The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-0281 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicial District, County Of Cumberland NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. 05 - ..:J'i? I ~ NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the date and in the case referenced below. NAME OF APPELLANT Edward E. Stathas and Maril n A. ADDRESS OF APPELLANT NAME OF Q,J, SiATE ZIP CODE Januar 6 2005 DOCKET No. CASE OF (Plaintiff) U er Allen Townshi (Def9nda CV-0000296-04 " Stathas Edward 5IG7";:::;;;:;;'::,.'OR"EY OR AGENT Attorney for Appellants If appellant was Claimant (see Pa. RC.P.D.J. No. 1001(6) in action This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. R.C'p,D.J, No, 10088, This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. before a District Justice, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL SignatUf6 of ProIhoflOlary or Deputy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONL Y when appellant was DEFENDANT (see PaR.CP.D.J, No, 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED. detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon Upper Allen Township appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal (Common Pleas No. tJ!j ~ db'1 Name of appel/ee(s) e,,~J ) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros, I~ RULE: To Upper Allen Township Ke i th o. Brenneman, W91twri::tf@ppellantorettorneyoragent . appellee(s) Name of appellee(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) It you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU, Date: r:;'t1" /3 ,200/' (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENTfTRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. AOPC 312,02 COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY ... PROOF OF SERVI(~E OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND COUNTY OF AFFIDAVIT' WOf; 0 ...., My = 0 C = .. (0\ ::;;.,,~ <J'O " ~~ <- :;l ~ lA' """ r;l :!J \ Z ,- & . -.;;n1 ~ ,l: w :IJ6 ,^" .\ ~&, :~". -r -r, -0 ';"'-....., " <~::) '~~O ~, Orn - " ~~ C '" -" ,-{. ...:::.. ....,...". ~ =< 0 ~:o .~ U1 .< ~ ~},,~, f" ~, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND ,t DJN,m' Hoo I Address' GAYLE A. ELDER 507 N YORK ST MECHANICSBURG, PA NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT CIVIL CASE PLAINTIFF: NAME and ADDRESS 'uPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP I 100 GETTYSBURG PIKE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 L ~ Mag. Dls\. No' 09-3-05 VS. T'~phM' (717) 766-4575 17055 DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS IsTATHAS, EDWARD E, ET AL. 1350 EAST LISBURN ROAD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 L Docket No,: CV- 0000296 - 04 Date Filed: 11/04/04 I ATTORNEY DEF PRIVATE : ~ KEITH o. BRENNEMAN SNELBAKER BRENN 44 W MAIN ST MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: FOR PI.AINTIFF ..[i] [i] Judgment was entered for: (Name) TTPPRR llT.T.F.N 'I'<'lWIJ!'lHTP, Judgment was entered against: (Name) gT~TH~g, M~RTT.YN ~ in the amount of $ ?',7'l'l 1 C) on: (Date of Judgment) 1 /06/0<; , o Defendants are jointly and severally liable, o Damages will be assessed on: o This case dismissed without prejudice. (Date & Time) , 0 Amount of Judgment Subject to Attachment/42 Pa,C,S, S 8127 $ , 0 Portion of Judgment for physical damages arising out of residential lease $ Amount of Judgment $ 2.644.19 Judgment Costs $ 89.00 Interest on Judgment $ .00 Attorney Fees $ .00 Total $ 2,733.19 Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ ------------ ------------ Certified Judgment Total $ , ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHr TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COpy OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. , EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR DISTRICT JUSTICES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE couRr OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT ,OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT JUSTICE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE II REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE DISTRICT JUSTICE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR orHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. I / rc /0 -S Date I , , District Justice I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the record of the proceedings containing the judgment. Date , District Justice My commission expires first Monday of January, 2006 SEAL " AOPC 315-03 DATE PRINTED: 1/07/05 1:14:10 PM COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYL VANIA COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND " ,!I Mag, Gist. No.: OJ Name', Hon. I I Address: GAYLE A. ELDER 507 N YORK ST MECHANICSBURG, PA NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT CIVil CASE PLAINTIFF: NAME andADDAESS 'uPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP I 100 GETTYSBURG PIKE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 L ~ VS. 09-3-05 T,.pho", (717) 766-4575 17055 DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS IsTATHAS, EDWARD E, ET AL. 1350 EAST LISBURN ROAD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 L I ATTORNEY DEF PRIVATE : KEITH O. BRENNEMAN SNELBAKER BRENN 44 W MAIN ST MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 Docket No.: cv- 0000296 - 04 Date Filed: 11/04/04 ~ 1& :,-... ..:;---' THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: FOR PLAINTIFF [!] [i] Judgment was entered for: (Name) TTPPRR lIr.T.RN 'J'OWN!'lHTP. Judgment was entered against: (Name) RT~TH~R, F.DWlIRD F. in the amount of $ ? 7~1 1<} on: (Date of Judgment) 1jnfi/n'l D Defendants are jointly and severally liable, D Damages will be assessed on: , D This case dismissed without prejudice, (Date & Time) D Amount of Judgment Subject to , Attachmentl42 Pa.C.S, S 8127 $ o Portion of Judgment for physical damages arising out of residential lease $ Amount of Judgment $ 2,644.19 Judgment Costs $ 89.00 Interest on Judgment $ .00 Attorney Fees $ .00 Total $ 2,733.19 Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ ------------ ------------ Certified Judgment Total $ , ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 OAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUOGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE ,OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COpy OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR DISTRICT JUSTICES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN rHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT JUSTICE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE DISTRICT JUSTICE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT, I / & /05 Date ! / , District Justice I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the record of the proceedings containing the judgment. Date , District Justice My commission expires first Monday of January, 2006 SEAL Aope 315,03 DATE PRINTED: 1/07/05 1:11:21 PM (2 ~~ .,,- " ;;0, PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FilE COMPLAINT (This proof of sor/ice MUST BE FILED WITHfN TEN DAYS AFTER Gri/1E cfoope:a! COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, COUNTY OF CUHBERLAND AFFIDAVIT, I heceby (swear) (affirm;lhai i served 0: "-' c.:::> c.:::> en o -., ::::! fi1:l] .