22 2 3 4 r~ 6 7 s s 10 11 ~ 1?, la 14 ]5 1G 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2-1 'l5 24 declaring bankruptcy, and they were selling a lot of their real estate holdings. To be honest with you, my biggest concern in purchasing that building was simply that I could get a clear title to ii-., and, of course, t}le fact that I made an offer and they accepted the offer. MR. DE;CKMAN: Okay. Thank you very much for responding. That is the only questions I have. CI~AIRMAN THOAIPSON: I just have two points of clarification. You mentioned earlier that you were there primarily during January and February. The rest of the year then you are primarily usi-ng this building for storace? THE YJITNESS: Yes. Basically, we are a mobile operation, a service company, which means we are going to be on-site someplace.. 6~e are a very small company. It is myself and two fellows. CHAIRMAN THOMPSON: That was my next question. How many, peo~~le do you have? THE WITNESS: Myself and two men; one technician, a helper, and a part-time secretary, which she i-s not there. I pay her on a contract labor basis in another office, ~~:iiC17 is in Camp Hill. The office in the building i.s primarily for r^.y purposes, and that is, as I say -- normal..ly there ~:~ill not be anyone ti~ere on a f_u.l.l-ti.me basis . C0~1t`10NWEA1_TH REPORTING COr~1PANY 1717 761-7150 1r23 t 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 s to Il 12 13 t~ I fi 1G l7 18 ~s 20 21 22. 23 24 25 25 That might change, and I am certainly in hopes i that it ~•~ill sometime, but that is why the office, and that is why the continued renovation to the property. ~ i CHAIRMAN THOMPSON: I~1hen you are nat. there the ~ other months of the year, then there is no one there? ThE WITidESS: Correct. There is an answering servic~ there, and that is all; a telephone answering service. CHAIRMAN THOMPSOPI: That i.s a] ]_ the questions I I have . Do you have any cross? I MR. BOGAR: Yes; I have some points. CROSS-EXAMINATION • BY I.4R. BOGAR: Q I have a copy of a document here that purports to be a deed. Is this. a copy of the deed given to you? A As far as I know; it looks li.}:e the copy of the deed. 1+IR. BOGAR: Let's put this in and call this Number 3. `Phis i.s a deed from the Eastern Real Estate Company' to Norman D. Law. It~i.s dated 29 March, 1970. (6~her_eupon, the document vas marked as Exhibit No. 3 for identification, and was received in evidence.) i BY I~7R. BOGAR: Q ~Ir. La~,r, you went through earlier your process of_ cor.~n~or~wFni_~rE~ r~r~orii~ir~c~ c~r.~F>nr~iv ~~i~ ~r,i Viso 1r24 1 2 3 5 s s s ]Q it 17. 1:3 14 15 1G 17 18 t9 20 21 22 23 ?.1 25 26 fixing up. 4dhen did your actual business operations start down there? A I leased the building when it was secured to the company I was working for, which would have been sometime in the ]_atter part of 1977 or 1978. Q To when? A `i'o the time at which I formed my own corporation. Q Which was when? A ~~dhich was in -- well, let's say 1978, okay? Q When in 1978; do you remember? A I would have to look up the specific -- say i•iarch of 1978 is when my corporation was filed in the State of Pennsylvania. Q After 1978, you started to rise ii. fir the uses that you just testified to? A Correct. Initia]_ly i.t was a warehouse and shop and a phone, and then later on in 1980 there was an office installed there. Q Did you ever secure an occupancy permit for the '~ building? A No, I did not. Q Did you ever obtain any building permits for an~r renovations that were done down there, either -- ext.eri.or renovations? A No, I did not. C0~4MONWEALTH REPORTING COMPANY (7171 7FJ-7150 i 1r25 ~ 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lG 17 1$ t~ 20 ?,1 22 23 2~ 25 27 !. Q The property that you have described, just so I am clear on this, what i_s the dimensions of the building? A The exterior dimensions are basically 30 by 50. S They Deere originally 30 by 60 when I purchased tt-~e building. i C1 Atzd you caused them to be removed? A I demolished ]_0 foot at the back end of the building'_ i ~ It was just in unrepairable state. p? i Q The building in question is now usable for your present office operation and warehouse operation? A That is correct. Q The zoning in question indicates that an applic~le use would be the sale of farm products. Could farm products be sold from that site in that building? A I woulc] imagine so. I don't know. y Q It also indicates that the land can be used as a club, a lodge or a fraternal organization, and, for that matter, a veterinary or a dog kenne]_ . 69ould that buildi *.g ' be available for_ those types of uses? A I ceot.il.drJ' t think so . I don' t kJ1ow , to to ] 1 yo ~ t:~e- truth. Q A 4 ' A 11r_e there any signs displayed on your building? rdo, none . No advertising signs, no directional signs? No, none. I don't even get my mail at than. building. UR. PnG11R: I have no f_ur.tlJer questions. 6~Jot_Jlc ~or.tn~ortw~nt_Ttt Fz~~o~ ~ iN~ con,ar'nrJY vt~~ ,~~ a -~ i so 1r26 28 ~ anybody else like to cross-examine or make statements? 2 MR. SNELBAICER : I f we may . 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION ,~ BY MR. SNELBAI{ER: 5 Q Nlr.. Laca, when you purc}~ased the building, did I g understa nd your testimony to be that you knew this building 7 was loca ted in an agricultural zone? g A That i. s correct . g Q Did you at that time submit any application for ~o any sort of permitted use to cover. an anticipated business? 11 A Based on Mr. F7eibley's information to r;~e, no, I 1? did not. 13 Q From what you have just answered, I gat}ier that 14 your for mer employer used this buildings for its purposes 15 in 1977 or early 1978; i_s that correct? ]6 A Yes. ~7 Q Has it been in the same use evc>r since? [8 A That and more, yes. is Q Does that use continue today? 20 A Yes, it doe's. 2[ Q From what I understood, that use consisted of 22. three basic commercial uses. One was a warehouse. 23 A Correct. 2t Q And what do you store? 25 A ~~7e store inventory parts, meters, water n~:c~ters. COMMONWEAI_T'H REpOR'fiNC~ COMP/1NY 17171 761-7150 I i i 1x27 t 2 3 9 5 e 7 8 9 io 11 12 1:3 14 15 1G 1 '! 18 19 20 21 2 2, 23 2 ~~ ?~ 29 i I a Q And the second was a shop. A Correct. i Q And do you perform repairs and maintenance ser•aices i there? I I A Correct. i Q And the third was office. A Correct. Q And i_s there an office there today? ~ A Yes, there is. Q The office was just constructed in this past yeyr? A Yes, sir. Q Does someone come and go from the L-uilding each cav?' A Not necessarily each day, but there is usually ! I someone in and out sometime during the week, yes. , Q Is that someone pri_mar_ily yourself? A Myself or -- this time of year, myself, yes. . Q On April 17, 1980, do you recall meeting at yo>~~ premises with t~lr_. Eli.cker_, the Toning Office r_ for the To~':rs}yip? Do you recall. hi_m stopping there and advising you as to `hz inapprapr.i.ateness of dour use? A 7 don't recall the meeting, but I will accept _cur 1 word .for it. Q Perhaps you don't recall the date. Do you recall ~ the fact of I~ir. E.licker's presence at your building? A Ito, I do not . C01.1MONWEAI_.TH REPORTING COMPANY (7T7~ 7G1-7150 1r2II 2 3 9 5 s 7 8 9 to tt 12 13 14 15 is 17 18 ]s 20 21 2 2, :? :3 ~? 4 L5 30 MR. CLICKER: It was a telephone call. BY MR. SNELBAKER: Q Do you recall a telephone call? A There was a 11:30 at night pYtone call to my personal residence in Camp hill, yes. Q Do you recall it as being Mr. Eli_cker that contacted you? A Yes, correct. Q 4Jould you acknowledge that the document t.~hich I an showing you, which is Township Exhibit .l, i_s a letter which, i~ I in fact, you received from me as the Solicitor for the i Township? A Correct, yes. i (4Jhereupon, the document was marked as Township Exhibit l:o. 1 for identification, and F:as received in evidence.) BY P4R. SNELBAKER: Q Was that, in fact, sent by certified mail, for which you received a copy -- and I wil]_ show you the original ~, as well as the copy. Is that your signature? ' (Document handed to witness.) A No, it is not. It is my wife's. I Q Someone that was authorized on your behalf to receive it? i A :L assume so. con~naor~~~n_nr_ii~ r:rroFlrwo corvir~nr~v ~~i~~ ri-~iso 1r29 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ]6 17 1R 1J I :? o 21 22 23 2.1 ?~ 31 MR. SNELBAK)R: Ode will mark that as Township 2. (t~dhereupon, the document F.as i marked as Township Exhibit t:o.~ 2 for identification, anc was received in evidence.) BY i•1R. SNELBAKER: Q Did you, in fact, respond to that: by a letter, t~'~e original of which I will show you and the copy, which is marked as Township Number 3? t (Document handed to witness.) > A Yes. s f s (4dhereupon, the document csas ' marked as `t'ownship Exhibit i.o. 3 for identification, anc u:as received in evidence.) i tl 2 3 4 5 BY PAIR. SNELBAKER: Q Did you subsequently receive a second letter rro.:. my office inviting you to attend a Township meeting? P. Yes, correct. n I wil]_ show you a copy of my letter of October ~, marked Township Exhibit 4. (Document handed to witness.) ]~i_d you, i_n' fact, rest~ond to that nice ti.ng? A Y.es, I did. Q Did you come to that meeting? A Yes, I did. (I•dlier_eupon , the document :~, as rear-};ed as Township F;;hih? t ':o. 4 for identification, ar.,-_: ~~:~s receive<1 i_n c~vi.dence . ) COh1P10NWE!\LTH REPOf2TIMG COh•1f'AN`f (?17~ 7f.;1.7150 ] r30 1 2 3 ~1 5 g ', 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 1~ 15 1r 17 l8 19 20 21 22 ?.3 24 25 32 BY ffiR. SfdELBA1;ER: Q At the Township building? A I~Io. It was at your office. Q There was a meeting then subsequently held at my office; is that correct? A I am not following your questions. There was a meeting at your office subsequent to what you are referring to here. I did not come to the 'Cocanship meeting. I don't remember_ , to be honest with you, whether I was out of town. ~' I am not sure. I couldn't make the meeting. Q Am I correct that the first and only application that you made for any sort of use of this property is the document which is being considered here tonight entitled, "Appl.icati.on for Variance"? Is that the only caritten application you filed? A As far as I know. Q And that was on or about December 8, 1980? A I don't know. I am taking your word for it. I assume so, yes. Q In response to these demands that were mace in the various documents that have been submitted to you by the Township, did you at any time terminate your operations? A No, I did not. Q What is the price that was paid f.or thi-s tract o~ I land? COMMONWEALTH REPORTING COMPANY (717 7G1-7150 1r31 i 31 5 s 7 8 S to tt 12 13 l4 15 1G 17 1s 19 2Q 2.~ 22 23 ?.1 7 r~ 33 A The deed says $5,000. Q I~ that what, in fact, was paid for it? A Yes, as far as I know. Q Is the replacement value of that building -- or was the replacement of that building at the time it c•~as acquired more or less than that price? A The replacement value at the time of purchase? Q Yes. A I couldn't answer that. I ~aould assume it c•;ould be higher. (~ It would be considerably higher Lo r_ebui_lc the building than to buy it at this price? A Absolutely. MR. SNELBhKER: That i. s all. I have . MR. BOGAR: Does anybody else that i_s present tonight care to ask questions at this time of_ 1`7r. La;•~? (No response.) MR. BOGAR: Does the Board have any further ~,ues- ~ tions? I t~lR. DECICMAN•: I have one other question. hccordir.g to this one letter and earlier in your statement, I kind of lost track of how you were working for your forn~~er company, '. and I thought you started your business here; but the letter indicates that they themse]_ves had set up ]~usi.ncss over l~erc--. { Di d you have a sub-l ca;==>e then w .tli them? COMMONWEALTEi RF_PO{2TING COMf>ANY (7171 761-715~~ 1x32 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 to li 12 13 ~, 14 15 1 fi 17 lII 19 20 21 2v 23 2~ 25 34 THE ~•JITiJESS: I leased the property on a warehouse basis to the company from California that I worked for, and they were absorbed in California. They t}len offered the assets on the East Coast here to me, and that is ho~:~ I ended up purchasi-ng them. That lease, I don't even think, ~•~as longer than a year. I would have to check. MR. DECKMATd: In effect, though, you. did have a lease in writing with a former company? TIIE idITNESS: I had an agreement in c•iriting, ~~es, with my former employer. MR. DEC?:I•~IAN : That is all I have . A4R. BOGAR: Does anybody else care too make a statement or offer a comment? MR. SNELBAKER: I wish to present a witness. MR. BOGAR: Are you finished with ~~our case? MS. RADCLIFF: Yes. (4•Jitness excused. ) MR. SNELBAI{ER: Mr. Baker, will. you Ue scaorn, please? 47hereupon, ' CHARLES B. BAKER having been duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SNELBAKER: Q Will you give us your name and official posi.t3.on COhiMONWF_ALTH REPORTING COMPANY 1717 7Ei1-"1150 1r33 1 . 