Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-3702IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff(s) & Address(es) ROBERT J. KASPER and JEANETTE E. KASPER VS. CIVIL DI ISION wa 3 rncD = :z (nrn = co : r- .< CZ) s. Case No. 2011 j J0,? C e rm? Civil Action Equity f-n V Defendant(s) & Address(es) WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK and CLOVER HAYCOCK, and NANCY E. KELSO PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF SAID COURT: Issue summons in the above case Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to Attorney/Sheriff. Please Circle choice Date : 4/18/2011 `Signature ttorney Print Name: Seth T. Mos y, Esquire Address: 10 East High Street 0'3 TO: Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone #: 717-243-3341 Supreme Court ID Number: 203046 • • • • WRIT OF SUMMONS -t rrt r- -rn 4° o -n M 0 -+ rTt YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division Date: /?? G Deputy L- E TILESThents\13036 Kasper Robert Jenny',13036 3v130363 petition FILED-OFFICE THE Pr", OTHOMjTARY Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire 2u11 A, pi 18 AM 9. 57 Attorney I.D. No. 203046 CUMBERLAND COUNTY MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLERPEI~NSYL VANIA MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Petitioners ROBERT J. KASPER, JEANETTE E. KASPER, Petitioners IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK and CLOVER A. HAYCOCK, and NANCY E. KELSO, Respondents NO. 2011 - CIVIL TERM PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A BOARD OF VIEW AND NOW, come the Petitioners, Robert J. Kasper and Jeanette E. Kasper ("Petitioners"), by and through their attorneys, MARTSON LAW OFFICES, and file their Petition for Appointment of a Board of View to open a private road, pursuant to 36 P.S. §2731, et seq., and in support thereof, aver the following: Petitioners are adult individuals who reside at 3806 Conestoga Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 2. Petitioners are the owners of real property situate in Southampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, more particularly described in a deed recorded at Deed Book 252, Page 4517, in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds for Cumberland County ("Property"). A true and correct copy of the Deed is attached hereto and incorporated as Exhibit "A." 3. Respondents, William G. Haycock and Clover A. Haycock, are adult individuals residing at and owning real property located at 76 Goodhart Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257 ("Haycock") 4. Respondent, Nancy E. Kelso, is an adult individual residing at and owning real property located at 74 Kline Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257 ("Kelso") 5. The Property owned by Petitioners is farm land which was bisected by Interstate 81. 6. As a result of the construction of Interstate 81, a portion of the Property lies north of Interstate 81, and the majority of the Property lies south of Interstate 81. A true and correct copy of a topographic and boundary survey plan prepared by J. Michael Brill & Associates, Inc. ("Plan"), is attached hereto and incorporated as Exhibit "B." 7. The portion of the Property situated to the south of Interstate 81 has access through Walnut Bottom Road. 8. The portion which lies north of Interstate 81 is landlocked and has no access to a public road. 9. As shown on the Plan, Haycock own lands to the west of the northern portion of the Property. 10. As shown on the Plan, Kelso owns land to the east of the Property. 11. Petitioners are requesting a right-of-way or road over the lands of Haycock to obtain access to Goodhart Road. 12. As indicated by the Plan, a right-of-way over the Haycocks' property would be minimally intrusive and would parallel Interstate 81. 13. Petitioners have been unable to secure a right-of-way or other means of access through other methods. 14. No other reasonable means of access is available to Petitioners. WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that this Honorable Court appoint a Board of View pursuant to 36 P.S. §2731, et seq., and direct that the Board of View conduct an analysis of the properties owned by Respondents William G. and Clover A. Haycock and Nancy E. Kelso, and to open a private road for the use and privilege of Petitioners, and grant any other relief as necessary. MARTSON LAW OFFICES By:? ?14 Seth T. Mosebey, E ire I.D. No. 203046 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Date: V7/1) Attorneys for Petitioners EXHIBIT "A" 3(R5'Z6q--- THIS DEED MADE the R5%day of DU I'' in the year two thousand and two (2002) BETWEEN: ROBERT J. KASPER of 3806 Conestoga Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 17011, rv > GRANTOR c 0 O° ? p ro r ? ? rn n v ao AND: ROBERT J. KASPER and JEANETTE E. KASPER, his C.0 c m -+ wife, of 3806 Conestoga Road, Camp Hill, 3 0 ° ~ Pennsylvania, 17011, v z M w --4 rn m GRANTEES =--' WITNESSETH that In consideration of ONE ($1.00) DOLLAR, in hand paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the said Grantor does hereby grant and convey in fee simple to said Grantees ALL the following described three (3) tracts of real estate, lying and being situate in Southampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, bounded and limited as follows: TRACT NO. 1: Parcel 1_ BOUNDED on the West by lands now or formerly of Carl Goodhart and Georgia W. Goodhart, his wife, formerly Edward Highlands Estate; on the North by lands formerly of Thomas Boles, now or formerly of William Heycock; on the East by lands now or formerly of Herman Holtry Estate and McLaughlin, now or formerly of Harold Holtry, Lloyd H. Herr, Ralph E. Hopkins and Mac Delancy; and on the South by lands formerly of Edwards Hays, now or formerly of Charles Neff and the Walnut Bottom Road, also known as the Molly Pitcher Highway, said farm being known as the Allison farm and CONTAINING 126 Acres, more or less. EXCEPTING, HOWEVER, from the above description, the following: 1, Deed to Harper W. Holtry and Blanche G. Holtry, his wife., recorded in said Recorder's Office in Deed Book "N", Volume 17, Page 111. 600K 252 PACF4517 2. Deed to L. Kline Baker, recorded in Deed Book "R", Volume 10, Page 574. 3. Deed to Rush W. Piper and Florence Piper, his wife, recorded in Deed Book "R", Volume 18, Page 345. 4. That land which was condemned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for Route 81. P IN 2: ALL that certain triangular tract of land situate in Southampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows: On the North by lands formerly of Thomas Boles, now or formerly of William Heycock; on the East by lands now or formerly of Howard E. Peiper and Ada I. Peiper, his wife, being a portion of Tract No. 1 above described; on the South by Interstate Route 81; and on the West at the peak of the triangle by a public road leading from the Walnut Bottom Road to Route 11. Consisting of 2.3 Acres, more or less. BEING THE SAME TWO TRACTS OF REAL ESTATE which Howard E. Peiper and Ada I. Peiper, his wife, by Deed dated November 1, 1974, and recorded among the Deed Records of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book "V", Volume 25, Page 758, conveyed to Bernard Kasper and Isaphine B. Kasper, his wife, AND WHICH REAL ESTATE was later conveyed by Bernard Kasper and Isaphine B. Kasper, his wife, by Deed dated November 17th, 1993, and recorded among the Deed Records of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book "Q", Volume 36, Page 758, as tenants in common to Bernard Kasper and Isaphine B. Kasper. TRACT NO. 2: ALL that certain tract of land situate in the Township of Southampton, County of Cumberland and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows, to wit: BEGINNING at a point in the center of Traffic Route TR-174 at land now or formerly of F. E. Middlekauf; thence by the center of said road, South eighty- seven (87) degrees forty-five (45) minutes East, two hundred seventy-four (274) feet to a point in the center of the aforementioned public road at land now or formerly of Charles E. L. Nehf; thence by Nehf land, South twenty-seven (27) degrees East, one thousand four hundred eighty-two and five tenths (1482.5) feet to an iron pin at land now or formerly of D. L. Miller, thence by Miller land, South fifty-eight (58) degrees West, one thousand six hundred forty-two (1642) feet to a spike in the center of public road Township Route T-320; thence by the center of the last mentioned public road Township Route T-320, North thirty- 2 BOOK 252 FACE4518 seven (37) degrees thirty (30) minutes West, one thousand nine and five tenths (1009.5) feet to a point; thence continuing through the center of the aforementioned public road, Township Route T-320, North three (03) degrees thirty (30) minutes East, two hundred eighty-seven (287) feet to a point; thence continuing through the center of the last mentioned public road, Township Route T-320, North twenty-eight (28) degrees forty (40) minutes West, two hundred seventy-eight (278) feet to a point; thence North sixty-five (65) degrees forty-five (45) minutes East, two hundred (200) feet to a point; thence North twenty-eight (28) degrees forty (40) minutes West, two hundred (200) feet to a point at line of land formerly of Carl Goodhart, now or formerly of Bernard Kasper and Isaphine Kasper, his wife; thence along the latter-mentioned land, North sixty-five (65) degrees forty-five (45) minutes East, seven hundred fifty-three (753) feet to a point; thence along land now or formerly of F. E. Middlekauf, North fifty-eight (58) degrees thirty (30) minutes East, five hundred seven (507) feet to a point in the center of Traffic Route TR-174, the place of BEGINNING. Having a dwelling house and other out buildings erected thereon. EXCEPTING, HOWEVER, from the above-described tract of land, the following conveyances: 1. Conveyance of J. Ebbert Davis and Martha J. Davis, his wife, to Thomas A. Graham, III, and Catherine L. Graham, his wife, dated October 17, 1975, and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book "H", Volume 26, Page 890; CONTAINING 2 Acres. 2. Conveyance of J. Ebbert Davis and Martha J. Davis, his wife, to Harry Strock, dated November 30, 1973, and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book "M", Volume 25, Page 868; CONTAINING 2.003 Acres. 3. Conveyance of J. Ebbert Davis and Martha J. Davis, his wife, to Clayton L. Johnston and wife, dated December 31, 1975, and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book "M", Volume 26, Page 611; CONTAINING 3 Acres. 4. Conveyance of J. Ebbert Davis and Martha J. Davis, his wife, to David J. Beam, dated September 29, 1972, and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book "W", Volume 24, Page 699; CONTAINING 1.97 Acres. AND EXCEPTING AND RESERVING, HOWEVER, to J. Ebbert Davis and Martha J. Davis, his wife, the following tract of land described as follows: BEGINNING at a point marked by a railroad spike in the center of Public road Township Route T-320 at line of land now or formerly of David J. Beam; thence 3 9Oox 252 PAG45B through the center of the aforementioned public road, North forty-one (41) degrees thirty-nine (39) minutes thirty-four (34) seconds West, three hundred sixty-seven and twenty-five hundredths (367.25) feet to a point; thence through the aforementioned public road, North thirty-one (31) minutes fifty-one (51) seconds East, two hundred ninety-two and eighty-six hundredths (292.86) feet to a point; thence North thirty-four (34) degrees thirty-nine (39) minutes thirty-five (35) seconds West, one hundred sixty-two and sixty-one hundredths (162.61) feet to a point marked by a railroad spike in the aforementioned public road; thence North forty-one (41) degrees thirty-four (34) minutes forty-three (43) seconds East, two hundred ninety-one and seventy-seven hundredths (291.77) feet to an iron pin; thence South thirty-six (36) degrees nine (9) minutes thirty-six (36) seconds East, seven hundred thirty-seven and thirty-three hundredths (737.33) feet to an iron pin; thence South forty-two (42) degrees eighteen (18) minutes eighteen (18) seconds West, three hundred seventy-six and thirty-six hundredths (376.36) feet to a point; thence by a curve to the left, having a radius of forty (40) feet, an arc length of fifty-nine and twenty-two hundredths (59.22) feet, and a chord length of fifty-three and ninety-six hundredths (53.96) feet, on a chord bearing of South six (06) minutes twenty-seven (27) seconds East to a point; thence South forty-seven (47) degrees twenty-eight (28) minutes forty- eight (48) seconds West, twenty-five (25) feet to a point, the place of BEGINNING; PURSUANT to survey of Carl D. Bert, R.S., dated March 1976 and shown thereon as Lot No. 6. BEING THE SAME REAL ESTATE which J. Ebbed Davis and Martha J. Davis, his wife, by Deed dated May 6, 1976, and recorded among the Deed Records of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book "Q", Volume 26, Page 531, granted and conveyed unto Bernard Kasper and Isaphine B. Kasper, his wife, AND BEING THE SAME REAL ESTATE Bernard Kasper and Isaphine B. Kasper, husband and wife, by Deed dated November 17th, 1993, and recorded among the Deed Records of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book "Q", Volume 36, Page 753, conveyed as tenants in common to Bernard Kasper and Isaphine B. Kasper. TRACT NO. 3: All that certain tract of real estate, lying and being situate in Southampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, being Parcel 39-12-0322-027, and being the same real estate which the Tax Claim Bureau of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, as Trustee, by Deed dated February 27, 1980, and recorded among the Deed Records of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book "W", Volume 28, Page 528, granted and conveyed unto Bernard and Isaphine B. Kasper, his wife. BEING THE SAME REAL ESTATE which Bernard Kasper and Isaphine B. Kasper, husband and wife, by Deed dated November 17th, 1993, and recorded among the Deed Records of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book 4 BOOK 252 PAGE4520 "Q", Volume 36, Page 761, conveyed as tenants in common to Bernard and Isaphine B. Kasper, his wife; AND BEING THE SAME THREE TRACTS OF REAL ESTATE which Bernard Kasper and Isaphine B. Kasper, his wife, by Deed dated June 16, 2000, and recorded among the Deed Records of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Record Book Volume 224, Page 276, conveyed to Robert J. Kasper and Janet L. Kasper, each as to an undivided one-half (1/2) interest. Janet L. Kasper, by Deed dated June 20th, 2002, and recorded among the Deed Records of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Record Book Volume 252, Page 1892, conveyed her undivided one-half (1/2) interest to Robert J. Kasper, thereby vesting full and complete title in said real estate in Robert J. Kasper, Grantor herein. THIS IS A CONVEYANCE BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE AND THEREFORE FREE OF PENNSYLVANIA REALTY TRANSFER TAX. SUBJECT TO all conditions, restrictions, easements, rights-of-way and agreements, whether set forth herein or otherwise, as may be set forth or referred to in the above-recited Deed and as may appear elsewhere in the chain of title for the property, or on the ground by an inspection of the premises, insofar as they are enforceable, are unrevoked or amended, and not in violation of any law, including the Fair Housing laws of the United States Government. AND the said Grantor will warrant specially the property hereby conveyed IN WITNESS WHEREOF said Grantor hereunto sets his hand and seal, the day and year first above written. WITNESS: (SEAL) Robe . as 5 BOOK 252 RAC174521 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF C : SS. UM?CRLANIj . On this a?day of 7u1 2002, before me, a Notary Public, the undersigned officer, pe nally appeared ROBERT J. KASPER, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged the foregoing Deed to be his act and deed, and desired the same to be recorded as such. Witness my hand and official seal, the day and year aforesaid. nioWer seal - JWW E cuftwwwow* X. ?yoomnrwo?, EMW.. MW 27, MW `"A I hereby certify that the Grantees' precise residence and complete post office address is: Witness my hand this ?i day of , 2002. I Certify this to be recorJed In Cumberland County PA 0 Recorder of Deeds 6 Boox 252 PAGA522 oev EXHIBIT "B" 0"..L (1vom DOD c ir,?tl:l ?