- .....'m ",0 0' ,..,0 ........." (j:D 7"0 ~,-\m ~.~~ , ;;< '- ;::-:,.. 2;: 2;:'" <:::; C:-'l CD (l copy of the Notice of AppeaL JaIluarv 13 (datu or service} , Common PlOdS Na.2005- 281, uc'on the DIstrict JUStk;0; de3:,grn'iod 1{,eroin (in :-;cr;cier's reCt1ipt attached hereto, and January 13, 20 05 f,Oti(J()r's ({)()'0ipt attached nemto (SWORN) (AFFIPMED) AND SUBSCni8ED BEFORE ME THiS 13tb DAY OF Januar ,20 05 "g~,~ wet:" Tit;eor,~~II/'L)c--- My commission 8Xp1ff.lS i,/2'1 J 20 () 7. COMMONWEAnH OF PENNSYLVANIA NoIariaI Seal SUsan L Mnazi. NoIary PublIc MemanicsbuIg 8010, CumbeoIand Co...Iy My Ca..,....... ElqJieo Nov. 24. 2007 Member, Pennsylvania Association Of Notaries Aore 2't2/\ - 02 05 }.v2f~3tX,;:;j the appe!(,;:0c, parsonal !*~b' '"."" J (XJ!JJt~!ilii i Upper Allen Township !~ by {cert;fie\1; ~~I in:::;;' Ke o(;::tfifml ,-~_. -".., ~'''..~'~~,-~' COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUdicial District, County Of Lumber lana NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. NOTICE OF APPEAL ~r (/J ...:),,; I . ," (:(ijA...~' Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the date.and in the case referenced below. NAME OF APPELLANT MAG. OIST. NO NAME OF D.J Edward E. Stathas anu Maril a A. Statn s u~-) 05 ADDRESS OF APPELLANT CITY STATE ZIP CODE 1350 East L' r DATE OF JUDGMENT IN T E CASE OF (Plaintiff) U er Allen TOWOSU2 iJL)) (Def8flda #foI't:'/ f1""',~A~,. I'S :>lathaa Ed.ward t:;~ el .a.l. ;H....,..,,), ;A/ SIGNATURE OF APPELlANT OR ATTORNEY OR AGENT J,( lH~ Attorney for Appeliants If appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(6) in action Januar {, 2005 DOCKET No. CV-0000296-04 This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. RC,P.D,J, No, 10088, This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. before a District Justice, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONL Y when appellant was DEFENDANT (see PaRC.P.DJ No, 1001(7) in action before District Justice, IF NOT USED, detach (rom copy of notice of appeal to be sarvad upon appellee, PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon Upper Allen lownship appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal (Common Pleas No, ()5, dS I Name of appel/ee(s) cq~~J _) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros, v1'4vt-v'----. RULE: To Upper Allen Towoslt:l.p Keith o. Brenneman, ~puppe{(aniorattomeyoragent . appellee( s) Name of appelfee(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a compiaint in this appeai within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you .by~rsonal' service or by certified or registered mail. < ',~-', ,," (3) Th~-&~te of service of this rule it'service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date: ){lr: 13, 20C~ Prothonotary or Deputy YOU MUS;r iNCLUDE A COpy 6t= :tHE NOTICE OF JUOGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. " . -~ \"'-" '..:~,'.' ' AOPC 312,02 COURT FILE II 'I I m ~ f'- .-'l .-'l m .-'l <<l C1 CJ Certified Fee C1 CJ Return Reci&pt Fee (Endorsement Required) D Restricted Delivery Fee (; (Endorsement Required) .-'l Tota! Postage 3. Fees U.S. Postal Service", CERTIFIED MAil", R!\:CE:P'" (Domestic Mail Only; No Insuranc Coverage ProvIded) 1. 75 m t:J entTIZ C1 D1strict Justice Gayle A. Elder f'- simei,Aii'ilvo.;,50'j,,,Nortii",York,,,StI:eet,,,,,,,,,,,,u,,--,,ou or PO 80x No. Citji."Si8i,;;z/;;;1(eclrani1::sburg";"'Plt""'t7'03'5''''--''",..,,, $ 4,42 PS Form 3800, June 2002 5N~ Reverse for instructions .lI m f'- .-'l .-'l m .-'l <<l U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAil" RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Co , ~aye F, oVlded) C1 C1 C1 CI Return Reciept Fee (Endorsement Required) CJ Restricted Dellvery Fee n (Endorsement Required) C1 .-'l Certified Fee .37 2.30 75 Total Postage & Fees $ m CJ antTa ~ ~",h"",,,--!ll!l'"t'.!:.,An~,uh:!:!?,w!!.~Il!lL--,,"'mm'''uu" w~~'~'; 100 Gettysburg Pike ci&-;si8;,;:Zi;;;:nre"cnantcsDurj;;-;--'Pi\"'''!70'55'm'h'--..h PS Form 3800 June 2002 Sf'( Reverse for InstructIons LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER 8< BRENNEMAN ~~~ '(i:r~ (\ ....n '-- ....,.... -,1 -' ( C:i --' - UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, No 05- 2'6 J CIVIL ACTION-LAW EDWARD E, STATHAS and MARILYN A STATHAS, Defendants NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within tWt:nty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you, You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff You may lose money or property or other rights important to you, YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP, Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 (800) 990-9108 NOTICIA USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADAi A EN CORTE, Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente 0 por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte pOl' escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya, Se Ie advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe arlteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo pOI' cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda 0 cualquier otra redamacion 0 remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya porIa Corte sin mas aviso adicional. U sted puede perder dinero 0 propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted, USTED DEBE LLEV AR EST A DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO 0 NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UNO, LLAME 0 VA Y A A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA PARA A VERlGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (7I7) 249-3166 (800) 990-9108 , ,'- UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v, 05:;t Rt ~ /b>- : No, CIVIL ACTION-LAW EDWARD E, STATHAS and MARILYN A STATHAS, Defendants COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, is a first class township municipality organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, located in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and having its offices at 100 G(lttysburg Pike, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 1 705 5 (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff'). 2, Defendants, EDWARD E. STATHAS and MARILYN A. STATHAS, are adult individuals with a residence address of 1350 East Lisburn Road, Mechanicsburg, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055, who are believed to have relocated recently to the State of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "Defendants"), 3, On 4 April 2002, the zoning officer of Upper Allen Township (hereinafter referred to as the "zoning officer") issued two (2) zoning permits to Gregory and Christy Black for their real property located at 1360 East Lisburn Road, Mechanicsburg, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 4, On 5 April 2002, the zoning officer issued a Certificate of Use and Occupancy to Gregory and Christy Black for their above referred to 1360 East Lisburn Road premises, .