2 3 ~, G 7 B g l0 11 12 13 11 15 16 17 18 19 l 0 21 '2 23 21 _'S 3~ with the Township, please? A Charles B. Baker. I am Chairman of the Board oT Supervisors. Q idill you state whet=her or not the Township has a position with regard to this application? A We have. Q ~•]hat is that position? Is that in favor of or agai-nst? MS. RADCLIFF: I would object t.o that as };Wing totally irrelevant to the Zoning Bearing Boar-d. MR. BOGAR: We will note your o}~_jection and allc.•,~ the evidence to proceed. • TIIE 4dITNESS: CJe abject to t_h_s due to the fact that they are in violation with our zoning ordinances ~-:hic_1 we have . BY )`9R. SNELBAKEIt: Q Have you. been present tonight to hear the t.esi"]_riG?~~' ' - ' of Mr. Law and cross-examination cai_th .respect to th_e intro- duction of r_ertain documents, being letters from my o~ice and communications with him? A Correct. .Q Will you state whether or not those were authcri~ed ~' by the Board of_ Supervisors of Monroe `iownslri_p? A They were authorized by the Board of Su~~er~ri.so -s ~= `, f•lonroc~ Townsh.i_p. Co1~1MONWEALTH F2FP012TING C0~11'l11JY (7171 7G1-715th 1r34 ,, 36 t Q Iias the Board directed its enforcement officer '' to take such appropriate action as is required. under. the -- or as is authorized under the ordinance? 4 A 4.7e have . 5 MR. SNI;LBAICER: That is a]_l. ~ MR. BOGAR: Do you care to cross-examine? 7 MS. RADCLIFF: No. 8 ([r7itness excused. ) ~ IvIR. BOGAR: Anything else, Mr. Snelbaker? to i~IR. STIELBAICER: That is all I have, Mr. Bogar. 11 MR. BOGAR: Thank you. t2 Mr. E1_icker, our Toning Of_fi-cer, do you care to 13 ma)~e a statement or offer any additional evidence that ~•aoulc 1't he pertinent to this matter? 15 r9R. FLICKER: I have nothing to add except one 1G thing. 17 Vdhereupon, , 18 DALE FLICKER 1s Navin been dal g y sworn, testi_f_ied as follows: ~~ TIIE WITNESS: I only want to add that I have fror.! ~~ time to time ins ected the buildin p g, and most of the 22 statements that he has made have been correct. 23 I have found recently some equipment being stored ~~ outside. I don't even know what it is. It appears to he 25 some sort of metering or pipes or fittings of some type COMMONWEl1LT1i REPORTING COMPANY ~717'~ 761-7150 1r35 37 ,, } t located outsi de the building. Tltat is about the only thing 2 I would have to add. i i 3 MR. BOGAR: Is there anyone else who is present ~ 4 tonight who w ould care to offer a comment or make a statement?` i 5 MS. RADCLIFF: I would like to ask him a question.. I 6 [whe 1 n you discovered that equipment sitting outside ? t}ie building, dial you say anything to Mr. Law about that? 8 TIIE WITNESS : There was no one there at t}zat time. i 9 MS. RADCLIFF: Did you write him a letter to that to effect? f t ~ THI:, I L4'ITNL'SS : I discovered that this past Tuesday. t2 MS. RADCLIFF: Did you try to leave a note at the t3 premises? t4 THE r 6AITNESS: No. ' i t' MS. RADCLIFF: Is the position you are taking that ~ is you object to f the equipment being outside? f t7 THE WITNESS: Just a statement that he was using 18 it as a warehouse apparently for indoor. storage=_ and this :aas , I9 stored on the outside. I 20 i~9R. BOGAR: Any further cross-examination? ~ 21 MS. RADCLIFF: No. i I 22 (L9itness exr_used.) ~ 23 I9R. POGAR: T9ould you care to mace a statement: by i 24 way of summation? 25 MS. RADCLIFF: I thi_n1: we have gotten quite a bit COMMONVJf=ACTH Rf_PORTIhJG COMPANY i71:i 761 7150 1r36 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . 9 to 11 12 13 t~ 15 ]r t7 18 ~9 20 21 zz 23 2 -1 25 38 off the track concerning r1r. Law's past action as }~eing in violation of the zoning ordinance. TIZe testimony that tae had brought in tonight concerning his conversations with the former Zoning hearing Officer Caere made merely to shed light and give an explana- tion as to why things have been happening the way they are. I think the sole issue which is befcre this Hearing Board tonight is whether Dlr. L,aw does, in pact, qualify for a variance. I think it is very clear if you look at the tract of land or if you are familiar with it at all that this piece of property is not suitable for any use within that agricultural zone, and therefore Mr. Law should be grar_teG a variance. D1R. BOGAR: D4r. Snel_baker, would you care to make a statement? MR. S~r])/LBAP.ER: Yes, I would. If the Board pleasE, the request, as I understand i.t, is for a variance. ^hererare, there must be shown a hardship which is cognizable udder the law. Lt is not a practical hardship nor i_s it ail ecnomic hardship, which is what I believe is being _~rofferec i to you tonight. `There is no i_mpossibil_ity of use of this ~roperfi~,r. There is a judgment call hc~r_e. In fact, I seriousl•.- questic COMMONWEALTH REPOF2TING COMPANY (717 761-7150 1r37 ,, t 2 3 5 s 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lr 17 ~s ~s 20 21 ? ~. 23 3.1 25 39 f i' whether there is any competent evidence before you that this land cannot be used for agricultural. purposes. Agricultural purposes are defined, of course, in our ordinance and any one of those could be used. I don't think there is any question about it that some, if not all of them, could irl some way be implemented on this tract of: land. I needn't tell you because I know you have been through this many times before, that the hardship that is involved must be something that arises out of the o?~dinance i_tsel.f, and it is usually caused by a peculiarity of the tract of land in and of itself. Ede all know that this particular_ tract of land is not unusually peculiar by reason of the fact that it does have a building on it, which can be used for any one of these uses -- or_ some or all of these uses. I would urge you to very seriously consider the fact that the use has been made here iii outright defiance o£ the ordinance itself and in defiance of a directive from the Township on at least two occasions that ~ the use should be terminated. . So the credibilii.y, I think, you must deterhiir.e as to when ttris man decided to make his amends or to seek his permission to use. It i_s belated, ~-r11d only after he is called upon to cease to terminate his use rather than, as COMMONVVFALTfi REPORTING COMPANY ~717~ 761-7150 1r38 ~~ ~ n r t ,, 31 5 s 8 9 1o I 11 12 13 14 15 1G 17 ]8 19 20 21 22 23 7.4 25 I i 40 suggested, that he was to complete his renovations and then i submit a variance. ~ IL- you carefully 1_ook at the letters which r,:e have submitted, you will see that the communication to me, the ' one letter from Mr. Law that we have, does not indicate in ~ any way the need for a variance or any reference whatsoever to any prior conversations by any officials of this Township. I submit that this is something which is belated. s i It is irrelevant. The question comes: i_s he entitled to a variance because of an hardshi ? I su test that the Y P 9.~ hardship which has been made is one of his own making ; I I arising from his unilateral decision to ignore the require- ments of the Township, a requirement which lie acknowledged did exist at the time that he bought the property. Thank you. I 1 A'IR. BOG~1R: Does anybody else have any statements ; i at all pertinent to this matter to make at this time? (DIo response. ) ~ MR. BOGAR: Miss Radcliff, normally it is the j i procedure of the Board to render a decision at a later date. I In light o~ the provisions of the municipality Planning ' Code .wi.th respect to Zoning Hearing Board decisions , ~~~e are mandated to render our decision withl.n 45 days of the last hearing on this matter. i It is not the custom of the rlonroe Township Hearing COMMONWF_AI_TN REPORTING C0~IPANY 17171 7G1~7150 1r39 a 2 3 4 5 r 7 8 9 10 ~, 11 12 13 14 15 lc 17 18 41 Board to have another pub]_ic meeting to announce its decision. We will, however, do that if you insist that it be done that ~ way. Another option would be for the Board to obtain a copy of the transcript, which usually takes about t~•.o ctiee;~s to be forthcoming, to review that and then authorize r.:e to formulate the required written decision. ~ If that procedure is agreeab]_e with you, that is the procedure that will be employed. If not, we e~ill core back and announce the decision at a public hearing. MS. RADCLIFF: No; that procedure i.s fine ca.ith rne. MR. BOGAR: Okay. Along that line, I t•:ould ask you at your earliest convenience to give me a letter to that i effect that that procedure is all right key you. If that is the case, then I submit ~•~e can acjourn this hearing. CHAIRI~'IAN THOMPSOIQ: The meeting i.s adjoLrnec. (Idhereupon, at 3:25 p.m. , the hearing Baas acjoirr_ed. i 19 20 21 22 23 31 Jr~ COMMONWEALTH REPORTING C0~1PAtJY 1717 7F 1 -715 1r42 . . 1 1 2 3 4 5 s 8 s l0 11 \ ]2 l 13 14 15 lr 17 I is 19 20 21 22 23 J Z~ 25 42 C E R T I F I C A T E I hereby certify, as the stenographic reporter, that the foregoing proceedings were taken stenographically by me, and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under my direction; and that this transcript is a true and accurate record to the best of my ability. COl`ZMONWEALTH REPORTING CO'/P~~I:Y, IPIC. I <'" -7 J By : ~M ~ ~2-~~1~j~- ..`~21-~~ E Sandra ~lilus E *** Co~1MONVJEALTH F2FPOR-SING COMPANY t717~ 7r1-7150 ~~ X. ~' IN RE: APPLICATION OF BEFORE THE MONROE TOWNSHIP NORMAN D. LAW ZONING HEARING BOARD FOR VARIANCE RIC1;iARD THOMPSON, Chairman JACOB L. IiEI5EY, Secretary DONALD DECh'MAN, Member DECISION OF THE ZONING HEARING BOARD Norman D. Law, the owner of a certain tract of land .improved with buildings, iias appli.ecl to the Nbnroe Township Zoning Hearing Board for a Variance to allow for the commerical use of the tract as an office, warehouse and repair facility for HMS - LAWC'O, Inc., a corporation owned by him. The propert~• is located between Pennsylvania Route 74 and the Consolidated Rail tracks in the Village of Brandtsville, Monroe Township. The Public Hearing on this application was held on Wednesday, January 21, 1981 before the Zoning Hearing Board and testimony was taken and duly transcribed by a stenographer. Present at the hearing were Richard Thompson, Chaiz~nan, Jacob L. Heisey and Donald Deckman, Members, constituting the Nbnroe `Ibwnship Zoning Hearing Board; James D. Bogar, Esq., Solicitor for the Zoning Hearing Board; Richard C. Snelbaker, Esq., Solicitor for Nbnrce Township; Charles B. Baker and Fred T. Kapp, Supervisors of Nbnroe Township; Dale Flicker, Zoning Officer for Monroe Township; Norman D. Law, Applicant; and Diane G. Radcliff, Esq. , attorney for Applicant. FINDINGS OF FACT The evidence presented at the Hearing consisted of the testimony of Norman D. Law, Charles B. Baker and Dale Flicker, together with three exhibits offered on behalf of the Applicant and four exhibits offered on behalf of the Township. JAMES [). QOGAR ATTO(iNEY AT l_AW 5 WEST MAIN STREET SIIIRFMANSTOWN. PENNA. 17011 Based upon the testimony and exhibits presented, the Board makes the following Findings of Fact: (1) The Application was made final on December 8, 1980, with the required Application fee having been tendered. The Application consists of a two- page typewritten statement and a plot plan. The plot plan was prepared by Gerritt J. Betz, Associates, Inc. and is dated January 15, 1976. (2) Written notice of the hearing was given to the Applicant and public notice of the hearing was given by newspaper publication in the Evening Sentinel on IX~cc~n}~er 30, 1980 and January 6, 1981. (3) The property which is subject to this proceExling consists of a lot being improved with a one and one-half story brick building, being approximately thirty feet by fifty feet {30' x 50'). The building is depicted in pictures submitted as Applicant's Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. The dimensions of Applicant's property in relati to adjoining tracts and the roadway are depicted in the plot plan submitted as a part of the Application. (4) The land is located in the A-Agricultural District. Applicant's corrrnercial use is prohibited. As such, Applicant is not permitted to use the premises for a cscial use, either as offices, warehouse or repair shop without a Variance. (5) The present Monroe Township Zoning Ordinance was enacted by Ordinance No. 3 of 1975, dated December 30, 1975. (6) The property is owned by Norman D. Law, who acquired same by Deed dated March 29, 1976 and recorded in the C~antbesland County Recorder of Deeds Office in Deed Book "N", Volume 26, Page 484, a copy of said deed being made a part of -2- the record in this proceeding and marked Applicant's Exhibit No. 3. The property was not actively used since its abandonment in the 1950's. Prior to that time, the building had been used as a creamery and delivery station. (7) Applicant was aware of the Zoning Classification of the property prior to his purchase. This awareness resulted from his discussions with Mr. Weibley, the then Zoning Officer of Monroe 'Pownship. (8) Applicant advised Mr. Weibley of his general intent:ians with respect to proposed use and alteration of the building. However, Applicant did not apply for, nor was he granted, any zoning changes, variances, building permits, use permits or occupancy permits. (9) After his purchase of the property, Applicant removed approx- imatel_y ten (10') of the existing building making its present diuner.