• I t? 1 ' R ..•?'9 I ii ?+i ` ? r IP FF gg Ck` - " gIkr N ? { T???I S f ??11f? t i f - tilt I s a a o ? C J C, n J C ( z 1 6 0 t tPF> t3? 1 tF a _tq t?i .tp tF to t , +z ,? , ` R ap a 1@ t i - S t r7f it 1,- 11pp.2 1. Z !j! ?q '" 3 i-e ( ( 2 'r? t r? t t...i:' $ P,, - , 1.: F, a3 t 1 11 , t t i .i. -?? -7•t -t °• F°i - ? -fit _ _ is s r ?i a?e'R sF? •3'as F z i ? Et d?'a =;? a Ffl r' i ? u(I 0. 2"9 0 seQk?1 IL z i P!i `N I >? 4 q. W 1 I Y? I L I i i r ~ OVERALL' - TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY SURVEY PLAN ?n <SpASSOCIATES. INC. K A S P E R w. SOOT" AMP iON TOwNSH'P CUMBERLAND COUNT', PA COl1.OLTi110 iN OI..... IM M PROPERTIES 77 .7 z - _ -------- L o 'o, oze.L avox ?_-- - _ - _ - yy a i t i e I i a i 1 8 I I? ?? ? ?? ?? I ? f B I .? ? ? ? Fn 4 0 @ 0 :=o t JIF Ia V 1 4 - Ir h 1- ? I I 1 ? I ? 4 _ ., 2 1. I 3 I 1 ?11 ? T ttnn al , +'?? ?E J III I I ; a ? Y li I 1 3 r f f g?i ho ' IZ 2 y- 2;.yM- 1 `jam 8 I l I 1 } I ?? L? VR `. 4 F m a `z ?I` _ S.R - - . I m N?nl F l 1 It I ?.. 'I l , 1_ k_xN t ?4 dal I; I ? ;1 8 I I f r t t ? z a i? I _ 8 1 986Sr - I? a 1I 3.11.99ff 5 _?__ _ ? F R N PART[AL TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY SURVEY PLAN -PANEL I i AlichaelBnl ^ o ASSOCIATE S. INC. K A S P E R --?- =o AMP ov l isNa aER A?o Col'_. . PA -,t- e ol..... PRO PERTIES °'-: v - O ? i avow 1 clooq - i a;? t t t t?? tL ,; _ 3 o ' z ? i d F^T? sC t -- -' - i V ta? t t3 tj?3 ,$ 2 d ¢ Ff ?? ? !s? a a ? z ??tY? ? o w > _ a Z :ma f; t1 q ff t TT '?7 ? hf 9 I ? ? i N V S u . 8 a> ps r ?sd MAN 4 ?4 \ L Fr 4 N 4 I , 1. ''k v 11f RA li ?? I IIIIII f- 1; any"y 3 v -yam - i ' t y? n ? 3 l J of _ )$ at ? - ... :$9 voer me .,.\.rcas.rr s... '?@ 5 ?_ ? ? ? 4311 1 ? L W PALTfA?FPOGRAPM' C ANT) BOUNDARY SURVEY PLAN-PANEL 2 o?x? --_ F `. Asso TES, INC. K A S P E R 50: in AMPTON TG^SHIP CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PI CO..OLi1.0 11 p1116i R• PROPERTIES -?+ ? -. q 8? o E \ eE -n Otf, ?'?? y?tlU? c ?( a? 33 ? 1 ? R y? b n \ Ii ?\ 11 1 _ S a a? s a.? :S Ps y? e s? q`r lea a •? e'n E j?1 zR \ ? o?E y O O O O. O O 'o I I I I I ?i f{rf??t???? t ? O O 0 x P l9 4 ?P q€t {{f?i?3?t ?iA?4}'I;?l?? x a£t?ftR o G f flr 7 E 'S • 1- _1 - R 3 JAW € 8 _ °3$ 4 91-M c- ISMUTHAMPTON RR RIPOCRAPFLC AND BOUNDARY SURVEY PLAN-PANEL 3 (AAMMTES, M KASPER 70NNSHIP CUMBEFLANp COUNTY, PA CONSULTING ZNGIX..M. PROPERTIES F;.` VERIFICATION The foregoing Petition is based upon information which has been gathered by our counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the document is that of counsel and not our own. We have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which we have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the document is that of counsel, we have relied upon counsel in making this verification. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if we make knowingly false averments, we may be subject to criminal penalties. No V. Otto, III, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 27763 Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire ` rn - r-n- Attorney I.D. No. 203046 1."3 p MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER -?' co MARTSON LAW OFFICES y~c7 ? ca--? 1.0 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Petitioners ROBERT J. KASPER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JEANETTE E. KASPER, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV ANIA Petitioners V. NO. 2011 - 7CIVIL TERM WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK and CLOVER A. HAYCOCK, and NANCY E. KELSO, Respondents ORDER OF COURT AND NO W, this day of , 2011, upon consideration of the within Petition of Robert and Jeanette Kasper for the appointment of a Board of View to open a private road, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition of Robert J. Kasper and Jeanette E. Kasper is granted and the following individuals are appointed to the Board of View: . 11/', %/, A J L-4'I-L/) 4)'-4llk? , .ne The first named individual shall serve as the Chairperson who shall schedule, convene, and conduct the proceedings as provided by 36 P.S. §2731, et seq. "041;M-4 0. 14 YCoc k C(o o et A Pa ycac,? /?ctncy b.. ee% ?Se?? 7 N'1os?,b?7. ?s? Copy/s ma.'lel yla9lif y By the Court, ROBERT J. KASPER and JEANETTE E. KASPER, Petitioners V. WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK, CLOVER A. HAYCOCK and NANCY E. KELSO, Respondents IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2011 - 3702 CIVIL TERM c-, . b ? cn r- -a r ° Z? ?4 Zt !;>? NOTICE TO PLEAD -4 TO: Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire, Martson Law Offices and Robert J. Kasper and Jeanette E. Kasper You are hereby notified that you have twenty (20) days in which to plead to the within New Matter or a Default Judgment may be entered against you. Date: September ( , 2011 ez'4? I-II.Eazo, Wayne . Shade, Esquire Supreme Court No. 15712 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243-0220 Attorney for Respondents Haycock WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 ROBERT J. KASPER and JEANETTE E. KASPER, Petitioners V. WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK, CLOVER A. HAYCOCK and NANCY E. KELSO, Respondents IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2011 - 3702 CIVIL TERM HAYCOCK ANSWER TO PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A BOARD OF VIEW AND NOW, come Respondents WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK and CLOVER A. HAYCOCK, by their attorney, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, and file their Answer to the above-captioned Petition for Appointment of a Board of View, as follows: L-4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. By way of further response, Haycocks aver that, where the bisection occurred approximately fifty years ago, the opening of a private road over the Haycock lands would operate to the primary benefit of Petitioners, as opposed to the general public, in violation of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. 6. - 11. WAYNE F. SHADE Admitted. Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 12. The averments of 112 of Petitioners' Petition are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Petitioners' plan would parallel Interstate 81, but it is denied that Petitioners' plan would be minimally intrusive. On the contrary, Haycocks aver that Petitioners' proposed right-of-way would constitute a material imposition upon Haycock's constitutional property rights. 13. The averments' of ¶ 13 of Petitioners' Petition, being within the exclusive knowledge of Petitioners, are denied; and proof thereof is demanded. 14. The averments of ¶ 14 of Petitioners' Petition are denied. On the contrary, Haycocks aver that Petitioners could obtain a right-of-way over the lands of Respondent Kelso. WHEREFORE, Respondents Haycock respectfully request that Petitioners' Petition be dismissed and that judgment be entered in favor of Respondents Haycock. NEW MATTER 15. The lands in question that are now owned by Petitioners were bisected by WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Interstate 81 prior to 1963. -2- 16. Petitioners acquired full title to the lands in question on June 20, 2002. 17. In the approximately forty years after the lands in question were bisected by Interstate 81 until Petitioners acquired full title to the lands that are now in question, Petitioners' predecessors in title did not make any attempt to establish access to the lands with respect to which Petitioners seek to burden the lands of Respondents Haycock. 18. As early as 2008, Petitioners knew that Respondents Haycock were opposed to Petitioners' burdening the lands of Respondents Haycock with an access road. 19. In the nearly nine years between Petitioners' acquisition of full title to the lands in question and the filing of their Petition herein on April 18, 2011, Petitioners made no attempt to acquire access to their lands in question under the Private Road Act. 20. Petitioners acknowledge in their prayer for relief that their request to burden the Haycock lands is for their own private benefit rather than the benefit of the public where they request a private road "for the use and privilege of Petitioners". WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 1'7013 -3- 21. Haycocks allege, in the alternative, that, if the opening of a private road over their lands is not in violation of the United States Constitution or the Pennsylvania Constitution, the appropriation of private property for private use is in the nature of eminent domain legislation and must be strictly construed, such that any access condemned over such private road must be restricted to the width that would accommodate the agricultural use to which the property to be accessed was devoted when it was bisected by Interstate 81. WHEREFORE, Respondents Haycock respectfully request that Petitioners' Petition be dismissed and that judgment be entered in favor of Respondents Haycock. Respectfully submitted, 2-=? Wayne F. hade, Esquire Supreme Court No. 15712 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243-0220 Attorney for Respondents Haycock WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 -4- The statements in the foregoing Answer with New Matter are based upon information which has been assembled by my attorney in this litigation. The language of the statements is not my own. I have read the statements; and to the extent that they are based upon information which I have given to my counsel, they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: September 2 2011 William G. Haycock Clover A. Haycock WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 ROBERT J. KASPER and JEANETTE E. KASPER, Petitioners V. WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK, CLOVER A. HAYCOCK and NANCY E. KELSO, Respondents IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2011 - 3702 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the Answer of Respondents Haycock with New Matter in the above-captioned matter, by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: 1. Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire, Martson Law Offices, 10 East High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, Attorneys for Robert J. Kasper and Jeanette E. Kasper; 2. Nancy E. Kelso, 74 Kline Road, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257; and 3. William A. Duncan, Esquire, Duncan & Hartman, P.C., One Irvine Row, WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. Date: September 6, 2011 t'14 /w, t' (_ / 4 ? - ?__c 7? Wayne -f. Shade, Esquire Supreme Court No. 15712 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243-0220 Attorney for Respondents Haycock ROBERT J. KASPER and JEANETTE E. KASPER, Petitioners V. WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK, CLOVER A. HAYCOCK and NANCY E. KELSO, Respondents IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ra c *-a ?7 N0.2011 - 3702 CIVIL TER. ?"'' r? I- r ` =c~ i _i m _ ?-- , PETITION OF HAYCOCKS FOR CONTINUANCE OF BOARD OF VIEW HEARING TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: The Petition of William G. Haycock and Clover A. Haycock, by their attorney, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, respectfully represents, as follows: 1. Petitioners WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK and CLOVER A. HAYCOCK (hereinafter referenced in the singular as "Haycock") are adult individuals and two of the Respondents in the above-captioned matter who reside at 76 Goodhart Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. 2. Respondents ROBERT J. KASPER and JEANETTE E. KASPER (hereinafter WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 referenced in the singular as "Kasper") are adult individuals and Petitioners in the above- captioned matter who reside at 3806 Conestoga Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 3. Respondent NANCY E. KELSO (hereinafter referenced as "Kelso") is an adult individual and one of the Respondents in the above-captioned matter who resides at 74 Kline Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. 4. On April 18, 2011, Kasper filed a Petition for Appointment of a Board of View. 5. In the Petition for Appointment of a Board of View, Kasper requested a private condemnation of a private road across the lands of either Haycock or Kelso to access a portion of the Kasper lands that became landlocked as a result of the construction of Interstate 81. 6. On April 28, 2011, your Honorable Court in the person of the Honorable Kevin A. Hess, P.J., appointed a Board of View with William A. Duncan, Esquire, as chairman. 7. A view was scheduled for Thursday, October 6, 2011. 8. In the Atlantic 3d Advance Sheets for August 5, 2011, the recent decision of the WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Commonwealth Court in In Re Opening Private Road for Benefit of O'Reilly (O'Reilly -2- II), remanded the case to the Court of Common Pleas for the purpose of scheduling a hearing to develop the necessary evidence to address the issue of the constitutionality of the Private Road Act, Act of June 13, 1836, P.L. 551 (as amended 36 P.S. §§ 2731-2891). 9. As a result of the recent decision in the O'Reilly case, Haycock filed, on September 6, 2011, an Answer to the Petition for Appointment of a Board of View with New Matter, endorsed with a Notice to Plead. 10. On September 20, 2011, Haycock filed a petition for continuance of the view on the basis that it would be a waste of judicial resources to conduct a view prior to the scheduling of a hearing on the issue of the constitutionality of the Private Road Act and on the related legal issues raised in the New Matter. 11. Kasper opposed the request for a continuance. 12. One of the reasons upon which Kasper opposed the request for continuance was that the Board of View could recommend that the private road be located on the Kelso lands, and Kelso was not requesting a continuance. WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 -3- 13. Haycock avers that there is no reasonable likelihood that the Board of View would recommend a private road across the Kelso lands because a private road across the Kelso lands would be more than 1,000 feet longer than a private road across the Haycock lands. 14. Haycock's request for a continuance was denied in the order of your Honorable Court in the person of the Honorable Kevin A. Hess, P.J. dated September 27, 2011. 