- 5, On 11 April 2002, Defendants filed an appeal with the Upper Allen Township Zoning Hearing Board (hereinafter referred to as the "ZHB"), Docket Number 02-6, seeking to have the above zoning permits and the Certificate of Use and Occupancy issued to Mr. and Mrs, Black revoked, 6, On 20 February 2003, the ZHB issued a decision affirming the zoning officer's decision to issue the zoning permits and the Certificate of Use and Occupancy to Gregory and Christy Black A copy of the written decision of the ZHB is attached hereto as Exhibit" A" and is incorporated herein by reference, 7, On 21 March 2003, Defendants filed a Land Use Appeal in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, appealing the 20 February 2003 decision of the ZHB, A copy of Defendant's Land Use Appeal is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and is incorporated herein by reference, 8, On 21 March 2003, a Writ of Certiorari was issued upon the ZHB commanding that the record of the action be certified and sent to the judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania within twenty (20) days, A copy of the Writ of Certiorari is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and is incorporated herein by reference, 9, On 10 April 2003, the ZHB filed an Answer to the Writ of Certiorari, transmitting the complete record to the Court, A copy of the Answer to the Writ of Certiorari is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and is incorporated herein by reference ]0, On 17 April 2003, Defendants filed a Praecipe withdrawing the Land Use Appeal filed 21 March 2003, A copy ofthe Praecipe is attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and is incorporated herein by reference, 2 " 1 1, Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Sections 908 (1,1) and 908 (7), 53 PS 99908 (1.1) and 908 (7) (hereinafter referred to as the "MPC"), by letter dated 19 July 2004, Plaintiff requested reimbursement in the amount of $2,260.44 from Defendants for advertising costs and administrative costs for the hearing transcript fees and one half of the court reporter appearance fees as provided under the MPe. 12, The 19 July 2004 letter requested reimbursement in the amount of $2,260.44 although Plaintiff was actually seeking reimbursement of costs as provided under the MPC in the amount of$2,660,44 as evidenced by the summary of costs attached to the 19 July 2004 letter. A copy of the letter requesting reimbursement, including the summary of costs, is attached hereto as Exhibit "F" and is incorporated herein by reference, 13, Defendants did not reimburse Plaintiff for the costs reimbursable under the MPc. 14, Plaintiff filed a civil complaint before District Justice Gayle A Elder asserting that Plaintiff was owed $2,660,44 by Defendants for costs reimbursable under the MPe. A copy of the civil complaint, docketed to No, CV-0000296-04, is attached hereto as Exhibit "G" and is incorporated herein by reference, 15, A hearing in the matter was scheduled before District Justice Elder on 3 December 2004, 16, Defendants requested a continuance and advised the District Justice they intended to present a defense to Plaintiff's claim, and the District Justice so advised Plaintiff By notice dated] 9 November 2004, the hearing was continued to 6 January 2005, 3 17, On 6 January 2005, Plaintiff s representatives and attorneys appeared before District Justice Elder for the hearing in the matter. l8, At the hearing, Plaintiffs representatives and attorneys informed District Justice Elder that, in preparing for the hearing, it was determined that the reimbursable costs as provided under the MPC which Plaintiff was seeking should be reduced to $2,644,19, 19, Defendants did not appear personally or by counsel for the 6 January 2005 hearing before District Justice Elder. 20, On 7 January 2005, Judgments for Plaintiff w~re entered by the District Justice against Defendants, individually, in the amount of $2,733, 19, representing the amount sought by Plaintiff plus costs, A copy of both Judgments is attached hereto as Exhibit "H" and is incorporated herein by reference, 21. On ]4 January 2005, Plaintiff received a Notice of Appeal from District Justice Judgment filed by Defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, A copy of the Notice of Appeal is attached hereto as Exhibit "I" and is incorporated herein by reference, 4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, demands judgment against Defendants, EDWARD E. STATHAS and MARILYN A. STATHAS, in the sum of Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Thirty-Three and 19/1 00 Dollars ($2,733,19), with interest from 7 January 2005, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, Dated: / /7B/~ , I ~~ William E, Miller, Jr" Esqu' Alicia S, Miller, Esqui MILLER & ASSOCIATES, PC 1822 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-9211 (717) 737-9215 ID No, 07220 and 82099 5 VERIFICA nON The undersigned, LOU FAZEKAS, hereby verifies and states that: I. He is Township Manager of UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff herein; 2, He is authorized to make this Verification on its behalf; 3, The Facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, or information and belief; and 4, He is aware that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, CS 94904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities Dated 0roS' ~~/ tou FAZEKAS, Township Manager " IN RE: APPLICATION OF EDWARD E. andMARll-YN A. STATHAS BEFORE THE ZONING HEARING BOARD OF UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V AWA An Appeal NO, 02-6 DECISION L History, On March 28, 2002, Gregory and Christy Black, owners of the property known and numbered as 1360 East J;.