~ions thirty feet by fifty feet (30' x 50') . (10) In 1977, the building was leased for warehouse use. (11) Fran 1977 to 1980, Applicant improved the building by installing phones, making interior and exterior repairs and renovations. During this period of time, the building was used by Applicant and others as a warehouse, shop and repair area. (12) In 1980, Applicant made interior renovations to provide for offices. Applicant conune~zced using the offices in his present business operation. (13) Applicant's business entity is HMS-LAWCO, Inc., a concern dealing with the gauging, monitoring, repair, service and the like of water meters and related instruments. -3- (14) The building is persently used by Applicant, twc~ Employees and one part-time secretary. (15) Applicant intends to expand his business operation. (16) By registered letter dated August 29, 1980, Monroe Township, through its Solicitor, notified Applicant that his present operation was in violation of the Zoning Regulations of Monroe Township. Further correspondence and discussion was had by and between the duly authorized representative of the Zbwnship and Applicant relative to this matter. These discussions continued until approximately October, 1980. By letter dated October 8, 1980, the Solicitor for Monroe Township informed Applicant that ccatunencement of enforcESnent proceedings would be initiated. See Zbwnship Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4. (17) Prior to or at the time of purchase of the property, Applicant did not make application for Variance or other relief. (18)~ During the course of alteration and use of the building, Applicant dial not nk~ke application for Variance or other relief. (19) The instant Variance request of DecEmber 8, 1980 constitutes the only action taken by Applicant. (20) The Board of Supervisors of Nbnroe Township is op?-nsed to the granting of the Variance request. Otherwise, no other objections were voiced at the Public Hearing to the granting of the Variance request. (21) Applicant testified that he has not actively advertised his property for sale, but that he has entertained discussions concerning the sale of the property. (22) There is no unnecessary hardship resulting from the unique physical circumstances or conditions peculiar to this property. -4- (23) The Variance requested is not necessary to enable a reasonable use of the property and, further, the physical circumstances and conditions of the property do not preclude its development in strict conformity with the provisions of the Monroe Township Zoning Ordinance. (24) The unnecessary hardship claimed by Applicant is self-created. (25) If granted, the Variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood, that being agricultural. (26) The Variance requested, if granted, would not be the minimum Variance that would afford relief and constitute the least modification possible of the applicable regulations. ilT CCR 1~~ T(li~T The pertinent Sections of the Nbnroe Zbwnship Zoning Ordinances are Article IV, Section 40Q (Defining Allowable Uses in the A-Agricultural District) and Article XV, Section 1506 (Providing for Variance Appeals). The applicable guide- lines for considering this Variance request are found in the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. Sec. 10912. The evidence presented will be reviewed in light of these standards and criteria. There is no unnecessary hardship due to the unique physical circLUnstances or conditions peculiar to Applicant's property. The Variance requested is a Variance as to the use of property that has been developed. It is not a Variance designed to facilitate the development of an unimproved tract. As will be discussed below, there are other allowable uses available for Applicant's pro- perty. -5- Applicant's Variance request is not a prerequisite for a reasonable use of the property in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. The physical circumstances and condition of the property do not preclude its further use and development in strict conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance. Article N, Section 400 (A) lists nine permitted uses for property located in an Agricultural District. Applicant has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board that one or more of these uses would be available. It is clear from the testimony that the present condition of the building is such that different (and permissible) uses could be made of the property. F~artherrrore, Applicant testified that he has entertained discussions relative to the sale of the property. The unnecessary hardship claimed by the Applicant is self:-created. Prior to his purchase of the property, Applicant admitted that he was aware of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Article IV, Section 40C- is clear and precise. The commercial uses contemplated by Applicant were clearly not allowed. Applicant, nonetheless, proceeded to renovate the building and to use same in an admittedly ccennercial manner. Applicant attempts to justify this action on the basis of conversations with Mr. Weibley, the then Zoning Officer of Nbnroe Township. Mr. Weibley was not produced or made available at the hearing by Applicant. Flarthermore, no correspondence from the Township condoning these actions was produced. While allowing Applicant's testimony as to conversations with Mr. Weibley to be admi_ttecl, the Board is cognizant of its self-serving nature and has weighed the testimony accordingly. It is interesting to note that Applicant, a business man, made no attempt to procure proper Variances, required building permits, or use and occupancy permits. -6- Applicant proceeded to alter the building and to use it crnmercially, subsequent to receiving notification frc~n the Township as to the violation of the applicable Zoning Ordinance. The Board also notes that the instant Variance request was made subsequent to the Applicant's receiving notice tYiat enforcement proceedings were being camnenced by the Zbwnship. It is clear frcm the testimony presented that Applicant has created the hardship fran which he now seeks relief. His attempt to obtain a Variance is a belated effort to rectify a self-inflicted hardship. The Variance requested by Applicant, if granted, will alter the essential ~~ character of the neighborhood. The testimony and inferences deducted therefran I~ i.rr3icate that the area in question is, in fact, predaninently agricultural. As such, the neighborhood's character will be altered by the continued carmercial use of Applicant's property. The Variance requested, if granted, would clearly not be the minimum Variance that would afford relief and constitute the least modification possible of the applicable regulations. As discussed above, there are other allowable uses available for the property. In sum~ary, the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Oode sets forth specif is and express criteria that must be considered in Wiling on a Variance request. Applicant has failed to present sufficient evidence to convince the Board that the Variance request should be granted. The Board is very mindful of its obligations and duties under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. As such, the Board has no alternative but to deny Applicant's Variance request. -7- (Y'P~7('T.T T.4T(W By unanimous vote of the Monroe Township Zoning Hearing Board, the application of NOrman D. Law for a Variance to allow for the commercial use of his property located between Pennsylvania Route 74 and the Consolidated Rail tracks in the Village of Brandtsville, Mariroe Township, is denied. This decision shall constitute the formal Zoning Hearing Board Certificate that is required to be issued in this matter. ~ ~, Signed and dated this/~ day of ~,.:.-~-~'~~~~-~''-'~ 1981. MC7NROf;E~~OWNSHIP ZONIN HERRING BOARD Richard Thanpson, Chairman ~/ ~ / oob L. Heise ~- Donald Deckman -8- SUPERVISORS OF MONROE TOWNSHIP CUMBERLAND COUNTY 1220 Boiling Springs Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Phone: 258-6642 - 697-4613 February 18, 1993 Mr. Norman Law 1156 York Road Mechanicsburg, PA 1.7055 RE: Property Location 1156 York Road Parcel #22-12-0345-135 Zone: Agriculture Dear Mr. Law: An investigation of the above referenced. location on February 4, 1993 indicated a non-permitted business is being conducted in the agriculture zone in violation of the Monroe Township Zoning Ordinance, dated April 1988, Article IV, Section 400 A (copy of Section 400 A enclosed}. The type of business being conducted would appear to be water utility services. Tt~e above named owner of record andlor Lawco Associates is hereby notified to cease and desist conducting any and all business from the above referenced location that is in violation of the Monroe Township Zoning Ordinance. Steps to correct the above violations must commence within thirty days and be completed within ninety days from the above date. You have the right to appeal to the Zoning Hearing Board within thirty days in accordance with procedures set forth in the aforementioned Ordinance and the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. Failure to comply with this notice within the time specified, unless extended by appeal to the Zoning Hearing Board, constitutes a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Very truly yours, 1 Dale E. Elicker Zoning Officer DEE/mem Enclosure dCMIBR . ~; .~.vs~~r.r± ~`~ ~` cJAM ES v. ~30CiAR ATTORNF_Y AT I.AW R WRST MAIN STRTTT .JAMES b. }IOGAR SfIIREMANS70WN, FENNSY}7JANIA 17011 TFi.ET'tTONF. _ (7t 7) 737-R7f}1 ANDREW C. S}IELLY April 16, 1993 TF.LF•,COf ITR (717) 737-P09O Murrel R. Walters, III, Esquire 54 East Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 RE: Norman D. Law Matters Monroe Township Zoning Eiearing Board Dear Murrel: I am writing to confirm that Monroe Township will, in short order, be forwarding to the individual members of the Zoning Hearing Board, Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire, Norman Law, and your office, the following: Township Exhibit No. 2 - 1981 Application of Norman Law; Township Exhibit No. 3 - Notes of Testimony of the January 21, 1981 Zoning Hearing; Township Exhibit No. 4 - February 18, 1981 Decision of the Zoning Hearing Board. Please advise me immediately if you have not yet received these documents. I also wish to enclose for your consideration a copy of the September 25, 1980, November 13, 1980 and December 23, 1980 minutes of the Monroe Township Board of Supervisors meetings. It is suggested that these minutes will be helpful inasmuch as they refer to actions taken by the Board of Supervisors relative to Mr. Law. Please note that Mr. Walter Rimmer, former Township Supervisor, is mentioned by name concerning several of the motions made concerning the decision of the then Board of Supervisors to proceed to take the appropriate legal action necessary to cease the operation of HMS-LAW Co., the business entity of Mr. Law at that time. These minutes are directed to your attention for distribution to the Zoning Hearing Board members. It is respectfully suggested that these minutes can be brought to your attention inasmuch as all parties discussed and mentioned that there was no reference to this matter in our minutes. In addition, Monroe Township was not advised as to the testimony to be offered by Mr. Rimmer in advance of the hearing. Finally, it is suggested that the Zoning Nearing Board can take note of the enclosed minutes inasmuch as they are public records of Monroe Township. J {, Murrel R. Walters, III, Esquire April 16, 1993 Page 2 Kindly advise if you require further information concerning these matters. I am, of course, providing a copy of this letter and enclosures to all parties in this matter. Please advise me as to when the Zoning Hearing Board will reconvene concerning this matter. V.e y t/nr, u y yours , J MES D. O AR, Solicitor onroe Towrl hip JDB/lab Enclosures cc: Monroe Township Board of Supervisors Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire Norman D. Law ~, Reptead,Rr 29, 1980 7 ! ;ft1 1' FI 11ta tt!1tu1Ar rr+rn!tluN of 1hr Bupervlanto of Hrmrnr: 1'oMuAlt.lp wne rrlln.l 1 u urdnf• by ptnirmrm geknr. All a+rtA+l+artl prRrettt. 