15. The view was held as scheduled on Thursday, October 6, 2011. 16. At the view, Attorney Duncan told the parties, orally, that he wanted drawings of the proposed private road and appraisals. 17. Haycock did not receive Kasper's drawings until November 16, 2001. 18. Haycock has still not received Kasper's appraisal. 19. Haycock could not order an appraisal until Kasper delivered drawings of the WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 proposed private condemnation. -4- 20. Haycock's appraiser of choice is Larry E. Foote, C.R.E.A., of Diversified Appraisal Services. 21. The undersigned counsel for Haycock contacted Mr. Foote promptly upon receiving the drawings of Kasper's proposed private condemnation. 22. Mr. Foote informed counsel for Haycock that, with the scheduling of major surgery for the other appraiser in his office and with the usual press of year-end business, he would not be able to provide an appraisal until after the middle of January. 23. Where Kasper has not delivered an appraisal in the nearly seven weeks since it was directed by Attorney Duncan on October 6, 2011, the middle of January would approximate the same amount of time for Haycock to produce an appraisal. 24. Kasper filed his Reply to our New Matter on September 21, 2011. WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 -5- 25. On September 26, 2011, within five days of the filing of Kaspers Reply to our New Matter and ten days prior to the view, we asked counsel, in writing, for dates to take the deposition of Kasper. 26. When we did not receive a response by October 6, 2011, we again asked in writing for dates to take the deposition of Kasper. 27. When we did not receive a response by November 8, 2011, we again asked in writing for dates to take the deposition of Kasper. 28. It was not until after our third written request that Kasper agreed to sit for his deposition on November 21, 2011. 29. On November 21, 2011, we took the deposition of Kasper. 30. In the deposition, Kasper testified that neither he nor his predecessors in title had taken any steps to pursue a private condemnation in the nearly 50 years since the portion WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 -6- of the Kasper lands became landlocked by the government acquisition of a portion of the Kasper lands for the construction of Interstate 81. 31. In the deposition, Kasper did not have any evidence that the use of the land, prior to the government acquisition of a portion of the Kasper lands for the construction of Interstate 81, was for anything other than agricultural purposes. 32. Until Kasper delivered the drawings of the proposed condemnation, Kasper had not specified that Kasper was seeking a 50 feet wide condemnation. 33. Kaspers acquired full title to the Kasper lands on July 25, 2002. 34. In the 39 years after the Kasper lands were bisected by Interstate 81 until Kaspers acquired full title to the Kasper lands, neither Kaspers nor Kaspers' predecessors in title made any attempt to establish access to the lands with respect to which Kaspers now seek to burden the lands of Haycock. 35. As early as 2008, Kasper knew that Haycock was opposed to Kasper's burdening WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 the lands of Haycock with a private condemnation. -7- 36. In the 9 years between the acquisition of full title to the Kasper lands and the filing of the Petition herein on April 18, 2011, Kasper made no attempt to pursue a private condemnation. 37. Kasper acknowledges in the prayer for relief that the request to burden the Haycock lands is for the private benefit of Kasper rather than the benefit of the public where Kasper requests a private road "for the use and privilege of Petitioners". 38. Haycocks allege, in the alternative, that, if the opening of a private road over their lands is not in violation of the United States Constitution or the Pennsylvania Constitution, the controlling cases hold that the appropriation of private property for private use is in the nature of eminent domain legislation and must be strictly construed, such that any access condemned over such private road must be restricted to the width that would accommodate the agricultural use to which the property to be accessed was historically devoted when it was bisected by Interstate 81. 39. The undersigned counsel for Haycock did not represent Haycock prior to the filing WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 of the Petition herein by Kasper. -8- 40. As early as 2008, Kasper knew that Haycock had sold the development rights to the Haycock lands to Cumberland County and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture under the agricultural conservation easement purchase program. 41. At the time of the filing of the petition for continuance of the view, the undersigned counsel for Haycock was unaware that Haycock had sold the development rights to the Haycock lands to Cumberland County and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture under the agricultural conservation easement purchase program. 42. Where Haycock has sold the development rights to Cumberland County and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture under the agricultural conservation easement purchase program, Kasper must join Cumberland County and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture as indispensable parties. 43. Haycock avers that judicial economy would be served by an order which would WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 continue the Board of View hearing to permit Kasper to join Cumberland County and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture as indispensable parties and would permit Haycock to file a motion for summary judgment within twenty (20) days of Kasper's -9- joinder of Cumberland County and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture as indispensable parties. 44. Where neither Kasper nor Kaspers' predecessors in title took any steps to pursue private condemnation for nearly 50 years, Haycock avers that Kasper would not be materially prejudiced by the relief requested herein. 45. Haycocks aver that they would be prejudiced by denial of the relief requested herein because they would be required to expend funds for legal fees and appraisal fees for a hearing that would be unnecessary if the Private Road Act were to be found to be unconstitutional under these facts. 46. Haycocks further aver that the Board of View would be assisted by a ruling as to whether, assuming the constitutionality of the Private Road Act, Kasper is entitled to a 50 feet wide condemnation or to only a condemnation of sufficient width to accommodate historical prior uses. 47. Haycock has requested that Kasper agree to the relief requested herein, but Kasper WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 has declined to agree. -10- 48. Kelso has been served with the pleadings, but Kelso has not entered an appearance or otherwise communicated with Haycock with respect to these proceedings. WHEREFORE, Haycock respectfully requests that your Honorable Court issue a Rule upon Kasper to show cause why the Board of View hearing that has been scheduled in this matter for Thursday, December 8, 2011, should not be continued, generally, and why Haycock should not be permitted to file a motion for summary judgment within twenty (20) days of Petitioners' joinder of the County of Cumberland and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture as indispensable parties. Respectfully submitted, Wayn . Shade, Esquire Supreme Court No. 15712 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243-0220 Attorney for Haycock WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 -11- The statements in the foregoing Petition are based upon information which has been assembled by our attorney in this litigation. The language of the statements is not our own. We have read the statements; and to the extent that they are based upon information which we have given to our counsel, they are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Date: November 21, 2011 William G. Haycock Clover A. Haycock 'V 1 100 ROBERT J. KASPER and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JEANETTE E. KASPER, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Petitioners V. : NO. 2011 - 3702 CIVIL TERM WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK, CLOVER A. HAYCOCK and NANCY E. KELSO, Respondents ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 23' day of November, 2011, upon consideration of the within Petition and upon Motion of Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, attorney for Respondents Haycock, a Rule is issued upon Petitioners to show cause why the Board of View hearing that has been scheduled in the above matter for Thursday, December 8, 2011, should not be continued, generally, and why Respondents Haycock should not be permitted to file a motion for summary judgment within twenty (20) days of Petitioners' joinder of the County of Cumberland and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture as indispensable parties. Rule returnable within I days of date of service hereof. By the Court, /? 14 WAYNE F. SHAD) Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Stree Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 VINVAIASNN3d ,:1Nnoo 0Nd1838wnj Z 1 :£ add £Z AON ! !Gul ;,?ylONOI.AiNd 3111 -1) 331AO-03.11A Hess, P.J. WAYNE F. SHAD Attomey at Law 53 West Pomfret Stre Carlisle, Pennsylvani 17013 Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire Martson Law Offices Attorneys for Kaspers Wayne F. Shade, Esquire Attorney for Haycocks Nancy E. Kelso Pro se William A. Duncan, Esquire Chairman, Board of View c F.\FILES\ClientsU3036 Kasper Robert Jenny\I3036.3\13036.3.petition.amendedLwpd j ( I {'•.+ ,.S +.'+ n n f 1 p? r f+ I'? A 111 S„ n Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire 9 E- R L A e D .l ; t( Attorney I.D. No. 203046 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY &`A?E MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Petitioners ROBERT J. KASPER, JEANETTE E. KASPER, Petitioners V. WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK and CLOVER A. HAYCOCK, and NANCY E. KELSO, Respondents V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA,-- NO. 2011 - 3702 CIVIL TERM COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, Additional Respondents AMENDED PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A BOARD OF VIEW AND NOW, come the Petitioners, Robert J. Kasper and Jeanette E. Kasper ("Petitioners"), by and through their attorneys, MARTSON LAW OFFICES, and file their Petition for Appointment of a Board of View to open a private road, pursuant to 36 P.S. §2731, et seq., and in support thereof, aver the following: 1. Petitioners are adult individuals who reside at 3806 Conestoga Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 2. Petitioners are the owners of real property situate in Southampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, more particularly described in a deed recorded at Deed Book 252, Page 4517, in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds for Cumberland County ("Property"). A true and correct copy of the Deed is attached hereto and incorporated as Exhibit "A." 3. Respondents, William G. Haycock and Clover A. Haycock, are adult individuals residing at and owning real property located at 76 Goodhart Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257 ("Haycock"). 4. Respondent, Nancy E. Kelso, is an adult individual residing at and owning real property located at 74 Kline Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257 ("Kelso") 5. The Property owned by Petitioners is farm land which was bisected by Interstate 81. 6. As a result of the construction of Interstate 81, a portion of the Property lies north of Interstate 81, and the majority of the Property lies south of Interstate 81. A true and correct copy of a topographic and boundary survey plan prepared by J. Michael Brill & Associates, Inc. ("Plan"), is attached hereto and incorporated as Exhibit "B." 7. The portion of the Property situated to the south of Interstate 81 has access through Walnut Bottom Road. 8. The portion which lies north of Interstate 81 is landlocked and has no access to a public road. 9. As shown on the Plan, Haycock own lands to the west of the northern portion of the Property. 10. As shown on the Plan, Kelso owns land to the east of the Property. 11. Petitioners are requesting a right-of-way or road over the lands of Haycock to obtain access to Goodhart Road. 12. As indicated by the Plan, a right-of-way over the Haycocks' property would be minimally intrusive and would parallel Interstate 81. 13. Petitioners have been unable to secure a right-of-way or other means of access through other methods. 14. No other reasonable means of access is available to Petitioners. 15. On June 2, 2006, Haycock entered into a Deed of Agricultural Conservation Easement to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in Perpetuity ("Deed"). A true and correct copy of the Deed is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C." 16. As a result of the conditions set forth in the Deed, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Cumberland County may have an interest in the outcome of the disposition of this Petition. WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that this Honorable Court appoint a Board of View pursuant to 36 P. S. §2731, et seq., and direct that the Board of View conduct an analysis of the properties owned by Respondents William G. and Clover A. Haycock and Nancy E. Kelso, and to open a private road for the use and privilege of Petitioners, and grant any other relief as necessary. MARTSON LAW OFFICES By: j• & . -, 3-ff?v Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire I.D. No. 203046 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Date: )2 ?IVO Attorneys for Petitioners EXHIBIT "A" 31.17- - 03Zg-b2.,6 -yA5V-07 Z., MADE the (2002) THIS DEED 30day of 7U Iy in the year two thousand and two 0-7 BETWEEN: ROBERT J. KASPER of 3806 Conestoga Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 17011, o •_ , cc Wf 'n GRANTOR c C ! rn o co rn r v? AND: ROBERT J. KASPER and JEANETTE E. KASPER, his c wife, of 3806 Con esboga Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 17011, z -c GRANTEES =-- WITNESSETH that In consideration of ONE ($1.00) DOLLAR, in hand paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acIn, * lged, the said Grantor does hereby grand and convey In fee simple to said Grantees ALL the following described three (3) tracts of real estate, lying and being situate in Southampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, bounded and limited as follows: TRACT NO. 1: Parcel 1; BOUNDED on the West by lands now or formerly of Carl Goodhart and Georgia W. Goodhart, his wife, formerly Edward Highlands Estate; on the North by lands formerly of Thomas Boles, now or formerly of WBiam Haycock; on the East by lands now or formerly of Herman Holtry Estate and McLaughlin, now or formerly of Harold Holtry, Lloyd H. Herr, Ralph E. Hopkins and Mac Delany; and on the South by lands formerly of Edwards Hays, now or lbnnerly of Charles Neff and the Walnut Bottom Road, also known as the Molly Pitcher Highway. said farm being known as the Allison farm and CONTAINING 126 Acres, more or less. EXCEPTING, HOWEVER, from the above description, the following: 1. Deed to Harper W. Holtry and Blanche G. Holtry, his wife, recorded in said Recorder's Office in Deed Book "N", Volume 17, Page 111. 