-isburn Road, Mechanicsburg, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (the "Black property") applied to Upper Allen Township (the "Township") for two (2) zoning permits. One application requested 'a permit to erect a 20 foot by 80 foot greenhouse on the Black property, In the description of work Black identified "uses" to be associated with the requested building as follows: Applicant requests a zoning permit under Section 245-119, A of the Upper Allen Township Zoning Ordinance to usE the land, the existing building and a proposed greenhouse on the property. The property will be used for uses permitted by right by the Zoning Ordinance including crop farming, nursery, greenhouses, agricultural services and accessory uses. Uses including growing, raising, maintaining or harvesting of grasses, plants and trees, both on and off-sit, and also include the activities classified by the Harrisburg Builders Exchange, Construction Specifications Institute under Category 02900, Planting. Accessory uses may include, but are not limited to, tanbark storage and delivery, storage and maintenance of required equipment, periodic use of equipment for mowing or snow removal and temporary storage of unused or surplus materials, supplies and debris. A building permit is requested for a main building as a greenhouse at 1,600 sq. ft., located within the area shown as a future poly-house on the approved land development plan. A building permit previously was issued for the existing building. Exhibit "A" .;' /' ',' , The other permit application requested permission for a change of use to convert an existing vacant non-residential building for use as an accessory office building and storage related to agricultural services and greenhouse. The Township Zoning Officer issued the two (2) requested zoning permits on April 4, 2002. The Zoning Officer also issued a Certificate of Use and Occupancy on April 5, 2002. On April 11, 2002, Edward and Marilyn Stathas filed an appeal with the Township's Zoning Hearing Board (the "ZHB") seeking to have the decisions of the Zoning Officer in granting the above zoning permits reversed and the permits revoked (the "Stathas appeal"). On April 16, 2002, a Stop Work Order was issued by the Township. The ZHB held hearings on the Stathas appeal on May 9, June 13 and June 20, 2002, but no testimony on the merits of the appeal was taken. On July 11, 2002, the ZHB appointed Steven J. Fishman, Esquire, as Hearing Officer to receive testimony and present to the ZHB recommendations, including proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, on resolving the Stathas appeaL Testimony was taken by the Hearing Officer on October 21 and 24, 2002, after which all parties rested and the matter is now ripe for adjudication by the ZHB. II. Statement of the Case. The Black property is zoned (A) AgriculturaL Chapter 245 of the Code of Upper Allen Township (the "Zoning Ordinance"), provides tables of permitted uses applicable to the various zoning districts. Among the permitted uses in the Agricultural District are "greenhouses" and "crop farming". Greenhquses are not specifically defined or described in the Zoning Ordinance. Crop farming is defined as 'Ttlhe raising,keeping and sale of field, truck and tree crops." (Section 245-13). The Zoning Ordinance in Section 245-115A states as follows: "The Zoning Officer shall have the authority to issue pemlits only for construction and uses which are in conformance with the requirements of this chapter." The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code ("MPC"), 0603,1 states that "[i]n interpreting the language of zoning ordinances to determine the extent of the restriction upon the use of the property, the language shall be interpreted, where doubt exists as to the intended meaning of the language written and enacted by the governing body, in favor of the property owner and against any implied extension of the restriction." The Zoning Officer testified that he reviewed provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the MPC prior to issuing the zoning permits in question, The Zoning Officer also testified that he 2 ,. . '. , consulted the 1987 edition of the "Standard Industrial Classifications" promulgated by the U.S. GQvernrnent Printing Office. The Zoning Officer further testified that he had met with Mr. Black, owner of Black Landscaping Contracting, Inc., the proposed occupant of the Black property, to determine the nature and proposed conduct of Mr. Black's business on the Black property. Mr. Black testified that he proposed to grow plants, shrubs and trees on the premises, both in the field and in the proposed greenhouses. He also plans to store materials including seed, fertilizer and tan bark and non-vegetative landscaping materials on the premises; to store equipment and vehicles for use on the premises and off-she in lawn establishment, maintenance (including mowing) and general landscaping. Mr. Black also intends to rnaintain an office in the previously unoccupied building along with locker and bathrooms for his employees. The Zoning Officer testified that he was familiar with other landscape contractors who own land and operate in Upper Allen Township, (two of whom, Gutshalls and H&N, are also in the agricultural zoning district) and are either adjacent to or within sight of the Stathas property, (which is the property immediately to the west and adjacent to the Black property). The Zoning Officer testified that he personally visited and inspected the operations of two landscape contractors, one located in the Township and the other located in Mechanicsburg Borough. Finally, the Zoning Officer testified that uses identified by Black are classified by the Harrisburg Builders Exchange under category 02900-(planting), In addition, Black cites his P A Department of Agriculture licensing as a "Nursery Dealer". Stathas counters with evidence that Black's insurance coverage indicates that he is a "landscape contractor". Based on his review of these operations and his personal observations, as well as the application and supporting material which accompanied the permit applications, the Zoning Officer issued the zoning permits in question, The Stathas appeal asserts that the Zoning Officer erred in unnecessarily interpreting the list of pemlitted uses in the Agricultural District and in misinterpreted the Zoning Ordinance and thereby improperly issued the zoning permits in question. Stathas argues that Black in his application, his insurance and in both his and his father's testimony that he was in actuality a "landscaping contractor". The words "landscape contractor" are not listed as a permitted use in the agricultural zoning district, and Stathas argues that it is therefore not a permitted use, Stathas also argued the landscape contracting business is not an "agricultural" business, Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Zoning Officer has no discretion to interpret the Zoning Ordinance and in so doing in this case and issuing the zoning permits to what Appellant identifies as a landscape contractor, the Zoning Officer exceeded his authority. At the two (2) hearings before the Hearing Officer, testimony was taken from the Zoning Officer and from Gregory Black, Mr. Black was called to testify as on cross examination by 3 '... .. counsel for Stathas and later on direct examination by Applicant's counseL No other witness testimony was taken. m. Finding of Fact. 1. The Zoning Officer was duly appointed by the Township's Board of Commissioners on November 8, 2000 and he was so serving at the time of submission of the zoning applications in question and continues to so serve to the date hereof. 