11t1 t11u MnPltal pf Nr. Kapp, arcouded by Nr. RlMmpt and by uunnlmoun vats of r17 !luprrvfourr+ ft waa Ju.lr RI!Rh1,VM1f ca ppprnve the mfnutea a[ the Aepttrfebrar llrlr rauctirtg as pn*ted ter the blllllcln borne. , 11te Ilnrldtrutrtt>t rAVa Ids 1,f moncAly teyufLr Ihl thn tnutlnrt of Mr. Kapp, oarmnded I+y Mt, Nlmmer rand by unpnimnua Vucc of All 8uyervl.trora, ft .,a,r dnlq Bit901.,VK11 to ndupt rho Urdfnpnar prahltlnR lha solo v- drur paraphprnn.lte ar ArlvarUARtI, 'Ifie Aontt) set tft•luber 43rd for. the publlt: hnptlnR for the pn+end- teenl to thu >:atinK Urdinmtce. Ott the motlun nt Hr. Kapp, aRCOUded by Mr. Nek.e~ and by vote of Mr. Kapp And Nr. Apker vnting Aya rand Fir. Rfmmer nhatAluing from vntinR. it was duly RBBULVRU to npprvva the Tod 1.MrkRtnnnn Brnf~cnn#ormtng uaR. ' t'M IA+! mnHun of F1r. Knpp+ aecrmdnd by Hr. Rf,mnnr qud by unaulrm,ua vain of nll Supervlpura. ft. woe duly REJAh1.VR1) In nuthurlce the 9nllclt.nr tp tAka app toprlnto Aetlrnr to enfr.reR the 'Lrrolnl; Or,Hnence In regnnl to 11113-1.AW Cn. nporalinq A buelnr+Re Fn tnt Agrlet+lcurni %nne. Alan that nppro(+rfnce nfflcere ho nuthnrlaed t•n oftecutr. noceeenry docam+enta when cun+pleted. Hr. llnrlmnar Trtt+anhlp I:nRlnner+ repnrtad tAt thn work Ken Vnudrn- bnrgh la cunq,letlnR uu Brindle Itaed. 71,R tlvard iupttur.tod Mr. Ilnrtmmt to wrftn a letter tv llr.nr{{g Ehnnr In rn~ard Cn the drnlnnp,R and the rhnn(tev nt+cetrnAry [or Lhe Frrnch drnln !n Fkntrue N.atptea. AfAU In re- µArd to the nnceeonry t;radlnR. AA anon Aa the letter of nppruval t:n pnlrr thR etrenm fe rerelved from Perry Ilenth, work wll.l bnRln rm 'frludle hpHn(t Nuu. Flr. Nnrtmntt bran lnikad Ln Nnt;hAnl+•r,hurg Bnrnn{;h nhnrrl' dtrlug thn etnnll aecClun 1n Ihe1r ht+ruu(;h pnJ is nwAltl.nµ cutt[1.rn+Atiun. 'rr,,,y 1)el,nrn, tr.prt•aM,l'ing Penn Prnduc+ta, preroanteJ nn unelgned c•npy n/ the µrnnt 1`rrtm IJhlte Rnck 9,•wnt;tt Cnrporpti.ou In Nonrue T+xanahlp. 3mtdy Hyerp, rect•Rtery f+,r Penn 1`rt+durta algned ft 1n front of the µunrd but the gra„l rrquircn 11r. Knhn'e vlRnnture rand nuCarl>•ntitm. Flr. Itel.uen, I1re. 11ynrA un+l Mrn. Avupn nnaured the Hnnrd the µrant would bo dcUvered FAptetrrlrur 26th af(;ned and nocurfeati. Flr. Bpfl'a, Auefnena ilnnagcr fur Penn Produeta; waA grunted 2 minutes LJ,++t to dlecunA rho retrtn H rnt pond. Wbler Itnrk has nu way of RrnntFng cAer+rn+ent tr, eht pond anti.! thc+y work nut pu agremtncrnt wF th n present property tn+ner, Flt'. RnffA ranked thpt 3ectlott 11 be rq,p~pvetl__•• _._, cat the cnutfuµc»cy thnl nll pulnta would br. taken enrr. vf. and thnl' n property Purvey would be rmupletcd. Hr. Nlmmer rxp.lninnJ !.E they naked , fur nu nxtennlrnl of t:1mA And brad fhlnµn t'nngtleted batons thnt CLunr+ Lhay cutrld nek fnr the plnn co ha ppt+ruvt±d. Mre. Awopo tllrected Nr. IIAff.n ttr nnl rrak far the l1mC Rxtenefnn hoc t•u nak fnr epprnvAl.. 11n Lhr mntitnt of. Mr. Kral+p, Pecunded by Mr. Rimmet and by ro,enitncnrA vntp of All gupervlAUte, ft wee duly ItC9A1.VKp to re~cr.t Nh1tR Rork AcrnP Sec~tF+n+ M rt+b<1lv1A1un pimf beennan rat inndcgttACe prnvlplone hrr ptarm rlrnltfeRe. .~ r..r....r ._._._. _ ... . Novemlrcr ) 3, 14110 1 ! 30 1'}1 '1'hn rrgnl.nr meating of thn Bupprvi~or• nF Msnroo 'fowunhil. woe rnl).ed to or,lrar I+y C1,airmn» gnkor. A1.1, meml+erp pree+e+tt. 1}n thn -m+tlt+n o[ Ilr. Rlnnn»r, atrcoudsd by Hr. Y,npp nnJ 6y w+nniou+un unto o} n11. 3uporvlnnro, !t won dn)y Ri?EVLVL+U i•» approve tl+~ minutan o[ thn Oet,+hvr 73rd moctinq pw po•t•d on the huf.lctlu bsnrd. '1'i+e board hnl..l a pub]!a henrf.nq to rccelve tenuente [or the one »[: Rt•w-tw Sharing mousy. 71wtn were no comments from she poi,lic. On the +w»ti»n of Mr. Rlnenwr, •pcondr.d by Hr. V,ni+p m+d t.y unnalmoua vote v[ wll 9upervlnv,a, 11. wpa duly at!RO1,Y6U to adopt the new fr» erhedule nmanAmevt to th» %rnttnK Ordinmtet+. A copy of thr• ordinance is ettnehed to the minntee. On thn motion of Mr. Kapp, eernndnd by Hr. Rimmer pod by u»nnl.mtn++ vole of a)t Put+ervianra, !t was duly iIESOLVBU to approve the Neat Photo tax 1luraeu budgot for 1981. Un the m»tlon of Flr. hi.mmet, eeccrndi+d by Nr. Kopp and l;y'annnlmvua vote of all 9uperviaota, .1.t wn• duly RR90LY6U to appoint' E).)*•pbeth 1`. Arnold to tha 9unrd of birertore of The Keet 9hnra Taft Butenu for 14h1 and Jnl,n I,, li,iptinn» ee elternnta 1)oatd tnemher. U+t tht+ motion »f Mr. Itlmmet, alrondrd by Fir. Dpker and by tmmtimoue vote n[ n11. Rvporv.teore !t was cktly RESOLVP,II to nominate Fred Knpp pa township tepreeentntlve to the Lncnl Ctovernrpsnt Advisory Co+renittre. U,1 the mntim- of Mt. himroer, elconded by Nr. Kapp and hq unnnimnua vvtl+ of n11 qupptvieors, !t wpa dniy REROhVM1/ to ncnnf.nete Glenn Cnrmm, as our eecrinn mpmher nt thn 'rrl-Cv,mty Regional Planning Cormniaeinn. Ott the mntl»n »[ Flr. Rimmnr, aacondeJ by Flr. Kopp end by unpnimvue vnt• o[ aU gupprvievre, it wpa duly RESOLVE!) to perticippte to the Penneylvan)e 9t.eto Aeaoctattou of Townald p flupervieore }Inemp)nymont CompeneAtion Group 1'tuet fund. Utl the m»titnt o[ Mr. Rirmnttr, seconded by Mr. Kapp end by unnalmov!f vats n[ ell 9upervipore, !t was d+il y Rtt90LVRb to instruct the 14olicltur to take thr. nppr»prlete ieftnl nation necessary to cnnaa oppre H.rn, u[ MMA-1.AW Co. operntfnq Fn vfoletirnt of rho 7uninR Vrdinm,re Co). l.nielnq, Lunq Road, again asked rho 11»prd i. f. they uerP yt+inK to e1e~n m+t the pip• t+nJer the rued sent his home. Mr. Kppp a ported he end the Rnpdmpetet had Jooknd et the pile and !.t would be donned. the anerptery was dirncloJ to send cnpl.ne of the lactate rrcelved rcgprdln~ sn accident p1oaR Willinmp pro,nn Ropd to the 9ulir.itnr and nxplpln the township only•mafntaine portions of Mhnt need to hr old Wi111am+t Grove Rond. il-e 1lnnrd discussed the paving doh done on thr pnrkinq lot.. limy e0rerd that the patehrp lnnkod flood but they moat he npplpd, ft was denidt'd to withhold pnymont of rite bill ,mtil Mr. Rirmmet 6pa l+pd pn oppottu,tity t» look et !t attar a taf.n. Vn the motion »/ }Ir. hinhaer, eecc+nded by tit. Rnpp and by unpnlmous vote n[ all 6upervleoce, it Mas duly 1t69tF1.VED to ppy the attached bills. On tha motion o[ Mr. Rimmer, accrntdad by Mr. Kppp cod by unnnimnna vote of all 9upervisnra, it woe duly RESOLVED to ad,~ourn nt 9:00 PM. •1 [ ~ ;/ail . '/Clt,e r y Llndp henry tiocratery ~I ~, ,,• ~J 1)ecaadrer 23, 1980 7 t 3(1 1'rl 'lht+ 1'OIItIIrtY rnnntlnq t,f tha Aupt[rvi~orw uE Hanrnr[ Ttn+nahilr were r•fllled t.o orrlnx 1+y tllnirmlat ileker. Mr. Itiellm[t wee nbaont. iht Ihrt rix+l•1un of r1r. Knly+, ae,Cr+ndod fry Nr. Ilnl+[.r, tl weep dnly 111irit)1.VIt11 (n npprov[• tiro m)r,ulcu n! rite 1)errnntn+r Il111 un+ulln}r, nn pnnlod fnr N-u hulictla 6unrd, 'I'hc Rnflrhnnnlr'r 1)nvo hla h1-monthly report.. The Onnrd n+/Ahurlnatl thrt roadlnnulor to ioann n hcy to the garege err.n Lu Uennia Nallc+t. A hCAelu11 wnri held fnr the r~neaolt~monl: of de [i ci+mry 1n nr6++I nwl PUe/ nmrnv•monl• la% fac tJlltlarov arnve 1'urkr )nr. At.lorney P+.[rllr rcaprr,npnled rlllll:lnlrl rr11V11. ilr. IrM1iCl wnN IIUt C[/111'ogcill}{ l'i1C f11nn11111' t+1 1n% n+lc[I Irult uekud lhat the I+ennlly Mc r.nlcul./ltrd ae In Ti,t+ court dnclelcm fnr ptnvlouo pnnnlefen, lh. Ptutier rt+I+vrtrd thel• Jnrlle peymenla IIAd hceu malt` l•n pey erff tht ]N~~.-~7 nnlnnrment. tnxrn iu the ).nat 2 yrnrn nn+l lh1A ctrnl'r.d n Afraltl ort lhr cnnh flaw, 1411iinma l:ruvn prupancd lht• oppnr- 1ua11r to pny the dnllci.enr•y which ie q}T9,2A plop 12% prnnlly plan lnlatent. Al fiX ntAtllnR Jnm+nry 1, 19A1.. '1'hit etntnmt t•~i)1 bce I+nitl in full npptuxfmntrly .IAnuary 15, 19A1. 1fie AnAtd ndvlerd tltPy will lAke thn prtgrurtnl under cnneldr.rntlrnl hul' cunld Nnt. nlnkr n [IeciAlun Ae nnn mrtnht•r wAe nhntmt. Ifi the tnntlt+lt of Ht'. Knpp At•rnndnrl by rh'. Ilnhr.rr 11 wn4 duly RrAt)LVKIt In ndnpt the 19A1 hudl;et ne per+purcd. Tit. )!Ihert Keretettnr rJnratlunrd rho nccntrtcy of rho E'el)n+nfcd wn-to tni< incntne. 11e felt the !inure was too )nw.• Rnlirllnr titre+lhnkor eu{tlSr+ntAd thn %un)n{{ t)ffltxr ahoulJ f11c+ n ehncya with 1)incrlt:l Juetict+ Runnld Klnir to teRnrel to thn Rt+ht•rt Rowore %unlnn violnllnn. Un thn muHrnt of Mr. Knp1• aotnnded by Fir. BnkeK, it wne thrl)• RIiSt-1,V1!1) to nuthnrtrr the yuninB Officer tt+ file n rcnnplnint ul!ninnl: Ro1>nrC Rcxaern, Jr. vietnllulr uccurrinn Nnvrmlrer )6, 19H0. Mr. Rnnlhaluer preeentod to Phr Aoun1 A deed trf dedlcntlon to he r-igued i+y lie. Rnlterll 4hll.llto. '1'hr. deed was hoard on the drnwing dente by lie. IlerttnMt. On tha mntlnn n[ }h'. Knpp aectnnlr.+1 by lie. Iinker, it wne dnly NI!BOI,vRI) to pny tl,e Ir117e. On the mnt:lun of Hr. Knpp eecandnd by Mr. Ankrr, It wrty duly Itl:9(ILVItl1 1'r? nlrpnnr till- vntlnnen regocal' of .llr. Nrrrmtrn Lnw turd f+r hnve I:ho 9u11o1lot rnpreecnl Lhr dnnrd et tiro Vetlnnt:o hrnring nn .Innttnry 21. On the muHon of Mr. Knpp ec+rn»And by lfr, tinker, it won duly 41'./101,Vp.1) lu eulhnrlre thn %unlirR O!'1'lcrr iu check It 11!18-I,Aw fn. 11. allll opernl.inl. !n vlt+leeirnt of the %utllnK 1)rdlnenrc and i f an lt+ f} la rl cornpJnint wlLh thn ltlatrlct .)nntr/•.e. Ou tiro mut)nn of Mr• kllpp erconded by Hr, linker, It wets duly RF.301.VR1) l•.tt edJaurn et Flt If- I'!1. 1 +'. i. r I,lttdn R. ilellry Recretary y r r r.. r UTAN RADt;LiFF ~l I~IA7~TE . ~a-. KAIX,'I,SF'F` ATTbRNEY AT l.AW 3dn8 17itNOLE Rego CAMP HALL, PeNNSYL.VANIA 17011 TELEF'IiONE (717) 7~?-OIOC3 Fnx (7 s 7} 975-0697 April. 19, 1993 Murrel R. Wa1t:Fr.s, ?'.r.T_, Es~ii.re 54 Eas* Main Str.-net. Mechrir.~ csburg, PA 1 "1055 ?2E : Norman D . Last matters Mon?_ ere Tc-rwTrsh_i ~; ZO~.int3 Fic:a.~'inq Ao~~ r_d %);~~ c Mu x reJ. .L are i n r'er..c~pt o;: Mr. Bogar' s ~.Pt.t:F~r' co yot) dstecl April IG, 1.993, atzd tnus#; protest any at.t:pmpt, i~o adt-iit into t:he -E;'.c~o7ci t:llc~ T.owr..sl-ri.n minutes al Sept:Err!Y'`e?" 25, 1980, November 13, 1980 and Dece:ttber 23, 19130. Contrary to Mr_ . 33orar' s repl-ese:ttat;ioris, we did not open the door to admissiorr of the:;e m ~.nrzi:es . The on? y mentiGn cif matters mi$sirrg ; n the nti.n~ate~s :vas a r~anunent by Mr. Boc~ar that he hc~d reviewed the m-'ti~r7fies and dS_cY not ti_nti any reference to the original agreement w'i_t:h t.Yle 'I'awnship ~vhich approved Mr. r aw' s use of the ~-rem < <;es , Aside from the fact that this wes merely a comment by"legal counsel and not testimony and therefore not eviderrtie to be considered, it ari nn way CbIICt?2'*_'iE3 the ]_ater action take zn 1980 to which these tai notes r. eference. Furthermore, no cc,mrzients were ever made about :~he:sN'- ni~.uutes by any r6rsonr.estifying .in this aC41Ci1, nor was any request made ai_ t~Ile P.P_A?'ii'Lg that they be considered. Additional?y, you should note that we disagree as to Mr. bogar~s position teat he was not apprised az Mr, imrner be=n=Q the hearing. In the f3.rst place we are under no obligation. to advise Mr. Bogar of our. case ~or w.itaesses before the hearing. L,ikewir ~ Mr'. Br,gar wag: not required to Iet us know that Mr. Elie-.~ wgs g^'n5 to be testifying, which by the ~vay he d? d not ~ ~ advise. ~ . P..ddi.tionally, Mr . Bogar knew about Mx'. Rimmer es Mr R.iituner attempted arz several occassions ~o contact h~rr to infra=m n.i~ about the agceetttent . • --,. We. a1:;c:~ st:zonyly disagree th~~t judicir.l notice rosy bP taken of. the€,~ mi_nutes. Under the laws of this ~;tate, j;r~3:i.c:i,al notice i.s a doctrine wh5ch P=avicios rl.si:~erl5ation to one party from producing evidence to estaY~l:tsL a £act. Fox the $r~arci to take juci.ic ial notir_e, the n~~r_ty seeking t:he notice must request it, Platt v_.__Cit~r_. of P:~i]_a.del_phia, 133 A.2d 8f,0 (Pa. Sn~,er. 1957}, and a coati ueeci noL- notico facts not brougLi. to _its attention Rel~~.v ., __F~tlk~rs~n, 275 F. Sapp. 134 (196"7) Zft'cl. 394 F.2d 463. Before asking ic~r judicial. rot ice t.a be take of ar~y laws (oz- m:~niit:c~a) and to have adtni_ss.iorz of such evidence, tea ~oriabl~~ nat~.r_e tt~ t.lie other party is a pz-erequisite ar;d must to given 42 Pa_ C.S.A. 5327. Aft:er_ not:icz $~~S beE'-II given, proof of any official. record must be attested to Y~y the person having legal custody of the record ~'~:2 Pa. C_S.A. 5328. With respect to jvdici_al notice we :~~abmil. that the Township did not seek the admission of t:he~~e rninv.tes un1:i1 after title record was r.