600K 252 PAr.F4517 2. Deed to L. Kline Baker, recorded in Deed Book "R", Volume 10, Page 574. 3. Deed to Rush W. Piper and Florence Pow, his wife, recorded in Deed Book "R", Volume 18, Page 345. 4. That land which was condemned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for Route 81. Pawl NO-21; ALL that certain triangular tract of land situate In Southernp1on Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows: On the North by lands formerly of Thomas Boles, now or formerly of William Heycock; on the East by lands now or formerly of Howard E. Peiper and Ada I. Pelper, his wife, being a portion of Trot No.1 above described; on the South by Interstate Route 81; and on the West at the peak of the triangle by a public road leading from the Walnut Bottom Road to Route 11. Consisting of 2.3 Acres, more or less. BEING THE SAME TWO TRACTS OF REAL ESTATE which Howard E. Peiper and Ada I. Peiper, his wife, by Deed dated November 1, 1974, and recorded among the Deed Records of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book W", Volume 25, Page 758, conveyed to Bernard Kasper and Isaphkre B. Kasper, his wife, AND WHICH REAL ESTATE was later conveyed by Bernard Kasper and Isaphine B. Kasper, his wife, by Deed dated November 17th, 1993, and recorded among the Deed Records of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book "Q", Volume 36, Page 758, as tenants in common to Bernard Kasper and Isaphine B. Kasper. TRACT O A LL that certain tract of land situate in the Township of Southampton, County of Cumberland and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows, to wit: BEGINNING at a point in the center of Traffic Route TR-174 at land now or formerly of F. E. Middlekauf; thence by the center of said road, South eighty- seven (87) degrees forty-five (45) minutes East, two hundred seventy-four (274) feet to a point in the center of the aforementioned public rued at land now or formerly of Charles E. L. Nehf; thence by Nehf land, South twenty-seven (27) degrees East, one thousand four hundred eighty-two and five tenths (1482.5) feet to an iron pin at land now or formerly of D. L. Mier; thence by Miller land, South fifty-eight (58) degrees West, one thousand sbc hundred forty-two (1642) feet to a spike in the center of public road Township Route T-320; thence by the center of the last mentioned pubNc road Township Route T-320, North thirty- 2 BOOK 252 FAGE4518 seven (37) degrees thirty (30) minutes West, one thousand nine and five tenths (1009.5) feet to a point; thence continuing through the center of the aforementioned public road, Township Route T-320, North three (03) degrees thirty (30) minutes East, two hundred eighty-seven (287) feet to a point; thence continuing through the center of the last mentioned public road, Township Route T-320, North twenty-eight (28) degrees forty (40) minutes West, two hundred seventy-eight (278) fast to a point; thence North sixty-five (65) degrees forty-five (45) minutes East, two hundred (200) feet to a point; thence North twenty-eight (28) degrees forty (40) minutes West, two hundred (200) feet to a point at One of land formerly of Carl Goodhart, now or formerly of Bernard Kasper and Isaphine Kasper, his wife; thence a" the letter-mentioned land, North sixty-five (65) degrees forty-five (45) minutes East, seven hundred fifty-three (753) feet to a point; thence along land now or formerly of F. E. Middlekauf, North 11"Ight (58) degrees thirty (30) minutes East, five hundred seven (507) feet to a point in the center of Traffic Route TRA 74, the plow of BEGINNING. Having a dwelling house and other out buildings erected thereon. EXCEPTING, HOWEVER, from the above-described tract of land, the following conveyances: 1. Conveyance of J. Ebbed Davis and Martha J. Davis, his wife, to Thomas A. Graham, III, and Catherine L. Graham, his wife, dated October 17, 1975, and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book "H", Volume 26, Page 890; CONTAINING 2 Acres. 2. Conveyance of J. Ebbert Davis and Martha J. Davis, his wife, to Harry Smock, dated November 30, 1973, and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book "M", Volume 25, Page 888; CONTAINING 2.003 Acres. 3. Conveyance of J. Ebbed Davis and Martha J. Davis, his wife, to Clayton L. Johnston and wife, dated December 31, 1975, and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book "M Volume 26, Page 611; CONTAINING 3 Acres. 4. Conveyance of J. Ebbed Davis and Martha J. Davis, his wife, to David J. Beam, dated September 29, 1972, and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book W, Volume 24, Page 899; CONTAINING 1.97 Acres. AND EXCEPTING AND RESERVING, HOWEVER, to J. Ebbed Davis and Martha J. Davis, his wife, the following tract of land described as follows: BEGINNING at a point marked by a railroad spike In the center of Public road Township Route T-320 at line of land now or formerly of David J. Beam; thence 3 Moo 252 PAGAUS through the center of the aforementioned public road, North forty-one (41) degrees thirty-nine (39) minutes thirty-four (34) seconds West, three hundred sixty-seven and twenty-five hundredths (367.25) feet to a point; thence through the aforementioned public road, North thirty-one (31) minutes fifty-one (51) seconds East, two hundred nknetyawo and eighty-six hundredths (292.86) feet to a point; thence North thirty-ftr (34) degrees thirty-nine (39) minutes thirty-five (35) seconds West, one hundred sixty-two and sixty-one hundredths (162.61) feet to a point marked by a railroad spike in the aforementioned public road; thence North forty-one (41) degrees thirty-four (34) minutes forty-three (43) seconds East, two hundred ninety-one and seventy-seven hundredths (291.77) feet to an iron pin; thence South thirty-sic (36) degrees nine (9) minutes thirty-six (36) seconds East, seven hundred thirty-seven and thirty-three hundredths (737.33) feet to an Iron pin; thence South forty-two (42) degrees eighteen (18) minutes eighteen (18) seconds West, three hundred seventy-six and thirty-sic hundredths (376.36) feet to a point; thence by a curare to the left, having a radius of forty (40) fleet, an arc length of fifty-nine and twenty-two hundredths (59.22) feet, and a chord length of fifty-three and ninety-six hundredths (53.96) feet, on a chord bearing of South six (06) minutes twenty-seven (27) seconds East to a point; thence South forty-seven (47) degrees twaty-eight (28) mimes forty- eight (48) seconds West, twenty-five (25) feet to a point, the place of BEGINNING; PURSUANT to survey of Carl D. Bert, R.S., dated March 1976 and shown thereon as Lot No. 6. BEING THE SAME REAL ESTATE which J. Ebbert Davis and Martha J. Davis, his wife, by Deed dated May 6, 1976, and recorded among the Deed Records of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book "O", Volume 26, Page 531, granted and conveyed unto Bernard Kasper and Isaphine B. Kasper, his wife, AND BEING THE SAME REAL ESTATE Bernard Kasper and Isaphine B. Kasper, husband and wife, by Deed dated November 17th, 1993, and recorded among the Deed Records of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, In Deed Book "Q", Volume 39, Page 753, conveyed as tenants in common to Bernard Kasper and Isaphine B. Kasper. TRACT NO, 3a All that certain tract of real estate, lying and being situate in Southampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, being Parcel 39-12-0322-027, and being the same real estate which the Tax Claim Bureau of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, as Trustee, by Deed dated February 27, 1980, and recorded among the Deed Records of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book '1N", Volume 28, Page 528, granted and conveyed unto Bernard and Isaphine B. Kasper, his wife. BEING THE SAME REAL ESTATE which Bernard Kasper and Isaphine B. Kasper, husband and wife, by Deed dated November 17th, 1993, and recorded among the Deed Records of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, In Deed Book 4 800K 252 PAGE4520 "Q", Volume 36, Page 751, conveyed as tenants in common to Bemard and Isaphine B. Kasper, his wife; AND BEING THE SAME THREE TRACTS OF REAL ESTATE which Bernard Kasper and isaphine B. Kasper, his wife, by Deed dated June 16, 2000, and recorded among the Deed Records of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Record Book Volume 224, Page 276, conveyed to Robert J. Kasper and Janet L. Kasper, each as to an undivided one-half (112) Interest. Janet L. Kasper, by Deed dated June 20th, 2002, and recorded among the Deed Records of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Record Book Volume 252, Page 1892, conveyed her undivided on"alf (112) interest to Robert J. Kasper, thereby vesting full and complete title in said real estate in Robert J. Kasper, Grantor herein. THIS IS A CONVEYANCE BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE AND THEREFORE FREE OF PENNSYLVANIA REALTY TRANSFER TAX. SUBJECT TO all conditions, restrictions, easements, rights-o?way and agreements, whether set forth herein or otherwise, as may be set forth or referred to in the above-recited Deed and as may appear elsewhere in the chain of title for the property, or on the ground by an inspection of the premises, insofar as they are enforceable, are unrevoked or amended, and not in violation of any law, including the Fair Housing laws of the United States Government. AND the said Grantor will warrant specially the property hereby conveyed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF said Grantor hereunto sets his hand and seal, the day and year first above written. WITNESS: (SEAL) RoberO. Kaspef 5 aoox 252 wr4521 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF i:WbEP .ANb : as. On this ZPday of 1 2002, before me, a Notary Public, the undersigned officer, pe Ily appeared ROBERT J. KASPER, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose narne is subscribed to the within instrument, and aclmowledged the f+c "oing Deed to be his act and deed, and desired the same to be recorded as such. Witness my hand and official seal, the day and year aforesaid. ?e?rsw JaTw E hiollnw?, r?IC1Uy PUBIC GLKtMI?e?tOo?n b" T"36 I hereby certify that the Grantees' precise residence and complete post office address is: Witness my hand this ? day of ?. .2002. I Certify this to be recorJed In Cumberland County PA Recorder o f Ueeds s Book 252 FAGF4522 EXHIBIT "B' t ? .iti* t \ \ ..R t... R ? tr:? - ?? ? ? (? ? 1 r `.I """mo a C'l (t , 5.?, ? , t `? R t lilt t k r?-t \ i a `•t?t ?.,? ?t4c i.? °:t?? 't*?t iti; :ili in lit ??11jj1 ??? tit O C 0 J ° rt?; i? I 'iii flit z e \? a. k• 3. &Y alb v ^I p: 0 ,.a z $ d d• j Sg Iv ? pp ? 1? a f'te / ' v . M 2 Fv v ?v v 6 ijl I ? gg l i Fi F , i? ?£.l avar 1? T? I•? t. 1 i ' ? ? 41.4 O _• xi? { ?\.._ ? R -_ \ i t I 1^IS15 ,??? \,? ?ea k ago °°? ' `o its it?^ ?t • pt k r,?t? { S • e O ? p 0? ?, • ;• 1 1 ?I 0 I AA 'nay ?, 14, EXHIBIT "C" 1 DPERSF f ?9 z) y? DEED OF AQRICULTMAL 00 -C 811-1- EA6E T TO THE COMMONS OF PEt--STLV UrZL IN PERPETUITY =1.9 DE= OF AGRXCOLTMML ' C=3ERVATIDN WZ4MT, made this 2.!_ day of w by and between 4V Q.- MA t ' t = er, "Grantor" ) the COmmoaweelth Q? P= a (hr*'vAnafter. "Grantse " ) is'made pursuant to the Agricultural Area Security Law (P L. i2 9, No. 43) ` as amended (hereinafter rAct «) . WAS, Grantor. is the sole owner of that a ain land situate is Toa?o [hip, /la County, Penasyl' a more p ly des EERIE "w attached hereto*cousistiag of 2- 02- acrca and all buildings and impronemeats erectad tbpre-on (9the subject. land*) p r1•, "O rn AND WEEMAS, the State Ayr3:cu.7.?ttrP1 Land Preservation Hoard has dstesmined to purehase an agriaultvsa.l airier a.tion`' easement in the sub j act land pars Gnat to the Act ; ' Y AND mss, the Agiieultura.l Land Presetvati=- eoat-d of Z ?,?•bcrl...+ 4 •? CountyPe=Ry3,vania ban rmcz=asaded that e Commonwealth purchase an agricultural conservation cssemeat in the subject land pursuant to. the Act; AND MMEAS I all holders of liens or dther ?r - I I oes upon the subject land have agreed to release cr subordinaite their interests in the sub j.ect • land to this Deed of IWjrimItural Conservation Usemeut and tz refrain froffi say action in=sistent with its purpose; NOW FRB, in caueideratiam of tho x= o 5 dollars, the receipt and suificimay of Wbich is hesLI? acknowledged, Grantor does vattmtarily gram , b=gain and sell, and convey to the GL' tutee, its sAL'=zs=S and assigns and the Grantee voluntarily accepts, an agricultural conservation easement in tha subject land, vuder and subject to' the Act and the tollOVdag ta=ms- -and =mdLti=z: 1. Permitted. Acts - Duriug,the term of thti ii<gricu].tuial conservat oa easement conmyed herein, the subject land shall be used solely for the productiao for commeraial purposeik of crops, livestock and livestock products, iacl Aing' the procsse1mg or retail marketing of such craps, livestock or livestock products if . more thaw fifty percent of such processed or merchandised products are produesd on the subject. land (he:re._ -after "agricultural production"). For vurpose of this Did, "craps, livestock and livestock products" include, but -e-not 211m.ted to. (a) Field c=aps, -I1-_IudI_-Mg cc=n, wheat, =at3, fire, ha 7e, lav, votat7as a--rid -.-,3r Mans, (b ? fig: i Ls , irric lucLng apples, p_sc nes , grapes, the-ries 8K0727PG325I { and berries; (c) Vegetables, including tomatoes, snap beans, cabbage, carrots, beets, onions and mushrooms; (d) Horticultural specialties, including nursery stock ornamental shrubs, ornamental trees and flowers; (a) Livestock and livestock products, including cattle, sheep, hogs, goats, horses, poultry, !urbearing an?mala, milk,, eggs and furs; (f) Timber, wood, and other wood products derived from trees; and (g) Aquatic plants and animals and their byproducts. Except as permitted in this Deed, neither Grantor =r his agents, heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, nor any person, partnership, corporation • or other entity claiming-title. under or through Grantor, or their agents, shall suffer, permit; or perform any activity on the subject land other than agricultural production. 2. Constzuction of eui.ldin s and other Structures - The oonstruction or use o any building or other structure on the sub j act land other than as existing on the. date of the delivery of : this Dead is prohibited cxenpt that : (a) The erection of fences for agricultural production and protection of.watercoursas•much as lakes, streams, springs and reservoirs is permitted. (b) The construction of one additional resideatia.l structure is permitted if; (i) The construction and use of the residential structure is limited to providing hounding ' for persons Vloyed•in farming the subj eat land on a seasonal or full-time basis, . (ii) Bo other residential structure has been constructed on the restricted land at any time since the delivery of the Deed, (iii) The residential structure and its curtilage occupy no more than two acres of the subject land, and (iv) The location of the' residential structure and its driveway will not aigai icantly harm the economic viability of the subject land for agricultural production. (-) The. construction or use of any building or other structure for agricultural Production is parmi tt_d . (d) The reglactment o.f 'a residential structu=s existing .on tha reest?ricted Iand ton he date cf `_he granting I t4- of the eBKl/ L A SM __3. 