2. The Black property is zoned (A) AgriculturaL 3. The Blacks, prior to March 28, 2002 obtained approval by the Township for a Land Development Plan for the Black property which plan is recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cum berI and County, 4. The Blacks' proposed use of the property includes, (1) two greenhouses and field area to grow plants; (2) storage of seed, fertilizer, vegetative and non vegetative landscaping materials including tan bark, paving stone, gravel, etc.; (3) storage and maintenance of equipment related to on-site activities as well as for off-site lawn and other vegetative and non-vegetative landscaping equipment, as well as snow plowing equipment; and (4) office and facilities for the employees including locker room and bathroom. 5. The business operated by Black is multi,.faceted including but not limited to growing plants, delivering and installing landscaping materials off-site (including vegetative and non-vegetative materials), off-site seeding, landscape maintenance and snow plowing. The on-site activities generate less cash flow than the off-site activities described above. IV. Conclusions of Law. I, The Zoning Officer is authorized and empowered to issue zoning permits m accordance with provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the MPC. 2, The Zoning Officer acted properly in issuing the permits for the listed uses. Discussion: 4 " . ~ . The issue before the Zoning Hearing Board is whether the Zoning Officer was correct in his decision to issue the requested permits by interpreting the Zoning Ordinance and finding that the Black's proposed use of the property was permitted under the Ordinance. The following statutory authority is relevant to the decision of the Board: The following Sections refer to the Upper Allen Township Code of Ordinances: 1. Section 245-17. Use of buildings, structures and land restricted. "Except as provided by law or in this chapter, no building, structure or land in each district shall be used or occupied except for the purposes permitted in the district in the section of this Article applicable thereto," 2. Section 245- 1 8. Uses permitted by right "A use permitted by right shall be a use listed under the various zoning districts as a permitted use, subject to all applicable requirements contained within this chapter and after a zoning permit has been property issued." 3. Section 245-21. Uses by Special Exception. "Any use not specifically allowed elsewheroe in this chapter shall be allowed by special exception in the district or districts where and to the extent that similar uses are permitted or allowed by special exception, provided that said use meets the requirements for a special exception in the applicable district and does not constitute a public or private nuisance. The applicant must show that the use proposed is similar to other uses permitted or allowed by special exception and must further show that the proposed use will not constitute a public or private nuisance or violate any provisions of this chapter. " 4. Section 245-22. Accessory Uses and Structures. "Accessory uses and structures shall be permitted in conjunction with the principal uses permitted by this chapter and shall be further subject to the requirements for accessory uses and structures as set forth in this chapter." 5. Section 245-23. Table of Use Regulations. 5 '. .. "The uses permitted in the districts established by this chapter are as shown in the following Use Schedules. The uses shown as permitted in each district are the only uses permitted in the district, and all other uses are subject to 245-21." District Conservation District Agricultural District Rural Residential District Suburban Residential District Urban Residential District Planned Residential Development District Use Schedule A B C D E F Schedule B of the Zoning Ordinance lists uses which are permitted by right or by special exception. Crop farming and greenhouse uses are permitted of right. It is understood that Blacks previously applied for a special exception to permit uses of the property to be used for the same uses as proposed under the permits which are the subject of this appeaL That special exception originally granted by the Zoning Hearing Board was denied on remand and is now on appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. The decision in the special exception case is not, however, dispositive of the issue presented in this case. The testimony from MI". Black and the Zoning Officer as well as the application/exhibits presented at the hearings are consistent as to the following matters. Black desires to use his property as part of his landscaping business. Black's work is primarily done off site. The proposed uses include raising of plants and other vegetative materials; storage of materials used in landscaping; storage and maintenance of vehicles and equipment to be used in the raising of the vegetative material as well as in the off site landscaping and incidental snow plowing activities, and the office uses described by Black, Black argues that the off-site activities of planting .rod maintaining lawns and ornamental plants, trees, etc., as well as some on-site activities, including storage of non vegetative materials, storage and maintenance of equipment not primmily used in raising crops or operating the greenhouse are permitted as "agricultural uses" in general, and/or as accessory uses for the "greenhouses" and "crop farming" which are themselves permitted uses under the Zoning Ordinance. 6 .. The Zoning Officer has the right to consider all information available to him in making a determination that the requested use and building permits comply with the uses and structures permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Black and the attorney for the Zoning Officer argue that the Zoning Officer correctly used available relevant sources to assist him in his determination that the permits should be issued, Stathas argues that the Zoning Officer as a matter of law and fact had no reason to "interpret" the Zoning Ordinance in the face of the explicit list of uses permitted in the Agricultural District, as well as the plain meaning of the terms "crop farming" and "greenhouse". Stathas points out further that "agricultural services" is in fact not a specific use permitted in the (A) Agricultural Zone. Black argues that to not allow "agriculture services" would do an irrational injustice to the intent of the Commissioner in adopting the Zoning Ordinance. Stathas argues that off-site landscaping, maintenance and snow removal are not agricultural services. In exercising authority to issue permits under zoning ordinances a Zoning Officer has certain statutory and case law guidance, The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code provides interpretive guidelines under Section 603,1 (53 P.S, 10603,1) Section 603.1. Interpretation of Ordinance Provisions. In interpreting the language of zoning ordinances to determine the extent of the restriction