~osed. There was no request at the hearing for the judicial notice to be taker,, r!or any advance notice giver. to the parties. As such, thc? Township has failed to meet the pz~erequisite and such judicial notice cannot be taken. More importantly, you should note the effect of such notice upon our Bide. The record ire now closed. As such, to allow such documents in under a judicial_ not.i.ce doctrine will effectuate a denial of orxr due process rights. Since we had no advance notice of the intent too request such notice, we were foreclosed from questioning Mr.. Rimmer on h.i.s involvement. Moreover, we were effect:lvely foreclosed from calling other witnesses to support our position since the matter was not properly put i_n .issue at or before the t3..me of the hear.i_ng. As such ove feel the Zani_ng Hearing Board may not consider the suggested evidence as the r_ecor_d is closed and zt is simply too late tv seek admission of these documents now. Lastly, I would like to advise you that at the hearing Mr. 8agar oven---stepped the authority granted to him by the soard of super_vi.sors. At the public mee~~ing N!r_ Heisey stated the Township's position arrived at in Executive Session that the Board does not condone violations of its orrii_nanees and that Mr. Hogan wes to represent them with respect to the violation. As you well kno~N, the issue of_ v;.o~:stian is irrelevant to a variance request, while on the U - 1:5:23 717 975 f1t3A7 UTA~'E RADA°LIFF ~dJOO~ cor_trary It a7~11~,~ be relevant to tits ~pFsa.i rrom Lhe zo?~ing officer's Order.. Since the mownship's direction pertGined only to thn zeni nc~ vi elation Mr- Bagar had r_a aut:h_o?'ity to represent the iowtlship's interest: with respect to the variancE. The Zo~.i*?g Haring Bcsrd should be fipecifi.cally advisQd as to the Aaard's posit_i_on taken in a public meeting, which was a.ever correctly relate~3 to the 7ial~iiag Hearing Eoard by Mme. Sogar. The applicant had a tight to knew what he would be opposing at his hearing- L~+ was i.sf.orn;ed at a public meeting that tL.e opposition eras to his alleged zoning v3.olz~ti on. Since nathing was stated as to t:he variance, the Taw ship's Solicitor exceeded his authority and the Board should be so advised. DGRJrzs very truly yours, ~~ . ~ \ ` D~LSi`IJ `~• `G~111~L Ill~~xU1~ ~~v . cc: Ja_~es Boga.r, Esqu?re Norman D. Law. c! 'i f ~,,, i t 1 r 'S Ut~9"+ nTA1~E RAbr..LiFF D~aN~ G. 1t~~cLn~,F ATTORNEY Ar I.AW 944Q Ta~NnLe Rown CAMP FIILL. PENNSYLVANIA ~ 70i ~ 7~l[PIiONF. (717) 737'-0140 FAx (7 17) 9"15-0697 Ap!-'iI 19, 1993 Mttrre?- R. Waltc~r_, ITj, EsgU.ire 5d Ea~,t• Ma~_n Street MechaiLi.csburq, PA 17055 RE : No.r'mati D . T,aw mat~.ers Monroe 'ror~vnship Zoning Hearing Bc~.~i:'d Dear Murrel.: I am in receipt of the latest Amicu~; Brief filed by the Millers. Please note that it is our position that since the Miliere were not, gt-ani:ed pa=-t.y status, they are not entitled to submit briefs and documents for consideration by the Board anc} gll such briefs and documents must be ignored. Sind, however, it is obvious that these documents have -been received by you and the board members, ~ feel that I am forced to respond thereto in ca$e they have been read prior to receipt ofthis letter, The' Mi'Llern have raised the issue of rg~, i udlc~a a!s to ''t$e ~ri.or 19$0-1981 'prooeeding~ t~s 'well as to the Trwnship':3 a~,~x~toval' of this business- as testified to by Mr. Rimmer. zn a~ it for res j,udicata to apply there must be identity of i:' •ic~s and. parties so that a determination of the first piureeding ritust necessarily determine the :second. c7n all counts ire- olaim the Nli.llers are incorrect. • In the first place, the 1980-1981 varinnGe proceedings were brought `' >ender th1• 1875 ordinance . The corr. eut 'proceedings xere brought under the 1988 ordinance. The alloooable uses in ate agricultural zone vary significantly `between the two ordinances. Therefore, s_i.nce a variance depends on the inability to utilize the property in An allowed use manner, and since those allowed uses are not the same in the tv~o proceedings, there is no ide~iti.ty of issue. Secondly, i.n the fiz-st case the only issue preser_Led was a request for a tradi.tinnal ground var-.ianr.P. In the presrnt case the issues of var_i.ance by estoppel_ a_nd/or iarties have been ra3.sed .i1t addi.tian to a tr~lclit-ional. ground variance, r_on-conforming arse find other iliatte]"S . Again since IQtn2 . ."+ t:t!<~~e i~;~;ue:a W~~)-~ navr1r 1 it.ic.}at;ec3 in t: tie f~,-ri: r3s?, the c3r)r.i.._.irte c7 t' res_ judi_c:~t~-~ dc)e~s n(7t ap}-,7_y. Last1 Y r t:11(x?' F~ i.s do i.c~ent i l:y t7f }~~ r i; LF,~ . I w~'tn Hoer a party i tl irtt.ere~i` in t-he f i.rfit: Lizc)rGHc}i.[1CJ, r~c~r_ cn(zl_c3 I hav«~ been as [ wad tr(~t_. X~r.1~-sonal. }.y rtUr. {inal~ci_al.t.y ~ nvc)1vf~d w~..t.tt t~[r. T,aw dur•i.ng t-.ttc~se ~~1:oce.edi~lga. My itlteyre~Ct.: a3 a party in +~Itis mnt:t.E~[ r_}?d n(,t ~~ti~e it1 1.9~~1--~L997. u>;tY± t.}z(; croCn- (:(7l.latera7_i~:r~t.ii)n ~yrer:~mc~n.t-s t:pst-ifieri r.o ~~v Lucy. S.i_nCE? I waN nat. r~ ~~arty i n thc~ r, r'i.E3 _nal pr(-,(,<~FC} i_ng arzd i n tract tired no i_r]t.G'I.ecit 1 i1 I:h~ ra~.t.ter ot:hFr_ 1:: Flan ~~~ lc=:~~~i1_ counsel, t:he ~)c?Y~t]_E'~ ire not ir}ent:i_r~~~7. c~nd T. Elul nc)t: I.)ar•1-ed_ by z"e~- ~l,r;~ c-~>r-~ :In?'an~ T.aisittc~ the 1_ssue rt:~ t:c)tn•nship approval, vari anre rrc- arly c,t<her i.r~laEvs r~lised. P_~ rr) t, hC It3if1 E'~l.^,R ~"~~)~J~'!1(~~~C~ ~(7 Lhc'. M i 1 lE'.C• , S l7~`i_c~I , i.t 1 t; E' t (?e~.1"' thc31.. t.t~t? ('~i` (.', 1:~ 't'i3C"_t:ll:'i ~ ~ y l T'~C)~)E,1(l,; j t,«? . c1~11(3t 1: i1~.if'. i llvc)lved ~i. ~)~+r~nu~ux• whE7 hoc}. nee real. 'l.titere;~t: in i~h~ tnai~ ter c~tker th~aFi as 3 r.epr(~.~f~n~r:ti_ve of hey- hf,ysri.Pari. 11s sn~~li s1~f~ sYUaEi i_n a ~~rivi t y rP] ~;tiortshi~) uri_t11 h~_cr boyf r zE~nE~ and Las t7c)~Lncl by al.l pri.c)T- rier.ia;.anfi invo~vi_*_tq him. As dec~_ded by t.:71.is Baarr3, I have an a.r-.t.et:~e~t 1r! flier, mc'1ttF'•*' ri:ist:inct and ap3L`t FrCliti Mr . Law ~ :-; itit et..er t: _ S i rlc~~ r ~uas rtot (3rLE~ rr)uld rr~t havEy fx~en a x><3rt.y tq tre 1930- 7 9,;1 proce~d.iiic~s I }?n~;E~ never had tale apE)oi:•tlsni+,.17 to J i t:i~~~t:~? t:1tF "1'ovlnslrip apgr~c~va~ issue. ~s sucb., since tl-le pr3~ ;:ies are differ.en~ anc.} I ~~.m r_at in privity, r a>zr note hc3rzed by T.E~5 j;~di_E=at-_~_. F1ea~e note t11af. I attl di sl~nayed by cunt i_nu ~.t~E~ to he r.ec~ct~..red tt+ , E~,prtnci t-o~ t:he _M.i.l.ers wl?.o a>:e not: par+~_es t:c.~ artci h.zvP, nc~ direct i(tt.E:exE:'St itl this nt~t:lE'r. .L t2-ust:, t1lc.rerore, that yc~u will FtciviSe the Millers t:ltaC ot:hc~i' then p(.tblic CC)1ttmP.rLt, ttleY Ilr'3VE'_ ~1() r iCl}tt< to ~c3T"t:1C.1_~At:? ? rt t: }1Eti~;F' lAuttF-?'~ ;ltt<.} as reic-:1). t:tlny sha) 1. nc~i: make fort:ttf~r- [~,r)sni.<;r;iott t:o t:tLe ~c,~T:rj (,r to you ~~n lt.r Solicitor. Your ~t:t.entic~r_ ? sX thi_s regvetit.: wr)u~Ct k)e C~rea.fi:_ly appr'eEiatec3. Very t:rLt~ ~, Y(-11L~ :.5, ~. 1`. ` nrA,NE_-c~. tZ~.ll(:I~Ti'~, F:~utJ.IRs:!`~ `,_ . \ - w r~;, _ .?=,~t~~~r, i). F3f~~_t;~~,: , EsrXu.i.r'r' -~ MURREL R. WALTERS, III R. MARK THOMAS Attorneys at Lsw 54 Eest Main Street MechAnicsburp, Pennsydvenia f 7055 (7171 697-4650 FAX (717/ 69T-9395 April 30, 1993 Diane G. Radcliff, Esq. 3448 Trindle Rd. Camp Hill, PA 17011 Dear Diane: 1 After telephone discussions with members of the Zoning Hearing Board, yourself and Jim Boger, we have agreed to set Wednesday, May 12, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. as the time for the public decision on the variance request of Norman Law. All o! the testimony has been concluded and the record closed. I have transmitted all of the additional documents supplied by you to the Board for its consideration. The newspapers will be notified so that the public in general is informed. I do not intend to publicize this meeting in any other manner. Very truly yours, Murrel R. Walters, III HRW/dms MURREL R. WALTERS, III ` '' R. MARK THOMAS Attorneys at Law 54 Eest Mar'n Street Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania f 7055 (7171 697-4650 FAX (7171 697-9395 April 30, 1993 James D. Boaar, Esquire 5 W. Main Street Shiremanstown, PA 17011 Dear Jim: After telephone discussions with members of the Zoning Bearing Board, yourself and Diane Radcliff, we have agreed to set Wednesday, May 12, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. as the time for the public decf.sion on the variance request of Norman Law. All of the testimony has been concluded and the record closed. I have transmitted all of the additional documents supplied by you to the Board for its consideration. The newspapers will be notified so that the public in general is informed. I do not intend to publicize this meeting in any other manner. Very truly yours, Murrel R. Walters, III ZtRW / dms MURREL R. WAITERS, lII R. MARK THOMAS Attorneys at Law 54 East Main Street Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 (717) 697-4650 FAX (717/ 697-9395 April 30, 1993 Mr. Dale Elicker Monroe Township 122s Boiling Springs Rd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Dear Dale: After telephone discussions with members of the Zoning Hearing Board, Jim Bogar and Diane Radcliff, we have agreed to set Wednesday, May 12, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. as the time for the public decision on the variance request of Norman Law. All of the testimony has been concluded and the record closed. The newspapers will be notified so that the public in general is informed. I do not intend to publicize this meeting in any other manner. I have ordered a transcript from the hearing and I have requested that it be expedited so that you might be able to review it prior to May 12. I have also received additional information from the attorney for Yellow Breeches Family Practice as well as the attorney for Eash, both of whom are requesting. prompt action based on the additional submissions. The Eash letter and drawing is enclosed. The doctors office information will be forwarded soon, but they are going to obtain the necessary additional land so that they will not require a side yard setback variance. They are hoping that you will approve the expansion conditioned upon the finalization of the subdivision and transfer of additional land. You might want to consider deciding both of these cases May 12. Very truly yours, Murrel R. Walters, III MRWjdms Enclosures Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 f l f 7/ 697-4650 FAX /7171 69T-9395 April 30, 1993 Lois Witmer 1065 Kuhn Drive Boiling Springs, PA 17007 Dear Lois: After telephone discussions with members of the Zaning bearing Board, Jim Bogar and Diane Radcliff, we have agreed to set Wednesday, May 12, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. as the time for the public decision vn the variance request of Norman Law. All of the testimony has been concluded and the record closed. The newspapers will be notified so that tt~e public in general is informed. I do not intend to publicize this meeti~~g in any other manner. I have ordered a transcript from the hearing and I have requested ttiat it be expedited so that you might be able to review it prior to May 12. I have also received additional information from the attorney for Yellow Breeches Family Practice as well as the attorney for Eash, both of whom are requesting prompt action based on the additional submissions. The Eash letter and drawing is enclosed. The doctor's office information will be Forwarded soon, but they are going to obtain the necessary additional land so that they will not require a side yard setback variance. They are doping that you will approve the expansion conditioned upon the finalization of the subdivision and transfer of additional land. You might want to consider deciding both of these cases May 12. Very truly yours, Murrel R. Walters, III MRW/dms Enclosures MURRisL R, i'VAi.'1'F,ItS, III R. MARK 1'IiOMAS Attorneys at Law 54 East Main Street Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania !7055 {7171 697-4650 FAX (717! 