3. Subdivision - The subject land may be subdivided :.f subdividing wn not harm the economic v ability of the subject land for agricultural production. if the subject land is subdivided, the Deeds to all of the subdivided parcels shall state on which of the subdivided parcels the residential structure permitted by this Dead may be. constructed. Deeds to all other parcels shall recite that no additional residential 'structure is permitted. 4. Utilities - The granting of rights-of-way by the Grantor, hip heirs, executors, ' administrators, asucasaaaors and assigns, or ..any person, partnership, corporation or other- entity claiming title under or through Grantor in and t1a=ugh the subject -land for the installation, tranaaportation, or use of,.lines for water, sewage, •electric, telephone, coal by underground mining methods, gas, oil or oil products is permitted. The term "granting of right's-of-waxy" includes the right to construct or install such liners. . The construction or installation of utility lines other than of the type stated in this pa;-atgraph' is prohibited on the subject land. 5: Mina - The granting of leases, assignments or otLe,r Conveyances or the issuing of.pertits, licenses or othew authorization for the exploration, development, storage-or removal of coal by underground mi>aing• methods, oil and Was by the owner of the subject land • or the owner of the underlying coal by underground mining methods, oil and gas or the owner of the rights to. develop the underlying coal by underground mining methods, oil and, gas, or the development of appurtenant facilities related to the removal of coal by.- underground mining methods, oil or gas development or activities incident to the removal or development. of such minerals is permitted. 6. Rural Enterprises -• customary part-times or off-season minor or rural enterprises and activities 'which are provided f or in the County. Agricultural Basement Purchase Program approved by the State Board are permitted. 7. Soil azid Water Conservation - All agricultural production on the sub ect shall be Conducted in accordance with a conz ervation plan approved by the County conservation District or the County Board. Such plan shall be updated every ten years and upon any change in the basic type. of agricultural production being.con;lucted on the subject land. In addition to the requirements established by the County Conservation District or the County'Board the conservation plan .shall require that ; U) The use of the land for screwing sod, nursery stock; ornamental trees, and shams does aot remove excessive soil from the sujsc*_ land, and (_ii) The excavation of solI, sand, gravel, atone or OK0727PG3253 tither materials for use in agz'icnltural.- production on the land is conducted in a location and maxmer that preserves the viability of the SubJect', land for agricultural production. a. Responsibilities of Grantor Not Affected - E=ent as saecizied herein, this Deed does not Impose any legal a= other responsibility on. the Grantee, its successors or assigns. Grantor shall continue to be solely responsible for payment of all taxes and assessments levied against the subject land and all improvements created thereon. Grantor shall continue to be solely responsible for the maintenance of the subjeci land and all, improvements. erected thereozz, Grantor acknowledges that Grantee has no knowledge or notice of nay hazardous waste stored on or under the subject land; Grantee's exercise or failure to exercise, any right con=erred by the agricultural conservation easement shall not be deemed tb be management or control of activities on the subject land for purposes 'of enforcement of the Act of October 18, 1988, (P.L. 756, No. 168), known as the Razardous Sites Cleanup Act , Grantor, his heirs, ex=cutoraf, administrators, successors -or assign9 agree .to hold bx=l.sesis, indemnify and defend Grantee, its successors or aseigam from and agai=xt all liabilities and expenses arising from or in any way eonneotedwith all clam, damages, losses, costs or expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, resultinrg from a violation or alleged violation of, any State -or Federal snrviroumental statute or regulation including, but not limited to, statutes or regulations concerning the storage or 3isposal of•hazardous or Toxic chemicals or materials. 9. Enforcement - Annually, grantee, its successors, assigns or designees shall have the right to enter the subject Zaad for the purpose of inspecting to determine whether the, provisions of this Deed are being observed written notice of such annual inspection shall be mined' to 'the Grantox, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors or. assigns at least ten days prior to such inspection. -The annual inspection shall be conducted between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on a weekday than is not a legal holiday recognized by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or at it data and time agreeable to the county. * and the landowner. Grantee, its successors, assigns or designees shall also have the right to inspect the'subject land at gny time, without,' rrior notice, ?if Grantee has. reasonable cause to believe the provisions of this Deed have been or are being violated. Grantor ack=owledges that any Violation of the terms of this Deed shall entitle -srantee, i a successors, assigns or designees to obtain zz ixjuncLlan against suCh t'iQlat4on =rom CC•urt !_ ^.M e_ mt ]u=isi Lction along with an order retra_ring Grantor! his hairs, sxecutors, administrators, OK0727PG3254 rrr?•' ?. _ successors or assigns to condition it was in prior costs or damages incurred fees. Such relief may be serially. a. restore the subject land to the to the violation, and recover any including reasonable attorney's sought jointly, severally, or 10. Duration of Easement - The agricultural conservation easement created by this Deed shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be effective in perpetuity. svery provision of this Deed applicable. to Grantor shall apply to Grantor's heirs, executors, administrators, successors, assigns, agents, and any person, partnership, corporation or other entity claiming title ?mder or through Grantor. 11. Conveyance or Transfer of the_Subiect Land - Grantor, his :heirs, executors, administrators, successors or•assigns, and any person, partnership, corporation, or other entity claiming title under or'through Grantor, shall.notify Grantee in writing of any, conveyance or transfer of ownership of the subject land. Such notification shall set forth the name, address and telephone number of the Grantor and. the party or parties to whom ownership of the subject land has ' been conveyed or transferred. This obligation shall apply to any change in ownership, of the subject land. The restrictions set forth in this. Dead shall be included in any Deed purporting to convey or transfer an ownership interest in the subject land. 12. Av ili.„y - Every provision of this Dead applicable to Grantor shall apply to Grantor's heirs, executors, administrators, successors, assign's, agents, and any person, partnership, corporation or other entity claiming title under or through Grantor. 13. Zhteryretation'- This Deed shall be interpreted under the'laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.. For purposes of interpretation, no party to this Deed shall be considered to be the drafter of the Deed. All provisions of this Deed are intended, and shall be interpreted, to effectuate the intent of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as expressed in Section 2 of. the Act. To have and to hold this* Dead of Agricultural Conservation Easement unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns in perpetuity. ? the Grantor, for himself, his heirs, executors., administrators, successors and assigns does specially warrant the agricultural conservation easement hereby granted. IN072IPG3255 TN WITNESS WEMMOF, the undersigned have duly executed this Deed on the day first. written *bove. GRANTOR Witness: ,r..GG.!.,a?„ ?.a? [seal] [Seal} [seal] [Seal] - ACU?'r am= OF SS : t COMMONMiLTB OF P811TSYLVAIM On ' this Z^ day of ,?,?J /mot 70004 before me, the a •r,• a Notary PU=0 the tea Ca eji ]lth of Pennsylvania, residing is the City of C g,4 k., S %4- peraaouall anpew ed the above 's. EiZlrh and _ no d Z7 and-in due :f=m of a ? Agricultural Conservation 8soemut to be their voluntary act and deed, and-desired the same to be recorded as such. TWITIQE3S my hand and Notarial Seal the day and year aforesaid. Nary ?""?,,, aaeaar a ter. ?wrNer we?,?c scaaxa+or rwa,? CO FA ?nco 4MPw = . ley Commission expires: SUBJECT, ALSO, to the Subdivision Guidelines of the County of CumbQland Agdcdun l Land Fresmvafiiou Program, as approval by the State Agricultural Land preservation Board on February 22,1996, recorded in the Reeordrr of Deeds t?lnee for tEu County of Cumberland at Book 556, page 457, and as ?Hereafter revised in accords= with the Guidelines and/or ReguMors of the said State Board, wkieh Count, Subdivision Guidelines are incorporated herein by refernct, as subsequently reiRsed as aforesaid, and made a cart hereof. ONO727PG3256 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CONSERVATION PLAN AGREEMENT Landowne Address: r or Operator. (.4J1 1, 1,;d h 9 G. 194 Co c-L4 Good 4 f oast ' c /-V57 Telephone Number. ?/ .?.3 Township: Sy (i iha M P- 6 Al Easement Acreage: .? .? Whereas, the Deed of Agricultural Conservation Easement requires that all agricultural production on the subject land shall be conducted in accordance with a Conservation Plan approved by the County Conservation District; And Whereas, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation with the Cumberland County Conservation District has prepared a Conservation Plan for the subject land, Identifleed as plan number 'T -S-60 . dated . 2$, ,3060 , or as amended, located on fib In the County Conservation DMft office, incorporated herein by reference. And Whereas, the Grantor(s) do hereby agree to voluntarily accept the terms of the Conservation Plan and implement the said plan; Now Therefore, this plan conforms to the technical requli merits of the local Field Office Technical Guide and the terms of the Deed of Agricultural Conservation Easement. And, in Witness Whereof, the undersigned have agreed to the following: (We) acknowledge and agree to comply with the conservation practices and implementation schedule as indicated in the Conservation Flan. If the management or operation of this property changes, I will contact the Conservation District or the Natural Resources Conservation Service to modify the Conservation Plan as necessary. Operator/Owner Date C? ? a. a6 Aerator/Owner Date 'IOU Witness Date witneeli Date Conservation Plan proved by the Cumberland County Conservation District as prepared by th U. S. pt. of d flare Natural. Conservation Service: , AAJI u T "Od- 5 - Lkm=??' 31 Representative Date Witness Date 910 72 7P63257 Conunonweatth . Commonwealth Land Tide Insurance Company File No. P 143-424 Parcel No.- 39-12-0322-013 ALL the following described real estate lying and being situate in Southampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania more particularly described as folknws: BEGINNING at a post~ thence by lands now' or formerly of J. J. Railing and J. Paul Fogelsanger and Carrie Fogelsanger, his wife, South 53 degrees West 211-1 /2 perches to a pose; thence by the same, and lands now or formerly of Frank T. Wynkoop and F. Madeline Wynkoop, his wife, along the township road which runs between the Govemor Ritner Highway and the Molly P'rtclier Highway, South 39 degrees bast 167.9 perches to a post thence by lands now or formerly of Cart Goodhart, North 44-1/2 degrees East 64.4 perches to a post; thence by lands now or fonTmiy of temice Shambaugh, North 53 degrees East 132-1/2 perches to a post thence by lands now or formerly of James. M. McLaughlin and Joseph Railing heirs, North 33-1/2 degrees West 157.3 perches to the place of beginning, containing 202 acres, 10 perches. LESS, however, a small triangular piece of land off the southwest comer of the above-described premises which was condemned by the Pennsylvania Department of Highway for Route 799, Interstate Highway 81, said condemnation appearing of record in Recorder's Office Highway Plan Cabinet No. Z, Drawer 1. Being the some premises which WE= G. Haycock and Clover A Haycock by their Deed doted July 2, 1999, and recorded July 6, 1999, in the O f free of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, at Corllsle, Pennsy1mrria, in Deed Book 203, Page 299 granted and conveyed unto WE= G Haycock aid Clover A Haycock orded I Certify d?is to be rec Cumberland County PA ?ecord? 50727PG3Z58 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary M. Price, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Amended Petition was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Wayne F. Shade, Esquire 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Nancy E. Kelso 74 Kline Road Shippensburg, PA 17257 Robert Frey, Esquire FREY & TILEY 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Dwight-Jared Smith, Esquire Office of the Chief Counsel Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 MARTSON LAW OFFICES ,.4-, aa' r By: M . Price Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: 12-116111 The foregoing Petition is based upon information which has been gathered by our counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the document is that of counsel and not our own. We have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which we have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief To the extent that the content of the document is that of counsel, we have relied upon counsel in making this verification. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if we make knowingly false averments, we may be subject to criminal penalties. ROBERT J. ??PER and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JEANETTE SPER, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Petitioner C7 -n V. : NO. 2011 - 3702 CIVIL TERM c? rn? WILLIAM G. YCOCK, ; CLOVER A. HA COCK and <a NANCY E. KEL O, =F Responden s `•° `` Q" PRE IMINARY OBJECTIONS OF HAYCOCKS TO AM NDED PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A BOARD OF VIEW AND NOW come Respondents WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK and CLOVER A. HAYCOCK, by th it attorney, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, and file the following Preliminary Object ons to the Amended Petition for Appointment of a Board of View. PRELIMI ARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER I. The Petition ails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted for the reason that Petitioner does of aver that the request for condemnation of a private right-of-way is for the primary and aramount benefit of the public as opposed to the primary and paramount benefit o the Petitioner. 