upon the use of the property, the language shall be interpreted, where the doubt exists as to the intended meaning of the language written and enacted bv the governing bc!Qy (emphasis added), in favor of the property owner and against aily implied extension of the restriction. Section 614 of the MPC defines the duties of the Zoning Officer as follows ". , , The Zoning Officer shall administer the zoning ordinance in accordance with its literal terms, and shall not have the power to permit any construction or any use or change of use which does not conform to the zoning ordinance." The Blacks, in the use permit application requested permission for crop farming, nursery, greenhouse, agricultural services and accessory uses. Crop farming and greenhouse uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance as permitted uses. The Zoning Officer interpreted the uses described by Black as included in a broad interpretation of the terms "agricultural services" and "accessory uses". Black supports this broad interpretation as being consistent with Section 603.1 above. 7 . .. R van on Zoning provides clarity to these issues by concluding that the key to this issue is the "intent of the (governing) Board", which can be ascertained from the language of the ordinance "with the aid, IF NECESSARY (emphasis added), of the usual interpretation tools." In this case the Zoning Hearing Board reviewed the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Township in December 1999. Agriculture is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: "Agriculture: The production, keeping, or maintenance, for sale, lease, or personal use, of plants and animals useful to man, including by not limited to; forages and sod crops; grains and seed crops; dairy animals and dairy products, poultry and poultry products; livestock, including beef cattle, sheep, swine, horses, ponies, mules, or goats or any mutations or hybrids thereof, including the breeding and grazing of any or all such animals; bees and apiary products; fur animals; trees and forest products; fruits of all kinds, including grapes, nuts, and berries; vegetables; nursery, floral, ornamental, and greenhouse products; or lands devoted to a soil conservation or forestry management program." The Board notes that one of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan is: "To promote continuations of agricultural activities on prime farm land sites by permitting a wide variety of farm related land uses, supplemental farm business and other compatible activities, and significantly curtailing non-farm activities," (See page 4-2) The Board concluded that a "typical" farm generally may have truck, trailer, plows, generator, tilling equipment, milking equipment and that such equipment may be used on the farmers own land or be contracted out to other landowners and or farmers, and that such equipment may include snow plowing. The actual uses proposed by Black cannot exist without plant material. Most of the property will be used for growing and maintaining plant materiaL Such plant material of necessity will have to be marketed and maintained :md would necessitate tree planting, mulching, fertilizing and designing of retaining walls and walkways and to maintain such plants and on a continual basis and as such most functions are those that would be encompassed by a nursery and crop farmers. Black argues that the 7,200 square foot building will be used for office/warehouse and is accessory to his operations.. The Zoning Officer must find (Section 245-13 of the Ordinance) that the building must be "used for purposes customarily incidental to the rnain building" which in turn must be used for a permitted use or one approved by special exception, conditional use or vanance, 8 ,,' .. In this case the Board finds that the 7200 sqmrre foot building is accessory to the greenhouse and crop farming (nursery) pemlitted uses and is used to support all of the activities listed by Black in his application subject to the conclusions set forth herein. Conclusions, 1. The permits issued by the Zoning Officer related to the construction and use of the poly greenhouse is reaffirmed. 2. The actions of the Zoning Officer to issue a building permit to finish the interior of the existing structure is reaffirmed. 3. The issuance of the permits as related to the permitted use of the properly for agricultural uses and crop farm as proposed by Black is reaffirmed as to such use. Permitted uses shall be as listed in the description of work attached to Zoning Permit Application dated March 28, 2002, except that no off site debris may be brought on and or maintained at the properly, 4. The issuance of the permit as relates to the use of the renovated existing building as accessory for the use described by Black as agricultural uses and crop farming is reaffirmed subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 3 herein. Motion moved by Herbert Thieme and seconded by James Soure~. "'; Dated: c~ )" -/ , /> ! 1 /. j'K{)/f\ " ' J.. '11/ . / r ,'"."" ('1/1- II i v Dean Otto, Chairman voted yes /~jl-ufc~__, Q..JjN Herbert Thieme voted yes 9 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN 8: SPARE . . .' EDWARD E, STATHAS and MARlL YN E. STATHAS, Appellants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA i' i v. No. 2003- /J. 5>5 CIVIL TERM ZONING HEARING BOARD OF UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Appellee (") c..~ ^( {'" ~ -~. ---'" ' "-1 - ~ [J~?!: ~ r~l;q Z_~. L... v" ";;-n ~~ ~- r-- ?\: ~l; <C) ~-o ~ ..;(~} >'\--) --'"'" -;= Z/-', _- t.':") " :>:= t:? .,~~r-n Appellants Edward E. Stathas and Marilyn A. Stathas file this Land liifs: Aweal Ji!:.;bm a -::. ~-J ~ LAND USE APPEAL NOTICE OF LAND USE APPEAL decision of the Upper Allen Township Zoning Hearing Board pursuant to Section 1002-A of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act ofJuly 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. 9 11 002-A, and in support thereof state the following: 1. Appellants Edward E. Stathas and Marilyn A, Stathas, husband and wife, are adult individuals residing l350 E. Lisburn Road, Mechanicsburg, Upper Allen Township, Pennsylvania. 2, Appellee is the Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Allen Township, a quasi-judicial administrative body of the Township of Upper Allen with an office located at 100 Gettysburg Pike, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. 3_ Gregory Black and Christy Black (the "Blacks"), husband and wife, are adult individuals and the owners of an improved tract of land consisting of approximately five acres located in Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, commonly known as 1360 E. Lisburn Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania (hereinafter the "Premises"). 