697-9395 April 30, 1993 Mr. Eber Gordon 339 Old Stonehouse Road Boiling Springs, PA 17007 Dear F.ber After telephone discussions with members of the Zoning hearing Board, Jim Bogrr and Diane Radcliff, we have agreed to set Wednesday, May 12, 1993 at ?:00 p.m. as the time for the public decision on the variance request of Norman Law. All of the testimony has been concluded and the record closed. The newspapers will be notified so that the public in general is informed. I do not intend to publicize this meeting in any other manner. I have ordered a trariscr_ipt from the hearing and I have requested that it be expedited so that you might be able to review it prior to May 12. I have also received additional information from the attorney for Yellow Breeches Family Practice as well as the attorney for Eash, both of whom are requesting prompt action based on the additional submissions. The Eash letter and drawing is enclosed. The doctor's office information will be forwarded soon, but they are going to obtain the necessary additional land so that they will not require a side yard setback variance. They are hoping that you will approve the expansion conditioned upon the finalization of the subdivision and transfer of additional land. You might want to consider deciding both of these cases May 12. Very truly yours, Murrel R. Walters, III tiRW / elms Enclosures ' ' ' NSURRFt., R. WALTERS, 1SI It. htA[tK 'I'ti(1NSAS /I ttorneys At l Aw 5~ EASt MAln Street Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 170.5,ri 1717) 697-4650 Fit X (7 f 7) 69 7-9395 April 30, 1993 Mr. Guy Reid 1210 Boiling Springs Rd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Dear Guy: After telephone discussions with members of the Zoning Hearing Board, Jim Bogrr and Diane Radcliff, we have agreed to set Wednesday, May 12, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. as the time for the public decision on the variance request of Norman Law. All of the testimony has been concluded and the record closed. The newspapers will be notified so that the public in general ie informed. I do not intend to publicize this meeting in any other manner. I have ordered a transcript from the hearing and I have requested that it be expedited so that you might be able to review it prior to May 12. I have also received additional information from the attorney for Yellow Breeches Family Practice as well as the attorney for Eash, both of whom are requesting prompt action based on the additional submissions. The Eash letter and d~awinq is enclosed. The doctors office information will be forwarded soon, but they are going to obtain the necessary additional land so that they will not require a side yard setback variance. They are doping that you will approve the expansion conditioned upon the finalization of the subdivision and transfer of additional land. You might want to consider deciding both of these canes May 1?.. Very truly yours, Muriel R. Walters, III P1RW/dms Enclosures r r 80NING HBARING BOARD OF NONROS TOWNSHIP CU?4BSRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYhVANIA NORMAN D. LAW APPEAL OF THE CEASE Appellant AND DESIST ORDER OF and THE ZONING OFFICER OF DIANE G. RADCLIFF MONROE TOWNSHIP Intervenor v. MONROE TOWNSHIP NORMAN D. LAW Applicant and DIANE G. RADCLIFF Intervenor v. MONROE TOWNSHIP APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE ems i+r ~ z w 1. Procedural History This matter arises from a Natice to Cease and Desist, issued on February 16, 1993, by Dale E. Flicker, Zoning Officer of Monroe Township, and directed to Mr. Norman D. Law. The Cease and Desist Order indicated that Mr. Law was conducting a water utility service business on property in Monroe Township, located at 1156 York Road, Parcel Number 22-12-0345-135, an area zoned as an agricultural district, and that such activities were not permitted within such an agricultural district. Mr. Law was directed to commence steps to correct the violations within thirty days, and to complete such steps within 90 days. on March 19, 1993, an appeal of the order to Cease and Desist was filed with the Monroe Township Zoning Hearing Board by Normazl D. Law and Lawco, Inc. The appeal raised the following reasons for the appeal: 1. The Appellants were entitled to a variance. 2. The use is entitled to non-conforming use status based on original construction and prior pre- zoning uses which were never legally abandoned. 3. The Township has at all relevant times had actual knowledge both of the Appellant's proposed use upon acquisition and actual use after completion of the initial renovations and without solicitation, request or interference by the Appellants, the Township has expressly and/or tacitly acquiesced to such use for a period in excess of seventeen years, causing the Appellants to rely on such acquiescence and expend vast sums of monies in furthering the renovations on the premises which cannot be recouped if the provisions of the zoning ordinance are enforced. 4. The Appellant will be discriminated against and will be denied equal protection of the law by enforcement of the ordinance in that Monroe Township has recently made a policy decision that it would be patently unfair to enforce its ordinances to alleviate alleged violations of long standing nature given past practices and representations of the Board of Supervisors and inaction by the Board and its 2on:ing officers and pursuant to such policy decision has refused to enforce its ordinances against such violations and has entered into several written agreements allowing continuation of businesses in zoning districts which would not allow such businesses to operate. 5. Monroe Township has failed to make a reasonable provision in its land use ordinances and zones so as to allow for appropriate space for business of the nature of the Appellant's to operate and is therefore guilty of exclusionary zoning. 6. The Appellants are incapable of moving the business operation on short notice and would anticipate that to do so will require a period of one to two years to acquire an alternative affordable site, obtain the necessary approvals and construct the alternative building. If forced to do so in a shorter period would 2 cause severe economic hardship not only to the business but also to its various employees who in all likelihood would be laid off as if the business has no location to operate in it will be forced to shut down. 7. It has been recommended to all townships that the land next to the railroad tracks-including the Appellant's land-is ideally suited for industrial use and that the townships should zone the land accordingly. On March 19, 1993, Norman D. Law also filed with Monroe Township an Application for variance for the property located at 1156 York Road. This Application identified the proposed use of the property as being a warehouse, office and shop for a water meter service business. The reasons for the variance request were identified as follows: irregular configuration and physical attributes of the lot; encroaching road and railroad right-of- way; building layout and location; prior uses which predated 2011iI1g; proximity to railroad; flood zone; current economic conditions. on April 14, 1993, a consolidated hearing upon both the Appeal of the Order to Cease and Desist and the App)ir.ation for Varialice was conducted by the Zoning Hearing Board of Monroe Township. At this hearing, Mr. Law appeared, representing himself. No person specifically appeared on behalf of: Lawco, Inc., and at no time during the hearing was there any indication that Lawco, Inc. was present or participating as a party. James D. Boaar, Township solicitor, appeared at the hearing representing Monroe Township. He indicated that Monroe Township was appearing in opposition to both the Appeal and the Application. Frank B. Miller, Ralph W. Miller, and Diane G. 3 s i Radcliff all appeared and sought standing as intervenors and parties in the proceedings. At the inception of the hearing, the Board received evidence from Ms. Radcliff, Mr. Frank Miller, and Mr. Ralph Miller as to their standing to participate in the proceedings. Subsequent to the receipt of this evidence, the Board voted that Ms. Radcliff did have standing and would be permitted to participate as a party in the proceeding. The Board further voted that Mr. Frank Miller and Mr. Ralph Miller did not have standing, and would not be permitted to participate as parties in the proceedings. Pursuant to this decision, none of the evidence, legal memoranda or other documents or information offered by Mr. Frank Miller or Mr. Ralph Miller was accepted as a part of the record by the Board, nor did such information play any role in the determination or preparation of this decision. During the course of the hearing on April 14, 1993, the Township Solicitor identified four documents which the Township wished to include within the record, but which were not available at that time. These four documents were identified as Township Exhibits 1 through 4, and consisted of a copy of a docket entry of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County; an application for a variance from 1980, relating to the property in issue; a copy of the transcript of the hearing upon the application for variance from 1980; and a copy of the decision of the Zoning Nearing Board of Monroe Township in the matter of the~1980 Variance Application. Mr. Law agreed to the inclusion of these 4 documents as a part of the record. Ms. Radcliff objected to the admission of these documents into evidence because of their "prejudicial value", but made no objection to holding open the record subsequent to April 14, 1993, so that these documents could be submitted by the Township. During the course of the hearing on April 14, 1993, Mr. Bogar also indicated a desire to submit copies of the minutes of certain meetings of the Board of Supervisors of Monroe Township, held in 1980. Subsequent to April 14, 1993, Mr. Bogar did, in fact, attempt to submit such documents to the Board for its consideration. However, unlike the situation involving Township Exhibits 1 through 4, there was. no agreement among the parties and the Board that the record would be held open for the submission of these documents. Therefore, the minutes of the meetings of the Monroe Township Board of Supervisors, from 1980, submitted by the Township subsequent to April 14, 1993, are not considered by the Board to be a part of the record in this matter, and have played no role in the determination or decision of this case. At the conclusion of the hearing on April 14, 1993, a Memorandum of Law was submitted to the Board by Norman D. Law. No other legal briefs or memoranda from any party were received by the Board. By letter to the parties dated April 30, 1993, from Murrel R. Walters, III, Board Solicitor, the parties were notified that all of the additional documents had been submitted to the Board, all of the testimony had been concluded, and the 5 record was therefore now closed. The letter further indicated the agreement of the parties that on May 12, 1993, at 7:00 p.m., the Board would publicly announce its decision in this matter. On May 12, 1993, the Board did issue a public decision, acting unanimously to deny both the Appeal of the order to Cease and Desist and the Application for Variance. This decision is being issued by the Board as the written decision necessary to comply with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Municipalitj.es Planning Code. II. Findings of Fact 1. On April 14, 1993, a hearing was convened before the Monroe Township Zoning Hearing Board for the purpose of receiving evidence and testimony relevant to the Appeal of the Order to Cease and Desist and the Application for Variance, both filed by Mr. Norman Law. Mr. Law received written notice of this hearing, and notices were posted on or about the premises involved. Public notice was given .by publication in The Sentinel on March 9, 1993, and April 5, 1993. 2. At the conclusion of the hearing on April 14, 1993, the hearing was continued and the hearing record was held open by agreement of the Board and the parties for the purpose of permitting the Township to submit Township Exhibits 1 through 4. 3. On April 30, 1993, upon receipt of Township Exhibits 1 6 i ~ through 4, the Board concluded the hearing and closed. the record in this matter. 4. On May 12, 1993, pursuant to notice given to all parties, the Board met in public and voted unanimously to deny the Application for variance and the Appeal of the Order to Cease and Desist. All parties were present at the time the decision was made by the Board. 5. The property at issue in the present action is situated in Monroe Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and known as 1156 York Road. ownership of the property was acquired by Mr. Norman D. Law by deed dated March 29, 1976. Mr. Law has continued to own the property to the present time. 6. The property at issue (hereinafter referred to as the Property) is approximately 1,221 feet in length, and varies from approximately 55 feet to 67 feet in width. It contains approximately 1.6 acres. The length of the Property runs east and west. The Property is bounded on the south by Pennsylvania Route 74, and the resultant legal right-of-way, 20 feet in width, runs across the entire .southern boundary of the Property. To the north of the Property, approximately 20 feet from the boundary line, the Property is bordered by railroad tracks which run parallel to the entire northern boundary of the Property. On the western end of the Property is located a brick building. 7. At some point during 1978, Mr. Law (hereinafter referred to as Appellant) began to utilize the building on the Property as a warehouse. At some point during 1978 oz- 1979, 7 Appellant formed Lawco, Inc., and added offices and other facilities to the building located on the Property. 