2. The Petition f ils to state a claim upon which relief may be granted for the reason WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West est Po Pomfret Street that Petitioner does n t aver that the request for condemnation of a private right-of-way Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 would cause the least damage to private property. Respondents Haycock demand that the Amended Petition for ARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING 3. Appointment of 4 Board of View be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be The define the location for private condemnation lacks sufficient specificity in that it does not of the requested condemnation of a private right-of-way. 4. The Petition for private condemnation lacks sufficient specificity in that it does not define the width of requested condemnation of a private right-of-way. 5. The Petition specify the WHEREFO Appointment of a private condemnation lacks sufficient specificity in that it does not use for the access to the landlocked parcel. Respondents Haycock demand that the Amended Petition for of View be dismissed for lack of sufficient specificity. 464 WAYNE F. SHADE Attomey at Law 53 West Pom&et Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17413 Wayne F. Shade, Esquire Supreme Court No. 15712 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243-0220 Attorney for Respondents Haycock ROBERT J. KA PER and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JEANETTE E. SPER, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Petitioners V. : NO. 2011 - 3702 CIVIL TERM WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK, CLOVER A. HAYCOCK and NANCY E. KELS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 I, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the Preliminary Ob ections of Haycocks to Amended Petition for Appointment of a Board of View in the abo e-captioned matter upon Petitioners herein by first class United States mail, postage preps d, to their counsel of record, Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire, Martson Law Offices, 10 East Hi h Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, upon Respondent Nancy E. Kelso herein by firs class United States mail, postage prepaid, to 74 Kline Road, Shippensburg, Penn ylvania 17257, upon Cumberland County by first class United States mail, postage prepai , to its counsel, Robert G. Frey, Esquire, Frey & Tiley, 5 South Hanover Street, Carl sle, Pennsylvania 17013, and upon the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture by first c ass United States mail, postage prepaid, to its counsel, Dwight-Jared Smith, Esquire, Offi e of the Chief Counsel, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, 2301 North Cameron Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110. Date: December 22, 011 Wayne . Shade, Esquire Supreme Court No. 15712 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243-0220 Attorney for Respondents Haycock F:\FILEST ients\13036 Kasper Robert Jenny\] 3036.3\13036.3. rule ROBERT J. KASPER, JEANETTE E. KASPER, Petitioners V. WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK and CLOVER A. HAYCOCK, and NANCY E. KELSO, Respondents V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, Additional Respondents IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 201! 1 - 3702 CIVIL TERM AND NOW, this Z ' day of Amended Petition of Robert and Jeanette Kasper for tY a private road, a Rule is issued to show cause why said RULE returnable Distribution: ? Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire Attorney for Petitioners ? Wayne F. Shade, Esquire Attorney for Respondents Haycock V Nancy E. Kelso, pro se Robert E. Frey, Esquire Attorney for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania V Dwight-Jared Smith, Esquire Attorney for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 60f 1d)A71/1 ,°-, C 2011, upon consideration of the within appointment of a Board of View to open mended Petition should not be granted. zx cy N y° a x? a 0 Cy r -.0 C © C) -t ' cx.-n X F3 N FARLESUients\13036 Kasper Robert Jenny\13036.3\13036.3.aceeptance of service Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 203046 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Petitioners ROBERT J. KASPER, JEANETTE E. KASPER, Petitioners V. WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK and CLOVER A. HAYCOCK, and NANCY E. KELSO, Respondents V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, Additional Respondents IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV ANIA NO. 2011 - 3702 CIVIL TERM ' c 1 Z:m ?i M "C N - Co =C:) . ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I, Dwight-Jared Smith, Esquire, Assistant Counsel, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Governor's Office of General Counsel, hereby accept service of the Amended Petition in the above- captioned matter on behalf of the Commonwealth and affirm that I am authorized to do so. Date: C?.CW, ?? J1 0, 11 are mith/Assistant Counsel mi epartment of Agriculture 's Office of General Counsel ROBERT J. KASPER JEANETTE E. KASPER, Petitioners V. WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK, CLOVER A. HAYCOCK and NANCY E. KELSO Respondents V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2011-3702 CIVIL TERM No 'r- . .. cnr' i -? = CO ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A BOARD OF VIEW AND NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the County of Cumberland, Pennsylvania, by and through the Cumberland County Agricultural Land Preservation Board (hereinafter referred to as "the County") and its attorney, Frey and Tiley, and files its Answer to the Petition as Additional Respondent, as follows: I. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. & Admitted. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the County is unable to determine the truth or accuracy of the allegations. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. 12. Denied. It is denied that the Plan shows where the right-of-way would be located, its size or dimensions or whether it would parallel Interstate 81. It is further denied that the right-of-way would be minimally intrusive as it has the potential of removing land that could be productive from agricultural production. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the County is unable to determine the truth or accuracy of the allegations. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the County is unable to determine the truth or accuracy of the allegations. By way of further answer, it appears that access could be obtained either from property adjoining on the East or over lands of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania adjoining on the South and West. 15. Admitted. 16. Admitted. By way of further answer, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, acting through the County paid for a conservation easement on the land sought to be used as a right-of-way. The terms of that easement prohibit the creation or installation of a road or right of way and the Commonwealth and County would suffer a financial loss if the requested relief were granted. WHEREFORE, the County requests that Petitioners request for a Board of View be denied. NEW MATTER 17, Paragraphs 1 through 16 are incorporated herein by reference. 18. Petitioners are private individuals and are not public or governmental institutions. 19. The relief requested by Petitioners, if granted would primarily benefit them personally. 20. There is no or, at most, an incidental benefit that would inure to the public if the requested relief were granted. 21. Rather than being a benefit to the public, the relief requested, if granted, would be a detriment to the public because it would remove from agricultural production land that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the County had determined to be worth preserving for agricultural purposes in perpetuity by the purchase of an agricultural conservation easement. 22. The deed for Petitioners' property, attached as Exhibit "A" to their Petition, recites that excepted from the land conveyed to them as Tract No. 1, Parcel 1 is "That land which was condemned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." (Petitioners' Exhibit "A", Page 2) 23. That same exception is contained in the deeds going back in Petitioners' chain of title through a deed dated October 12, 1963 and October 14, 1963 recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book "Z" Volume 20 Page 1013, indicating the land taken for Route 81 was condemned prior to October 12, 1963. 24. The within action was commenced by Petitioners in 2011, more than 48 years after the condemnation for Route 81. 25. The within action was not taken within a reasonable time of the condemnation so that it could be interconnected with that eminent domain proceeding. 26. The requested relief should not be granted because it does not serve a public purpose. In re: Opening a Private Road ex rel. O'Reilly, 607 Pa 280, 5 Aid 246 (2010). WHEREFORE, the County requests that Petitioners request for a Board of View be denied. Resptfully Submitted. ?d Robert G. Frey, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court Number 46397 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 243-5838 I verify that the statements made herein are true and correct and understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities Dated: -9; ZOl z 4 ROBERT J. KASPER, JEANETTE E. KASPER, Petitioners, V. WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK, and CLOVER A. HAYCOCK, and NANCY E. KELSO, Respondents. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2011-3702 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: MOTION OF HAYCOCKS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS, P.J., GUIDO, J. and PECK, J. ORDER AND NOW, this 8' day of March, 2012, upon consideration of Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment, the responses filed thereto, and after oral argument, the Motion of Haycocks for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. BY THE COURT, v Kevin . Hess, P.J. i/ Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire For the Petitioners ?Wayne F. Shade, Esquire For Respondents Haycocks Aancy E. Kelso Robert Frey, Esquire Cumberland County Land Preservation Board (-) r- -) C C' W r-? ROBERT J. KASPER, JEANETTE E. KASPER, Petitioners, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2011-3702 V. WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK, and CLOVER A. HAYCOCK, and NANCY E. KELSO, Respondents. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: MOTION OF HAYCOCKS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS, P.J., GUIDO, J. and PECK, J. OPINION and ORDER Before the Court is the Motion of Respondents for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment. (Motion of Haycocks for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment, filed Dec. 9, 2011). The underlying action involves the request by Petitioners that this court appoint a Board of View with a direction to conduct an analysis of the properties owned by the parties to this action and to open a private road in order to grant access to an otherwise landlocked portion of property owned by Petitioners. (Amended Petition for Appointment of a Board of View, filed Dec. 16, 2011). For the reasons that follow, Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment will be denied. The facts of record established thus far are brief and may be summarized as follows. Petitioners are Robert J. Kasper and Jeanette E. Kasper, adult individuals who reside at 3806 Conestoga Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. (Amended Petition, ¶ 1). Respondents are William G. Haycock and Clover A. Haycock, adult individuals who reside at and own real property located at 76 Goodhart Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. (Amended Petition, ¶ 3). There are two properties involved in this dispute; one is owned by Petitioners, located at 437 Walnut Bottom Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257, and the other is the aforementioned property owned by Respondents, located on Goodhart Road. (Amended Petition, ¶ 2). The properties are adjacent to each other, with the northern portion of Petitioners' property bordering the southern portion of Respondents' property. (Deposition of Robert J. Kasper, 7, Nov. 21, 2011, filed Dec. 9, 2011 (hereinafter "Kasper Deposition, _")). Both of the properties involved consist of large amounts of farm land. (Affidavit of William G. Haycock and Clover A Haycock, ¶¶ 4, filed Dec. 9, 2011 (hereinafter "Haycock Affidavit, ¶ _")). At some time prior to 1963, a portion of Petitioners' farm land was involuntarily condemned for the purpose the construction of Interstate 81. (Amended Petition, ¶ 5). The installation of the roadway resulted in the bisection of Petitioners' property, with part of Petitioners' land lying to the north of the Interstate, and a majority of the property lying to the south. (Amended Petition, ¶ 6). As a result, the portion of Petitioners' farm that was to the north of Interstate 81, and that bordered the southern portion of Respondents' land, became landlocked. (Amended Petition, ¶ 8). The portion of Petitioners' property situated to the south of the Interstate continued to have access from Walnut Bottom Road. (Amended Petition, ¶ 7). On December 16, 2011, Petitioners Robert J. Kasper and Jeanette E. Kasper filed an Amended Petition for Appointment of a Board of View, pursuant to 36 P.S. § 2731, et seq., requesting this court to appoint and direct a Board of View to conduct an analysis of the properties owned by the parties and to open a private road granting access to the landlocked 2 portion of Petitioners' property. (Amended Petition for Appointment of a Board of View, filed Dec. 16, 2011). Specifically, Petitioners seek access by way of the installation of a road or other right-of-way across the Respondents' land in order to obtain access to Goodhart Road. (Amended Petition, ¶ 11). Respondents have filed an answer to the underlying Amended Petition, and the record has been supplemented with the deposition of Robert J. Kasper, filed December 9, 2011, and the affidavit of William G. Haycock and Clover A Haycock, filed December 9, 2011. On December 12, 2011, Respondents filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment. The Motion requests, first, that the underlying Petition of the Kaspers be dismissed as being violative of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 1 and Article I, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and, second, in the alternative, that partial summary judgment be entered "restricting any private condemnation to a right-of-way that would be no more than 16 feet in width and limited to access for the purposes of agriculture and tending the existing advertising billboard on the landlocked lands." (Motion of Haycocks for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment, filed Dec. 9, 2011). Pursuant to Rule 1035.2 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may grant summary judgment after the relevant pleadings are closed and whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense that could be established by any additional discovery or expert report, or if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the 3 cause of action or defense, which in a jury trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury. Pa. R. Civ. P. 1035.2(1); Estate of Borst v. Edward Stover Sr. Testamentary Trust, 2011 PA Super 222, 30 A.3d 1207. Summary judgment shall be granted whenever "the material facts are undisputed," or the facts are insufficient "to make out a prima facie cause of action or defense." McCarthy v. Dan Lepore & Sons Co., 724 A.2d 938, 940 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998); Pa. R. Civ. P. 1035.2(1). Ale view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Abrams v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 602 Pa. 627, 634, 981 A.2d 198, 203 (2009). Furthermore, summary judgment is proper when "the uncontroverted allegations in the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions of record, and submitted affidavits demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Reliance Ins. Co. v. IRPC, Inc., 2006 PA Super 150, ¶ 8, 904 A.2d 912, 915. For the purpose of opposing a motion for summary judgment, a nonmoving party may not simply rely on controverted allegations contained within the pleadings, but must "set forth specific facts by way of affidavit, or in some other way as provided by Pa.R.C.P. 1035(b), demonstrating that a genuine issue of material fact exists." Banks v. Trustees of University of Pennsylvania, 446 Pa. Super. 