4. The Blacks' Premises is located in the (A) Agricultural zoning district in Upper Allen Township (the "Township") and adjoins the property and residence of Appellants located at 1350 E. Lisbum Road. 1='Vh;'h;1- Hp'T1 I~ i I I I " ..., 5. Gregory Black ("Black") is sole owner and operator of a landscape contacting business known as Black Landscaping, Inc" which business has been in existence for approximately 1 0 years. 6. On December 21, 1999, the Blacks applied to the Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Allen Township (the "Board") for a special exception for purposes of using the then unimproved Premises as a landscape contractor's office. 7. Chapter 245 (Zoning) of the Code of Upper Allen Township (the "Zoning Ordinance"), Table of Use Regulations, Schedule B, permits contractors' offices and storage in the Agricultural District only by special exception, 8. The Blacks' special exception request was initially granted by the Board by a written decision dated February 10,2000, 9. On April 9, 2001, this Court in an action docketed to No. 2000-8863 granted Appellants' Petition for leave to file an appeal nunc pro tunc from the Board's February lO, 2000 decision due to the Township's failure to provide notice to Appellants of the special exception hearing before the Board, which in turn related to the Blacks' failure properly to identify all adjoining property owners, among them the Appellants, in the Blacks' application for special exception. 10. On August 1, 2001 this Court in the action docketed to No. 2000-8863 remanded the special exception matter to the Board for a new hearing. 1 l. After a series of hearings before the Board, the Board by written decision dated March 13,2002 reversed their initial decision and denied the Blacks' request for a special LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE exception to use the Premises as a landscape contractor's office. 2 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE ',' 0:. . , 12, On or about March 28, 2002, Gregory Black submitted two zoning permit applications and a building permit application to the Township, seeking approval from the Township Zoning Officer to erect a greenhouse and use the Premises, which included an existing 7,200 square feet structure, for "crop farming, nursery, greenhouses, agricultural services and accessory uses". l3. After the Board issued its written decision on March l3, 2002 and prior to the submission of the zoning and building permit applications on March 28, 2002, Gregory Black and his attorney met with and spoke with the Zoning Officer, who recommended to Mr. Black's attorney terminology for use in the applications that would assist the Zoning Officer in approving the applications that were submitted. 14. On April 4, 2002, the Zoning Officer issued zoning and building permits allowing a "new poly greenhouse" to be used on the Premises and the interior of the existing 7,200 square feet structure to be finished and used as "accessory office/storage related to agricultural services and green house." l5, Prior to the issuance of the permits by the Zoning Officer on April 4, 2002, the Zoning Officer knew that the Board had denied the Blacks' special exception request to use the Premises as a landscape contractor's office and storage for the operation of Black Landscaping, Inc. 16, Prior to the issuance of the permits by the Zoning Officer on April 4, 2002, the Zoning Officer knew that the uses the Blacks proposed on the Premises under their applications for zoning and building permits were identical to the uses proposed by the Blacks in their special exception request for a landscape contractor's office and storage. o ~ 17. On or about April 12, 2002 Appellants filed an appeal with the Board from the Zoning Officer's issuance of the Apri14, 2002 zoning and building permits. l8. On July 1 1,2002 the Board appointed Steven], Fishman, Esquire as hearing officer (the "Hearing Officer") to conduct the hearing on the appeal ofMr. and Mrs, Stathas on behalf of the Board. 19. After the presentation of testimony and evidence, the Hearing Officer issued written findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending to the Board to find that the Zoning Officer's issuance of the zoning permits was in error and contrary to law. 20. In disregard of the Hearing Officer's recommendations, the Board on February 20, 2003, issued a written decision (the "Decision") affimling (or reaffirming) the Zoning Officer's issuance of the zoning and building permits in all respects, except that the Board found that no off site debris may be brought on and/or maintained at the Premises. A true and correct copy of the Board's February 20,2003 decision is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as "Exhibit A". 2l. The Board's Decision entered February 20, 2003 was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, not supported by substantial evidence and contrary to law for the following reasons, among others: a. by finding the Zoning Officer acted properly in issuing the permits for the listed uses; b. by failing properly to interpret and apply provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, particularly Section 245-13, 245-17, 245..l 8,245-20,245-22 and 245-23; c. by affirming the issuance of the permits by the Zoning Officer and thereby permitting as of right uses not listed or provided for under Section 245-23 of the Zoning Ordinance and the applicable Table of Use Regulations, contrary to Section 245-17, 245-l 8, and 245-20. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE 4 ,.. d. by failing properly to interpret and apply the provisions of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, specifically Sections 603,l and 614 (53 Pa,C.S.A ~ l0603.01 and 910614, respectively); e. by affirming the issuance of the permits contrary to the provisions of Sections 603.1 and 614 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code; f. by relying upon (and/or finding the Zoning Officer properly relied upon) definitions and descriptions contained in the Township's Comprehensive Plan, the 1987 edition of the Standard Industrial Classifi,cations manual and from the Harrisburg Builders Exchange (of which organization Gregory Black is President); g. by concluding and making assumptions about what comprised typical farm operations and equipment without any evidence or testimony on such matters; h, by finding that the existing 7,200 square feet building on the Premises was accessory to Black's operations; 1. by failing to find that the use proposed by the Blacks, which use had been earlier denied by the Board, could only be approved by way of special exception; J. by failing properly to interpret the Zoning Ordinance definitions of "accessory use", "main building", "accessory building", "accessory use" "principal use"; k. by finding that the 7,200 square foot office/warehouse structure was an accessory building; I. by finding that the greenhouse was the main building on the Premises; m. by finding that,the 7,200 square foot office/warehouse structure is accessory to