8. From 1979 to t}ie present, the Property has been used by Appellant to cofiduct the business of Lawco, Inc., consisting of service, testing, and calibration work for water utilities. The building on the Property contains offices, warehouse space for storing inventory, a laboratory, and a mechanical shop facility for repair work for components used in the business. Trucks are used by Lawco, Inc. to transport equipment to and from the building on the Property, and a number of trucks are parked on the property during non-business hours. 9. At no time prior to or subsequent to his purchase of the Property has Appellant ever applied to Monroe Township for a use permit, an occupancy permit, a building permit, or a zoning permit of any type. 10. Prior to the purchase of the Property by Appellant, the Property had not been used by the previous owner for any purpose for a period of years. il. No competent, .credible evidence was presented by any party to establish the uses, if any, made of this Property by the previous owner or any other person from the period of approximately 1960 until the purchase by Appellant in 1976. 12.. The Property is located in a district zoned for agricultural use by the Zoning Ordinance of Monroe Township. 13. No party has questioned the determination of the Zoning officer of Monroe Township that the present use of the Property 8 being made by Appellant is not a permitted use in an area zoned agricultural, and this determination is therefore not at issue in this case. 14. By registered letter dated August 29, 1980, Monroe Township, by its their solicitor, notified Appellant that his use of the Property was in violation of the zoning regulations of Monroe Township. 15. On October 8, 1980, the then solicitor of Monroe Township commenced enforcement proceedings against Appellant as his use of the Property at that time was not in conformance with the zoning regulations of Monroe Township. Ott December 8, 1980, Appellant filed with the Monroe Township Zoning Hearing Board an Application for Variance. 16. On January 21, 1981, a hearing on the Application for Variance was conducted by the Monroe Township Zoning Hearing Board. Appearing in that proceeding were Dale Elicker, Zoning Officer; James D. Boaar, Solicitor for the Board; Norman D. Law, Applicant; Diane G. Radcliff, Esquire, attorney for the Applicant; and Richard C. Snelbaker, Township Solicitor. 17. At the time of the hearing in 1981, the Property was located in a zoning district zoned for agricultural use pursuant to the Monroe Township Zoning ordinance, Ordinance Number 3 of 1975, dated December 30, 1975. 18. By decision dated February 18, 1981, the Zon:inq Hearing Board of Monroe Township denied the Application for Variance submitted to the Board by Appellant, finding that: 9 • ~ (a) There is no unnecessary hardship resulting from the unique physical circumstances or conditions peculiar to this property. (b) T}ie variance requested is not necessary to enable a reasonable use of the property and, further, the physical circumstances and conditions of the property do not preclude its development in strict conformity with the provisions of the Monroe Township Zoning Ordinance. (c) The unnecessary hardship claimed by the Applicant is self-created. (d) If granted, the variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood, that being agricultural. (e) The variance requested, if granted, would not be the minimum variance that would afford relief and constitute the least modification possible of the applicable regulations. 19. Subsequent to the decision of the Zoning Nearing Board of February 18, 1981, an appeal of the decision was filed by Diane M. Radcliff, Esquire, attorney for Mr. Law, with the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 20. on October 30, 1984, the appeal of the decision of the Monroe Township Zoning Nearing Board was dismissed by the Court of Common Pleas. No evidence was submitted to the Board indicating t}~at any further appeals or other action were ever taken in this matter. 21. In 1981 or 198, Appellant appeared before a district justice upon charges of violating the Monroe Township coning ordinance, and paid a fine as a result of that legal action. 22. In 1983, Diane G. Radcliff became a member of the Board of Supervisors of Monroe Township, and remains a member. to the present date. 10 23. Diane G. Radcliff has an ongoing personal, financial, and professional relationship with Appellant, including serving as his attorney for quite a number of years. 24. From approximately August 29, 1980, to the present, both Appellant and Diarie G. Radcliff have had actual notice acid full knowledge that the use being made of the Property by Appellant and Lawco, Inc. was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance of Monroe Township. Despite this notice and knowledge, no change in the use of the Property so as to conform with the Zoning ordinance has been made during this time period. 25. On or about November 14, 1991, the Manager of Monroe Township, Thomas G. Stubits, initiated an investigation of twelve alleged zoning violations involving twelve separate properties within Monroe Township, at the direction of the Monroe Township Board of Supervisors. The Property was not one of the twelve properties investigated. Mr. Stubits prepared and submitted to the Board a report indicating that no zoning violations were present regarding ten of the properties, but that zoning violations were present regarding two of the properties. 25. During 1992, Monroe Township entered into agreements with the owners of both properties where zoning violations were found to be in existence, pursuant to the investigation of the township manager. In both instances, the agreements cantained identical provisions recognizing that the uses giving rise to the violations had evolved over a period of years, that the present use would be permitted by the Township to continue only until 11 such time as there was a transfer of ownership of t;~e property, and no further expansion or change in use or additional uses of the property would be permitted. 26. There does not exist any "policy" in Monroe Township that property-owners who have used property in violation of the Zoning Ordinance for a long period of time are to be permitted to continue their unlawful use of a property. 27. The present Zoning Ordinance of Monroe Township was adopted by the Monroe Township Board of Supervisors in 1988. The Property continued to be located in an agricultural district under the 1988 Zoning ordinance. 28. No credible, competent evidence was submitted by any party which would establish that Appellant had contacted Monroe Township, either before purchasing the Property or alter purchasing the Property, and received any sort of approval, permission, or encouragement from the Township to use the Property in the manner in which it has been used. 2.9. Neither Appellant or Diane G. Radcliff has acted innocently or in good faith in matters relating to the use of the Property from 1980 to the present. 30. The present use the Property is permitted in an industrial district pursuant to the Zoning ordinance of Monroe Township. 31. A portion of Monroe Township is zoned to permit industrial uses, and included within that area zoned for industrial uses is a substantial amount of open land. 12 r 32. At the present time, a sewage moratorium imposed by the Department of Environmental Resources prevents the development of open land in Monroe Township. 33. No competent, credible evidence was presented by any party which would identify the total area of Monroe Township, the percentage of the total area of Monroe Township contained in any particular zoning classification, or the appropriate percentage of the area of the Township which should be approved for any particular use or zoning classification. 34. During the period of time the Property has been owned by Appellant, Appellant and Lawco, Inc., have expended approximately X67,000 in improvements to the building located on the Property. 35. No competent, credible evidence has been submitted by any party which would establish that the Property cannot be used in conformance with those uses permitted in an agricultural zone by the Zoning ordinance of Monroe Township. 36. The Property does have unique physical circumstances, pertaining to the narrow width of the Property. 37. The unique physical circumstances of the Property do not prohibit the possibility that the Property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of Monroe Township. 38. No competent, credible evidence has been offered by any party to establish that Appellant will suffer any ui,;~ecessary 13 hardship not of his own creation if the Application for Variance is denied. 39. No competent, credible evidence has been offered by any party to establish the essential character of the area in which the property is located, nor to establish a present or' appropriate use or development of adjacent property, or to establish the effect of the variance request upon the public welfare. 40. No competent, credible evidence has been introduced by any party which would establish that the variance requested by Appellant would constitute a minimum variance, or the least regulatory modification possible, in order to overcome any hardship claimed by Appellant. 41. Despite the physical circumstances of the Property, the Property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the Zoning ordinance, and a variance is not necessary to enable the reasonable use of the Property. III, Conclusions of Law 1. Appellant Norman D. Law and Intervenor Diane G. Radcliff have failed to meet their burden of proof with respect to the Appeal of the Order to Cease and Desist. 2. Petitioner Norman D. Law and Intervenor Diance G. Radcliff have failed to meet their burden of proof with respect to the Petition for Variance. 14 IV. Discussion The first issue raised by Appellant, both in the Appeal of the Order to Cease and Desist and in the Application for Variance, is that Appellant is entitled to the grant of a variance. Tlie variance is requested to permit the use of the Property as a warehouse, office and shop for a water meter service business. Such a use is not permitted in the agricultural district where the Property is located. Pursuant to Section 910.2 of the Municipalities Planning Code, the Zoning Hearing Board may grant a variance if five specific findings are made in a specific case: (1) That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning ordinance in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located. (2) That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning ordinance and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property. (3) That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant. (4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare. (5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible ;of the regulation in issue. 15 The party seeking a variance bears the burden of proving that an unnecessary hardship will result if the variance is not granted, and that the proposed use is not contrary to the public interest. Polonsky v. Zoninq Hearinq Board of Mt. Lebanon, 590 A.2d 1388, Cmwlth. (1991). It is the property that must be subject to the hardship, and not the owner of the property. Borough of Latrobe v. Sweeney, 17 Pa. Cmwlth. 356, 331 A.2d 925 (1975). A finding of unnecessary hardship requires that the physical characteristics of the property be such that j.t cannot be used for any permitted purpose, or that use for a permitted purpose would require prohibitive expense, or that the characteristics of the area are such that the property would have no value or only a distress value if limited to a permitted use. Klanke v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 83 Pa. Cmwlth. 