99, 103, 666 A.2d 329, 331 (1995) (citing Ressler v. Jones Motor Company, 337 Pa. Super. 602, 487 A.2d 424 (1985)). Finally, a trial court's entry of summary judgment will not be overturned absent an error of law or a clear abuse of discretion. McCain v. Pennbank, 379 Pa. Super. 313, 318, 549 A.2d 1311, 1313 (1988). 4 First enacted in 1836, the Private Road Act empowers a private citizen with the statutorily granted privilege to condemn the land of a neighbor in order to permit access from a landlocked parcel to a public road. Act of June 13, 1836, P.L. 551 (as amended 36 P.S. §§ 2731- 2891) (hereinafter the "P.R.A." or the "Act"). The Act provides that, upon petition, a board of viewers "shall be appointed to conduct a view and report whether a private road is necessary for the benefit of the landlocked parcel." Benner v. Silvis, 2008 PA Super 103, ¶ 10, 950 A.2d 990, 993 (citing 36 P. S. § 2731). Upon a finding by the board of view that a private :road is necessary, "... the proceedings in such case shall be entered on record ...and thenceforth such road shall be deemed and taken to be a lawful private road." Id. (citing 36 P.S. § 2732). Thereafter, the Act provides the manner in which the damages sustained by the servient landowner are to be paid; specifically, the Act provides that compensation for these types of takings is to be determined in accordance with the procedures and measurements of damages as set forth in the Eminent Domain Code, 26 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 101-1106, which requires just compensation to be paid for the injury or destruction caused to the servient land. 36 P.S. § 2736. While the parties disagree over its application to the facts herein, both are in agreement that the case of In re: Opening a Private Road for the Benefit of O'Reilly, 607 Pa. 280, 5 A.3d 246 (2010), is the most recent controlling precedent applicable to the instant dispute. In O'Reilly, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed a determination by the Commonwealth Court that the P.R.A. did not effect an unconstitutional taking of private property and also clarified the constitutional standard by which an action under the Private Road Act must be examined. O'Reilly, 607 Pa. at 284, 5 A.3d at 248. Initially, it is important to note that the Court did not find the Private Road Act to be per se unconstitutional. Rather, the Court explained that, 5 while there may have been disagreement in the past, the creation of a private road under the Act is, in fact, a taking in the constitutional sense, and, in order to withstand constitutional scrutiny, the taking must satisfy certain constitutional mandates. O'Reilly, 607 Pa. at 298, 5 A.3d at 257. The Court held that the taking which occurs from the creation of a private road is effected by way of eminent domain, and, therefore, must be evaluated as such. Id. The Court explained that absent a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain, [I]t is not within the power of the Legislature to invest either an individual or a corporation with the right to take the property of a private owner for the private use of some other individual or corporation, even if a method is provided for ascertaining the damages and paying what shall be deemed just compensation. O'Reilly, 607 Pa. at 299, 5 A.3d at 257 (quoting Phila. Clay Co. v. York Clay Co., 241 Pa. 305, 309-10, 88 A. 487, 488 (1913)). In explaining the constitutional standard to be applied to actions arising under the Private Road Act, the Court emphasized that the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania "mandate that private property can only be taken to serve a public purpose." O'Reilly, 607 Pa. at 299, 5 A.3d at 258. In order to satisfy the public purpose standard, "the public must be the primary and paramount beneficiary of the taking." Id. (citing Middletown Township v. Lands of Stone, 595 Pa. 607, 617, 939 A.2d 331, 337 (2007)). The mere presence of some incidental or indirect public benefit will not suffice; rather, a finding that the public is the primary and paramount beneficiary of the taking is required. O'Reilly, 607 Pa. at 299-300, 5 A.3d at 258. Because the record in the O'Reilly case was bereft of detail, the Supreme Court remanded to the Commonwealth Court to consider whether the specific taking at issue therein was constitutional under the standard identified by the Court. In so remanding, the Supreme Court stated, in dicta, the following: 6 Perhaps the most compelling assertions advanced by Appellee lie in the purported interrelation between the Commonwealth's initial exercise of its eminent domain power to construct an interstate highway-which apparently isolated Appellee's property from access to public roads-and Appellee's subsequent invocation of the PRA to restore access. In light of the course this appeal has taken, however, potentially relevant details (for example, whether Appellee's use of the PRA to restore access to the property was contemplated at the time the Commonwealth removed it, and whether Appellee acted with reasonable promptitude such that the two takings reasonably might be regarded as an interconnected course of events) are not well developed before this Court. Accordingly, we will return the matter to the Commonwealth Court to consider this and any remaining matters which have been raised and preserved for judicial review and which may bear on whether the public is fairly regarded as the primary and paramount beneficiary. We have concluded that the court of original appellate jurisdiction has the responsibility, in the first instance, to review Appellants' preserved and colorable arguments, and any decision to affirm the taking of their property should be closely reasoned. In our view, the dissent's position that there are no difficulties here-because Pocopson Road[,16 Pa. 15 (1851)] baldly said there are none-is an unsustainable one. O'Reilly, 607 Pa. at 300-01, 5 A.3d at 258-59. On remand, and faced with the above question posed to it by the Supreme Court, the Commonwealth Court found as follows: In examining the record, however, we are convinced that we do not have enough information to determine whether the public would be the primary and paramount beneficiary of the taking in this case. There are a number of reasons for this: this case is before us on appeal from preliminary objections, so there is no factual record; the parties' pleadings did not specifically address the standard that our Supreme Court has now made clear applies; and there is nothing even in the pleadings relating to the issue of the highway condemnation raised by our Supreme Court. In re: Opening, a Private Road.for Benefit of O'Reilly, 22 A.3d 291, 297 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). As a result, the Commonwealth Court remanded the case to the court of common pleas in order that a hearing might be held, and the court and instructed the trial court to make findings of fact considering the constitutional standard enunciated by the Supreme Court. Id. The 7 Commonwealth Court stated that at the hearing, "the court should consider not only evidence presented by the parties about the alleged highway taking that caused the parcel at issue to become landlocked, but also any other evidence relevant to determining who the primary and paramount beneficiary of the proposed taking would be." Id. Applying the foregoing, we find that the entry of summary judgment in favor of Respondents, in this case, would be a premature determination that the creation of a private road granting access to Petitioners' landlocked parcel is not for the primary and paramount benefit of the public. Instead, the question of who is the primary and paramount beneficiary of the would- be road is a significant and genuine issue of material fact that remains to be determined. The material facts are not undisputed, as required by Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.2, and the uncontroverted allegations in the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions of record, and submitted affidavits do not demonstrate that Respondents are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As our Supreme Court and Commonwealth Court have indicated, the constitutionality of a taking under the Private Road Act is properly determined after a hearing wherein the court considers all relevant evidence presented by parties in an attempt to determine who would be the primary and paramount beneficiary of the proposed taking. In their Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment, Respondents assert that "where the landlocked portion of the Kasper farm became landlocked nearly fifty years ago, the opening of the private road over the Haycock lands would operate to the primary benefit of Kasper, as opposed to the general public, in violation of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions." (Motion of Haycocks for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment, ¶ 18). The respondents argue, in other words, that the shear length of time that this 8 parcel has remained landlocked leads to the inevitable conclusion that to now open a private road granting access to the land would be primarily for the benefit of the landowner and not the general public. We decline to summarily take that leap. Instead, we read the dicta in the Supreme Court's O'Reilly opinion, pertaining to details that may be relevant in making a determination of the primary and paramount beneficiary,' to be merely guidance as to what may be relevant in making such a finding. We do not believe that the mere passage of time, on its own, is a proper basis for the entry of summary judgment against a petitioner. In the alternative, Respondents' Motion requests that partial summary judgment be entered "restricting any private condemnation to a right-of-way that would be no more than 16 feet in width and limited to access for the purposes of agriculture and tending the existing advertising billboard on the landlocked lands." (Motion of Haycocks for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment, ¶ 35). Respondents contend that Petitioners' desire to privately condemn a right-of-way fifty feet in width is unreasonable as such a wide road would permit access for reasons that are outside of the historic use of the landlocked parcel and would cause too great a burden on the servient land. The Private Road Act clearly permits the opening of a private road only upon a finding by the board of view that such a road is necessary. See Benner, 2008 PA Super 103, ¶ 10, 950 A.2d at 993 (citing 36 P. S. § 2731). The P.R.A. grants to the board broad authority to determine, ' In remanding the case to the Commonwealth Court, the Supreme Court stated its reasoning for doing so as follows: In light of the course this appeal has taken, however, potentially relevant details (for example, whether Appellee's use of the PRA to restore access to the property was contemplated at the time the Commonwealth removed it, and whether Appellee acted with reasonable promptitude such that the two takings reasonably might be regarded as an interconnected course of events) are not well developed before this Court. Accordingly, we will return the matter to the Commonwealth Court to consider this and any remaining matters which have been raised and preserved for judicial review and which may bear on whether the public is fairly regarded as the primary and paramount beneficiary. O'Reilly, 607 Pa. at 300-01, 5 A.3d at 258-59. 9 first, whether the road is necessary, and, if so, where the road is to be located. Mandracchia v. Stoney Creek Real Estate Corp., 133 Pa.Cmwlth. 510, 514, 576 A.2d 1181, 1182 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1990). In delineating the duties of the viewers, the Act provides as follows: The persons appointed as aforesaid, shall view such ground, and if they shall agree that there is occasion for a road, they shall proceed to lay out the same, having respect for the shortest distance, and the best ground for a road, and in such manner as shall do the least injury to private property, and also be as far as practicable, agreeable to the desire of the petitioners. 36 P.S. §1785. Despite this grant of authority and deference to the board, the Private Road Act does not give unrestricted authority to the board in determining the where such a road should be and how it is to be laid out. The Act clearly and unambiguously provides that "the breadth of a private road shall not in any case exceed twenty-five feet...." 36 P.S. § 1901 (emphasis added). This provision places a specific and significant limitation on the Board of View, and it is not within the power of the appointed board to waive it, regardless of the circumstances presented. Benner, 2008 PA Super 103, ¶ 15, 950 A.2d at 994-95 (citing Fengfish v. Dallmyer, 434 Pa.Super. 250, 642 A.2d 1117, 1119-20 (1994) ("The power of a board of view to take private land for the use of another person exists only by virtue of statute, and the board's exercise of that power is limited strictly according to the terms of the statute creating the power."). Applying the foregoing, Respondents' request that partial summary judgment be entered restricting any private condemnation to a right-of-way that would be no more than sixteen feet in width and limited to access for the purposes of agriculture and tending the existing advertising billboard on the landlocked lands is premature. Summary judgment is properly entered when the uncontroverted allegations in the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions 10 of record, and submitted affidavits demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In this case, a board of view has not yet been appointed and clearly there have been no findings made even as to the necessity of the creation of a private road. If a board is appointed, however, it is within the authority of such a board to make recommendations regarding the appropriate width of the road, and any findings will thereafter be examined in light of the statutory limitations described above. For these reasons, the following order will be entered: ORDER AND NOW, this 8t day of March, 2012, upon consideration of Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment, the responses filed thereto, and after oral argument, the Motion of Haycocks for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire For the Petitioners '-'Wayne F. Shade, Esquire For Respondents Haycocks v 'Nancy E. Kelso 74 Kline Road Shippensburg, PA 17257 v" Robert Frey, Esquire Cumberland County Land Preservation Board ??rC 5 ti rri n? r ?a ?a co 75 .c ?y r,. 