441, 477 A.2d 907 (1984). In the present case, Appellant has failed to present competent, credible evidence which establishes all five conditions necessary for the grant of a variance. While there are admittedly unique physical circumstances peculiar to the property, the only evidence suggesting that the property could not be developed or used in strict conformance with the Zoning Ordinance was offered by Randall Tasker and Appellant. Mr. Tasker offered a number of opinions as to particular rises which could or count not be made of the Property. The only evidence in the record which would qualify Mr. Tasker t;o~offer such opinions were his own statements that he has been a real 16 . } estate salesman for 22 years, and sells houses and apartment buildings. No evidence was offered to establish that he had any knowledge of agricultural operations, or commercial activities related to agricultural operations. No effort was made to qualify him as an expert witness. His testimony was often corifi.ising and contradictory, and indicated only a cursory knowledge of the nature of the Property or the zoning requirements of Monroe Township. Some of his testimony indicated that the Property could be used for purposes permitY.ed in an agricultural district. Tlie Board does not find the testimony of Mr. Tasker to be competent evidence, and gives no credence to his testimony. Likewise, no effort was made to establish that Appellant had sufficient knowledge, information, or qualifications to testify as to potential uses of the Property. The Board does not find any of his testimony in this respect to be credible, and concludes that it does not constitute competent evidence. As to the other requirements for the grant of a variance, the only evidence of "hardship" received by the Board relates to the personal financial hardships which may be encountered by Appellant, Lawco, Inc., and Diane G. Radcliff if the Board does not grant the variance. These hardships are entirely of their own making, resulting from their intentional disregard of the Zoning ordinance of Monroe Township. No competent evidence has been offered to establish the essential character of the district in which the Property is located, appropriate use or development 17 ~ ~ of adjacent property, or the impact of the requested variance upon public welfare. No competent, credible evidence has been offered as to the minimum variance necessary to afford the relief allegedly needed by Appellant. Appellant has faileJ totally to meet his burden of proof in respect to the Application for Variance. Appellant has raised a number of other issues, both in his Appeal and his Legal Memorandum. First is a contention that the present use of the Property constitutes a pre-existing, non- conforming use, which should be allowed to continue. The Property was zoned agricultural when purchased by Appellant in 1976, and has remained zoned as agricultural to the present time. Appellant's contention is that the property was being used for industrial purposes prior to his purchase, and he should be permitted to continue SLICK industrial uses. However, Appellant again has failed to meet his burden of proof. Appellant testified that the Property was not being used for any purpose when he purchased it, and had not been used for a substantial period of time. He alsp offered testimony, based on hearsay, that the Property had been used as a "creamery" in the 1950's. There was no competent, credible evidence offered to establish the use of the Property for a period of approximately 16 years prior to Appellant's purchase of the property. Thus Appellant has not proven his right to a pre-existing, non-conforming use determination. 18 appellant further contends that he should be granted a "variance by estoppel," on the theory that the Township knew of his use of the Property and condoned, encouraged, and acquiesced in such use. This contention fails on several grounds. There is no competent, credible evidence to establish that the Township acted to condone, encourage, or acquiesce in the use of the Property. Both Appellant and Walter Rimmer testified that Appellant had contacted the Township at about the time of his purchase of the Property, in 1976, and had received approval or encouragement from the Township. However, neither witness indicated the date or dates when these communications supposedly occurred, the identity of the people making the communications, the nature or method of communication, or any other information which would provide substance to their allegation. No documentary or other corroborative evidence was offered. The Board does not find their testimony as to this alleged communication or contact to be credible in any respect. Inaction or inactivity by a municipality in respect to the enforcement of a zoning ordinance may result in the municipality being estopped from enforcing the ordinance, but only if the evidence establishes direct injury to a completely innocent landowner. Bevans v. Hilltown Township, 72 Pa. Cmwlth. 227, 457 A.2d 977 (1983); Rendin v. Zoning Hearing Board of Borough of Media, 88 Pa. Cmwlth. 37, 488 A.2d 391 (1985). In the present case, the record is clear that Monroe Township was not inactive in the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance as it applied to the 19 .. Property. An enforcement action was initiated in 1980, aid pursued to its conclusion in 1984. The present case has arisen from the initiation of another enforcement action by the Township. In addition, Appellant and Diane G. Radcliff are clearly not "innocent" parties. They have acted in knowing disregard of the Zoning Ordinance, and have ignored a cease and desist order, a previous Zoning Hearing Board decision, and the final action of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. Appellant has even been fined in a proceeding before a district justice for zoning violations. Appellant further argues that the action of the Township in enforcing its order is discriminatory and denies him equal protection of the laws, due to the Township "policy" of permitting long-standing zoning violations to continue. However, the Board has found that no such policy exists, and therefore, this argument must fail. As to the two agreements entered into by the township to resolve particular zoning violations, Appellant has offered no evidence to establish that he has ever sought such an agreement, has ever been denied such an agreement, or that his circumstances are substantially similarly to those of the other landowners. In particular, there is no evidence to indicate that the other landowners have knowingly violated the Zoning ordinance and ignored the results of enforcement proceedings, as has Appellant. Appellant's last argument is that the Township Zoning Ordinance is exclusionary as applied to industrial uses. 20 ~ ! ~ 1 Appellant has offered virtually no evidence to support this contention, other than the existence of a sewer moratorium imposed on the Township by the Department of Environmental Resources. This contention is without merit, and Appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish exclusionary zoning. V. Conclusion Based upon the foregoing Procedural History, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Discussion, the Board, iti accordance with the public announcement of its decision on May 12, 1993, hereby issues this Decision and Order deifying the Appeal of the Order to Cease and Desist and the Application for Variance. By the Zoning Hearing Board of Monroe Township "Lois Witmer, Chairman 1 ~: Guy R. eed, Member ~ ~~J~ ~ e Go on„ a er 21 ~ K S ZONING HBARING BOARD OF MONROB TOWNSHIP CUHBSRLAND CUUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NORMAN D. LAW APPEAL OF THE CEASE Appellant AND DESIST ORDER OF and THE ZONING OFFICER OF DIANE G. RADCLIFF MONROE TOWNSHIP Intervenor v. MONROE TOWNSHIP NORMAN D. LAW APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Applicant and DIANE G. RADCLIFF Intervenor v. MONROE TOWNSHIP ORDER AND NON, this Fourteenth day of June, 1993, the appeal of Norman D. Law to the Order to Cease and Desist, issued by the Zoning officer of Monroe Township on February 18, 1993, is hereby denied. Norman D. Law shall commence steps to correct the violations specified in the Order to Cease and Desist immediately, and such steps shall be completed within. 60 days of the date of this Order. By the Zoning hearing Board of Monroe Township ---- /. ~ , ~ 1 b y Lois Witmer, Chairman Guy R Reed, Member Eb r o n, e f . .~ , ORDER AND NOW, this Fourteenth day of June, 1993, the Application By the Zoning Hearing Board of Mon oe Township _~ ~ / I ois Witmer, Chairman ZONING HBARING BOARD OF MONROB TOWNSHIP CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA NORMAN D. LAW APPEAL OF THE CEASE Appellant AND DESIST ORDER OF acid THE ZONING OFFICER OF DIANE G. RADCLIFF MONROE TOWNSHIP Intervenor v. MONROE TOWNSHIP NORMAN D. LAW APPLICATION FOR V?'RIANCE Applicant and DIANE G. RADCLIFF . Intervenor v. . MONROE TOWNSHIP . for Variance of Norman D. Law, requesting a variance for the Property located at 1156 York Road, Monroe Township, Pennsylvania, is hereby denied. Guy R Reed, Member Eli r G,or n , r r ~ P, ()89 534 712 ~~i !diet f~tr (;Ae tl~ir?(~_ AJlail Nn I~~;V 511rr3 ~.I~~r~iT e ('rovirled ~~e q~, [~„ ~~~ ~ ~~; f^~ r trt}iAllon~l h1~il I '_~7? i r- _ ~ ~5 r r ~ 11~',:~1 G - -- --- II F \2 l - --- --- -- 1 \ _ -: rr ~ _ -a _ - - - - ~. - -- ~~ .( .. ~ ~ I r -'-`_ i ,. ~~ r -M ~ '-- _ P D89 534 710 i1~r~eii~t fcrr - (:~-tifittt~ IU1ai1 ~~~~ PJ~~ I~fiTa/nr~ C'PSVCr~y~;~'rnvid~d • ~ I`~~ r -.t ~/• r f•,r IrYrr~r;r?i•ai;~l AQail (` F; ~~ rr :c'1 t ~~ 3r ~.; } i~ `~` _. ~~ 3 Z~ ~. ~ ,, ~ `. ~ ;; P i789 534 71rZ ~;~r~niej ' ~~~t ('~ttii t^s i ~?9~i~ --.. I ~n "~1 ~ n r fns In'~,rria• ii ,i ^ 1- i i ~ ~ iL <'! 1~~~!",;6L 1,/ - ~c'-. ~> ~ / ~ l ' r ~•~; I Cam. •,~ /. ~i, ~ s ._~. .C ~ ,;. y- ~ r. ~ 7 ~ t I ' . rJ ... .. ' Z . _.. _. ..__ .., ,.. ~ .• ~ • r \ -- - . ~ i I - ... ___ - -_ r~ G .-•- --s ..,... ~,...yy, ,~ m ~ ~ y ~ W ~ O y . . ,. Q Q ci Q .~ ~ • `_ Q~ O y Q ~ '~ D ? _- o cn w y ~ m ~ y ~. p ~ O ._. a~ y ~ v m ~ N O - a' ~ - E t c v N ~: y _ j ci 'L7 uo Q N y ~ N a ~ ~ r N ' ^ ^ T N ~ ~ ' tOn ~ ~_~ ^ ~ ~~ ~ O. O y m 3 o e N ~ c . Z ~?'. r F- ~ Q O w V N F~.~'` U C7 y d w 3 n m D U w ~) N Cn Q d ~~ `~/ ~ n . ~ ~ C ~ Y ~ ~ ~ \ ~ O ~0 m w ~ « j r.; ,J E m `~3 ~ `\ m o ~ W m « c ~; V m o m 'a ~ ' 1~C ~ °m' ~ n E ~ ~ o ~~ > ~ ~ p q o` .F i i C ~ -\ \V~ ` ~` \ 4.r pN C }y 3 ~ O O w 0 « ~ ~ ~ \ ~ C N~ y O 7 p o ~ L \~ Q ~ \, ~ ~V y °v ~ d ~~_ ~ ' V ~~ ~'- ~ ~~ ~ m ~ 3 E€~ c ~ ~ oQ l ~ m ~ x . + l ~E EQ ~ ~~c~ i!( ~~ ~ ~ C ~ G WUUR~<~3'~~ © ~ (~1 ~ ~ \ ~ t.p: s,.n•{.y~ w ~ uo p~~pduaa §~a ' _ nl r a w U W tr Z H W v_ N w Q 0 ti O 0 a C w (A LL cC a d moil sf .~~ wn~ oa dy ~o~ nolk ~uQyl, m~ .~. K y o m W m ~ ~ ~ V Q 4 ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ > Z ~p O OD ~ M r ~ C j w ..... c _.. ~ ~ ~ q . » o ` " .... :: a _.. z ~ ~ ~~ + /yam 0 cc a 3 ~ w- "' a a o 3 ~- n o ~ ~ . ~ W '_ w ~ u ~ ~ ~ ._.. ~ ~ ~ ~ Sl N ~ «~ ~ e :. ~ .... h F o ~ ~~ ti '7~.4. ~ .. .. m o ~ °e d m « °u 3 o [7 m m v ~ ai _ O 0 Q U cm y w n f'~ e - ~ V ~ ~ {x E m ~ m « , t~ ~ ~ m c c « « ~ L ~_ `~~ ~"~ J ~ .-- v 3 ^~ c D o o m o ~~ ~/ o N~ y O ~ ; N m O ~ ~ ~ ~\ ~CC C N d C '~ ~ L .Q ~ V 9 m « ~ ~~ ~ ~ "y; y y L... ~) ~ ~ ~ N "O C ~ 71 N Q o G i ff ~ E E E o,; c~ Q J ~~ ~ d m m A v c A m E c m N F r., ~ ~~ y ~ 7 Y ~ m m ~ ~ «d ~ 11 m v ° .w ° ~ ~ ~ ' ~` ~~ ^ ~ .. , ~11 m C ~ ~ .. ~ ., .. o • • r ~ . - in c~ ~ ;:,~•~~ r••~~n~~ ail uo fi • ~ D ata~~liuo~ SS3baOd N2if1132j ~noA s~ •aafn~eS ldfaoaa wn~aa Bufsn ~o; noA ~ueyl ~ L O H a+ m d ` 7 C ~ a l 0 ~ ~ y U ~. Q N ~ .~ 'D ~= d p y p ~ O N N W N r V t ' ~ U N 3 ai ~ ~ y Q ~ o ° a ° ~ y. ^ ^ W 3 y O •• .. ~ ~ ~j CO w U `ro N U 0 C O V d: y O ^ _ ~ Q X10 y d. m m r~ p{ ~H V N m y p y W .Z ~ ~ ~ ~ m _i i y J W Z W ~. V H W G ,~ . E~ Q N¢ U w Q 4~ ~ v Q 8v a d^~ ^ r cA x - •~ w s ~ ~~ ~'- ~ ~ ~ o~ ,.~ 1 ~~~I'`~ d O ~ G V ~ \ \ \ ~ (.~ it O O 11VV ~ ~ (n N • .~ ~ ~ Lev ~ _ h o ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ CC O '~ ~~ O ~ ~ O • y P E ~ y m 9` ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ C Q C ~ v °' .- of 9 ~ ° ri m ~ € ~' .o v ~ q Q r- 00 ~« °r EQ Q ~ ~ v m m ~ =~ggEmE d V t.. ~ ~ th Woo=EZ~cL?ri~~ ~ in in N VVa~Qo,3r~ V1. • d.c. •v ~a cp a tapfs esaene~ ey3 uo pa3efduao~ SS3fiUat/ IV!lf113H inv~t sf resolve the within action, but breached the sett~sa 111~~~ , agreement by providing defective services and windoWFi ~: t.;, ~,~ leaked, which is another case pending in this Court. ~, COUNT I BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY 9. The allegations contained in paragx~ " through 8 above are incorporated herein as though fu~,~'. forth. 10. The windows provided by Marvin we I~ ~. merchantable or functional, and were defective and in }~ the warranty of merchantability of the product i.mpliet~ ~ as a direct result of which Plaintiff's incurred the` I I~ ~ itemized above. ''~ WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request. t, Court award Plaintiffs judgment in an amount ~~ i u i $35,000.00 plus interest and costs of suit. OF COUNT II I 11. The allegations contained in pars through 9 above are incorporated herein as though forth. 12. Marvin breached the duty it had at;'^ :;: provide workmanlike services in installing the windows,`'a fact its work was defective, resulting in leaky window9~ damages to the building. Jt ~tON & DAMES, N.C. A T"i0 R N EYS-AT-LA W SUG COLUMBIA AVENUE 3 I ANCASTE R. PA 17603 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court award Plaintiffs judgment in an amount exceeding $35,000.00 plus interest and costs of suit. Respectfully submitted, HARMON & DAVIES, P.C. 2306 Columbia Avenue Lancaster, PA 17603 (717) 291-2236 By: ~ V` ~~ Da id A. Flore I.D. # 37829 Attorney for Plaintiff Waterford Development Partnership PL\Marvin.C2 IL MON & DAVIE?S, P.C. \ITORNEYS-A-~-I,AW k~G C<ILUM BIA AVENUE ~ 4 I ANCASTER. PA 17603 ~ I