1 L_ ',y F:\FILES\Clients\13036 Kasper Robert Jenny\1303ti.3\13036.3.reply.nm ~..~ ~ ' ~ G:9 I Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire ~ ~ -~ Attorney LD. No. 203046 ~ ~-, -~,,::,:, MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER ~~ _ , MARTSON LAW OFFICES , 10 East High Street ~ ~ ~ =' ~ Carlisle, PA 17013 ~~c ~ - ~-.'~~ . (717) 243-3341 . _ ~ {~ Attorneys for Petitioners - ROBERT J. KASPER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JEANETTE E. KASPER, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANI Petitioners v. NO. 2011 - 3702 CIVIL TERM WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK and CLOVER A. HAYCOCK, and NANCY E. KELSO, Respondents v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, : Additional Respondents PETITIONERS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND NOW, come the Petitioners, Robert J. Kasper and Jeanette E. Kasper ("Petitioner "), by and through their attorneys, MARTSON LAW OFFICES, and file their Reply to New Matte of Cumberland County as follows: 17. Pazagraphs 1 through 16 of Petitioners' Amended Petition for Appointment o~f a Board of View are incorporated herein as though fully set forth. 18. Admitted. 19. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 20. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 21. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 22. Denied. The deed for Petitioners' property is a document which speaks for Any chazacterization of the deed is denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 23. Denied. The deeds contained in the deeds going back in Petitioners' Chain of title documents which speak for themselves. Any characterization ofthe deeds is denied as a of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 24. Admitted. Byway of further answer, this fact does not preclude the relief req by Petitioners. 25. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 26. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that this Honorable Court appoint a Board of V pursuant to 36 P.S. §2731, et seq., and direct that the Boazd of View conduct an analysis of properties owned by Respondents William G. and Clover A. Haycock and Nancy E. Kelso, an~ to open a private road for the use and privilege of Petitioners, and grant any other relief as MARTSON LAW OFFICES Date: S~1 JI/L By; J ~ Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire I.D. No. 203046 10 East High Street Cazlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Petitioners VERIFICATION Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire, of the firm of MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS GILROY & FALLER, attorneys for Petitioners, Robert J. Kasper and Jeanette E: Kasper in the within action, certifies that the statements made in the foregoing Reply to PJew Matte of Cumberland County aze true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information aid belief, b ed upon information provided by Petitioners. He understands that false statements hierein aze subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to .~ J, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary M. Price, an authorized agent for Manson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & F hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Reply to New Matter was served this date by deposi~ same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed' as follows: Wayne F. Shade, Esquire 53 West Pomfret Street Cazlisle, PA 17013 Nancy E. Kelso 74 Kline Road Shippensburg, PA 17257 Robert G. Frey, Esquire 5 South Hanover Street Cazlisle, PA 17013 Dwight-Jazed Smith, Esquire Office of the Chief Counsel Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 MARTSON LAW OFFICES By: .Price Ten ast High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: 8' ! ~ /~ . , T o ik, /tL -;;4) r E ,°dE�'S'y j �r � vUt'T'1' 711 fll\ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT J. KASPER and • JEANETTE E. KASPER, • Petitioners • No. 2011 —3702 Civil Action v. • WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK and CLOVER A. HAYCOCK and NANCY E. KELSO, • Respondents • PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of Helen L. Gemmill and James F. P. Welch, attorneys with the law firm of McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, on behalf of Respondent Nancy E. Kelso. By //....E L. Helen L. Gemmill (Pa. I.D. No. 60661) By AJP4Alf F. P. Welch (Pa I.D. No. (313753) MCNEES WALLACE&NURICK LLC 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 Telephone: (717) 232-8000 Dated: November 27, 2013 Attorneys for Respondent Nancy E. Kelso CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this date, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by U.S. first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Seth T. Mosebey, Esq. Martson Law Offices 10 East High St. Carlisle, PA 17013 Wayne F. Shade, Esq. 53 West Pomfret St. Carlisle, PA 17013 Robert G. Frey, Esq. 5 South Hanover St. Carlisle, PA 17013 Dwight-Jared Smith, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 2301 North Cameron St. Harrisburg, PA 17110 Helen L. Gemmill Dated: November 27, 2013 F:\FILES\Clients\13036 Kasper Robert Jenny \13036.3\ 13036.3.pra.wpd Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 203046 MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Petitioners THE PRO THUN'O 2O t OCT -3 I Ail I I: 32 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT J. KASPER, JEANETTE E. KASPER, Petitioners v. WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK and CLOVER A. HAYCOCK, and NANCY E. KELSO, Respondents v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. : NO. 2011 - 3702 CIVIL TERM COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and CUMBERLAND : COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, Additional Respondents PRAECIPE To the Prothonotary of Cumberland County: Please dismiss Defendant Nancy E. Kelso as a Defendant/Respondent in the above matter without prejudice, based upon an agreement of counsel that the claim under the Private Road Act may be re -instituted at a later date. MARTSON LAW OFFICES By: Date: /)/3))/Lf Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire I.D. No. 203046 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Petitioners CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary M. Price, an authorized agent for Martson Law Offices, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Wayne F. Shade, Esquire 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Helen Gemmill, Esquire Helen L. Gemmill, Esquire McNees Wallace & Nurick, LLC P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 Robert G. Frey, Esquire 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Dwight -Jared Smith, Esquire Office of the Chief Counsel Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 MARTSON LAW OFFICES By: Dated: /01107 7 Price Ten ast High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 ROBERT J. KASPER, JEANETTE E. KASPER, Petitioners : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA • • v. : NO. 2011-3702 CIVIL TERM WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK and • CLOVER A. HAYCOCK, and NANCY E. KELSO, Respondents • FIRST REPORT OF CHAIRMAN OF VIEWERS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: The undersigned Chairman of Viewers respectively reports: NARRATIVE u rn. rn rn 7,3 C) cn� r» CT The Board of View was appointed on April 18, 2011 in regard to determine if Plaintiff Kasper could burden the lands of Defendant Haycock with a private road. If so, the Board of Viewers would determine the location and scope of the right-of-way, together with a determination of damages payable to Defendant. The Board proceeded to attempt to schedule the discharge of it's duties. Much activity occurred in the Court of Common Pleas as to Defendant's being subjected to the burden on his land. After such activity, another development occurred that spared the Defendant Haycock's land. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania asserted immunity due to its interest in the land by virtue of a conservation easement. Plaintiff Kasper then turned his attention to the lands of Nancy Kelso which offered another possible access to his allegedly landlocked parcel. The Board was working to resolve this aspect of the Case until a few months ago. After inquiries by the Board as to the status of this Case, the Board was informed that the attorneys involved wished to stop the proceedings as pleaded. This was a result of a Commonwealth Court decision issued August 27, 2014 called "O'Reilly Case". That Case suggested that the Private Road Act may not grant petitioning landowners so much relief from being landlocked as previously granted. It appears that O'Reilly and two (2) companion cases will be appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for its review. Until that time, this proceeding will not be promoted by the Plaintiff. Page 2 The Plaintiff's counsel has advised that there may be further pleadings filed with the Court but the Board is issuing its First Report at this time for the purposes of informing the Court and for compensation of the Viewers for several years of work. The Viewers are familiar with the subject matter, the property location and the legal issues. The Viewers are willing to serve again and to continue to serve if this Case requires reappointment of the Board. Once the Supreme Court clarifies the Private Road Act or chooses to adopt the O'Reilly limitations, the Board of View can operate with guidance in these type of cases. This does not affect condemnations involving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and other government cases. Contained in the file being returned to the Prothonotary are voluminous materials and Pleadings related to the proceeding. A Bill of Costs is included with this Report. William A. Duncan, Esq., Chairman 1 Irvine Row Carlisle, PA 17013 Duncan & Hartman, P.C. BILL OF COSTS 3 Views @ $375 2 Hearings @ $375 2 Days Case Management and Analysis @ $375.00 2 Days Scheduling @ $375.00 _ $ 1,125.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 = $ 3,375.00 Certified mail 3 Notices x 5.54 = $ 16.62 Certified mail 3 Notices x 5.54 = 16.62 Regular mail .44 x 9 Letters = 3.96 Regular mail .46 x 49 Letters = 22.54 Regular mail .48 x 50 Letters = 24.00 Regular mail .98 x 2 Flats = 1.96 Total = $ 85.70 R. Gary Sausser 3 Days - Views @ $250.00 $ 750.00 1306 Bosler Place 2 Days - Hearings @ $250.00 = 500.00 Carlisle, PA 17013 1 Day Case Analysis = 250.00 Total = $ 1,500.00 James Sheya 3 Days - Views @ $250.00 $ 750.00 433 Mooreland Avenue 2 Days - Hearings @ $250.00 500.00 Carlisle, PA 17013 1 Day Case Analysis = 250.00 Mileage 40x3=120 mi. x .55 = 66.00 $ 1,566.00 Signatures: Total Cost of Viewers $ 6,526.70 William A. uncan ROBERT J. KASPER, JEANETTE E. KAPER, Petitioners vs. WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK and CLOVER A./ HAYCOCK, and NANCY E. KELSO, Respondents : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION — LAW : NO. 11-3702 CIVIL IN RE: FIRST REPORT OF CHAIRMAN OF VIEWERS ORDER AND NOW, this 51 day of January, 2015, upon receipt of the First Report of Chairman of Viewers, the Prothonotary is directed to make payment in accordance with the Bill of Costs attached to the First Report. William A. Duncan, Esquire Chairman :rim dopir •/ed //ghr BY THE COURT, 9S :z add S— NVr siOZ ROBERT J. KASPER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF JEANETTE E. KASPER, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Petitioners v. : NO. 2011-3702 CIVIL TERM • • WILLIAM G. HAYCOCK and CLOVER A. HAYCOCK, and NANCY E. KELSO, Respondents FIRST REPORT OF CHAIRMAN OF VIEWERS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: The undersigned Chairman of Viewers respectively reports: NARRATIVE 4:72 rrl C.) r) N The Board of View was appointed on April 18, 2011 in regard to determine if Plaintiff Kasper could burden the lands of Defendant Haycock with a private road. If so, the Board of Viewers would determine the location and scope of the right-of-way, together with a determination of damages payable to Defendant. The Board proceeded to attempt to schedule the discharge of it's duties. Much activity occurred in the Court of Common Pleas as to Defendant's being subjected to the burden on his land. After such activity, another development occurred that spared the Defendant Haycock's land. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania asserted immunity due to its interest in the land by virtue of a conservation easement. Plaintiff Kasper then turned his attention to the lands of Nancy Kelso which offered another possible access to his allegedly landlocked parcel. The Board was working to resolve this aspect of the Case until a few months ago. After inquiries by the Board as to the status of this Case, the Board was informed that the attorneys involved wished to stop the proceedings as pleaded. This was a result of a Commonwealth Court decision issued August 27, 2014 called "O'Reilly Case". That Case suggested that the Private Road Act may not grant petitioning landowners so much relief from being landlocked as previously granted. It appears that O'Reilly and two (2) companion cases will be appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for its review. Until that time, this proceeding will not be promoted by the Plaintiff. Page 2 The Plaintiff's counsel has advised that there may be further pleadings filed with the Court but the Board is issuing its First Report at this time for the purposes of informing the Court and for compensation of the Viewers for several years of work. The Viewers are familiar with the subject matter, the property location and the legal issues. The Viewers are willing to serve again and to continue to serve if this Case requires reappointment of the Board. Once the Supreme Court clarifies the Private Road Act or chooses to adopt the O'Reilly limitations, the Board of View can operate with guidance in these type of cases. This does not affect condemnations involving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and other government cases. Contained in the file being returned to the Prothonotary are voluminous materials and Pleadings related to the proceeding. A Bill of Costs is included with this Report. William A. Duncan, Esq., Chairman 1 Irvine Row Carlisle, PA 17013 Duncan & Hartman, P.C. R. Gary Sausser 1306 Bosler Place Carlisle, PA 17013 James Sheya 433 Mooreland Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Signatures: BILL OF COSTS 3 Views @ $375 2 Hearings @ $375 2 Days Case Management and Analysis @ $375.00 2 Days Scheduling @ $375.00 Certified mail 3 Notices x 5.54 Certified mail 3 Notices x 5.54 Regular mail .44 x 9 Letters Regular mail .46 x 49 Letters Regular mail .48 x 50 Letters Regular mail .98 x 2 Flats Total 3 Days - Views @ $250.00 2 Days - Hearings @ $250.00 1 Day Case Analysis Total 3 Days - Views @ $250.00 2 Days - Hearings @ $250.00 1 Day Case Analysis Mileage 40x3=120 mi. x .55 Total Cost of Viewers _ $ 1,125.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 = $ 3,375.00 $ 16.62 = 16.62 3.96 22.54 24.00 1.96 $ 85.70 $ 750.00 = 500.00 = 250.00 _ $ 1,500.00 $ 750.00 500.00 250.00 66.00 $ 1,566.00 $ 6,526.70