the greenhouse and crop farming uses and is used by Black to support all ofthe activities listed; n. by finding that the uses listed in the description of work listing proposed by Black were permitted uses as of right; o. by reaffirming the issuance of the permits as they related to the use of the Premises for" agricultural uses"; LAW OFFICES SNElBAKER. BRENNEMAN 8: SPARE p. by reaffirming the issuance of the permit relating to the renovation of the existing building as accessory for or used to support the use described by Black as agricultural uses and crop farming; q. by issuing the Decision without the Board in its entirety attending the hearings 5 where testimony and evidence was offered and given; r. by conducting zoning hearings and meetings of the Board without a quorum as provided by law; s. by its hearing officer, improperly excluding photographic and documentary evidence offered by Appellants which was relevant to the case; t. by allowing uses, through approving zoning permits, that were identical to those uses earlier denied by the Board by its denial of Blacks' special exception request; and u. to the extent not otherwise noted above, by making Conclusions I through 4 of its Decision. WHEREFORE, Appellants request this Court to reverse the decision of the Upper Allen Township Zoning Hearing Board and deny Gregory and Christy Black the zoning and building permits issued April 4, 2002 by the Zoning Officer. SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C. ~~ BY: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PAl 7055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Appellants Date: March 21, 2003 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE 6 ,'. IN RE: APPLICATION OF EDWARD E. and MARILYN A. STATHAS BEFORE THE Z01\TJNG HEARING BOARD OF UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA An Appeal NO. 02-6 DECISION L Historv. On March 28, 2002, Gregory and Christy Black, owners of the property known and numbered as 1360 East Lisbum Road, Mechanicsburg, Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (the "Black property") applied to Upper Allen Township (the "Township") for two (2) zoning permits. One application requested a permit to erect a 20 foot by 80 foot greenhouse on the Black property. In the description of work Black identified "uses" to be associated with the requested building as follows: Applicant requests a zoning permit under Section 245-119, A of the Upper Allen Township Zoning Ordinance to use the land, the existing building and a proposed greenhouse on the property. The property will be used for uses permitted by right by the Zoning Ordinance including crop farming, nursery, greenhouses, agricultural services and accessory uses, Uses including growing, raising, maintaining or harvesting of grasses, plants and trees, both on and off-sit, and also include the activities classified by the Harrisburg Builders Exchange, Construction Specifications Institute under Category 02900, Planting. Accessory uses may include, but are not limited to, tanbark storage and delivery, storage and maintenance of required equipment, periodic use of equipment for mowing or snow removal and temporary storage of unused or surplus materials, supplies and debris. A building permit is requested for a main building as a greenhouse at 1,600 sq. ft., located within the area shown as a future poly-house on the approved land development plan. A building permit previously was issued for the existing building. 1 EXHIBIT A .( " The other permit application requested permission for a change of use to convert an existing vacant non-residential building for use as an accessory office building and storage related to agricultural services and greenhouse. The Township Zoning Officer issued the two (2) requested zoning permits on April 4, 2002. The Zoning Officer also. issued a Certificate of Use :md Occupancy on AprilS, 2002. On April 11, 2002, Edward and Marilyn Stathas filed an appeal with the To.wnship's Zoning Hearing Board (the "ZHB") seeking to have the decisions of the Zoning Officer in granting the above zoning permits reversed and the permits revoked (the "Stathas appeal"). On April 16, 2002, a Stop Work Order was issued by the Township. The ZHB held hearings on the Stathas appeal on May 9, June 13 and June 20, 2002, but no testimony on the merits of the appeal was taken, On July 11, 2002, the ZHB appointed Steven J. Fishman, Esquire, as Hearing Officer to receive testimo.ny and present to. the ZHB recommendations, including proposed findings of fact and conclusions oflaw, on resolving the Stathas appeal. Testimony was taken by the Hearing Officer on October 21 and 24, 2002, after which all parties rested and the matter is now ripe for adjudication by the ZHB. II. Statement of the Case. The Black property is zoned (A) Agricultural. Chapter 245 of the Co.de o.fUpper Allen To.wnship (the "Zoning Ordinance"), provides tables of permitted uses applicable to. the various zoning districts. Among the permitted uses in the Agricultural District are "greenho.uses" and "crop fanning". Greenhouses are not specifically defined or described in the Zoning Ordinance, Crop fanning is defined as "ftlhe raising, keeping and sale o.f field. truck and tree crops." (Section 245-13). The Zoning Ordinance in Section 245-115A states as follows: "The Zoning Officer shall have the autho.rity to issue pernlits only for construction and uses which are in conformance with the requirements of this chapter." The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code ("MPC"), ~603.1 states that "[iJn interpreting the language of zoning ordinances to determine the extent of the restriction upon the use of the property, the language shall be interpreted, where doubt exists as to the intended meaning of the language written and enacted by the governing body, in favor of the property o.wner and against any implied extension of the restriction." The Zoning Officer testified that he reviewed provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the MPC prior to issuing the zo.ning permits in question. The Zo.ning Officer also. testified that he 2 '.i .. consulted the 1987 edition of the "Standard lndustrial Classifications" promulgated by the U.S. Government Printing Office. The Zoning Officer further testified that he had met with Mr. Black, owner of Black Landscaping Contracting, lnc., the proposed occupant of the Black property, to determine the nature and proposed conduct of Mr. Black's business on the Black property. Mr. Black testified that he proposed to grow plants, shrubs and trees on the premises, both in the field and in the proposed greenhouses. He also plans to store materials including seed, fertilizer and tan bark and non-vegetative landscaping materials on the premises; to store equipment and vehicles for use on the premises and off-site in lawn establishment, maintenance (including mowing) and general landscaping, Mr. Black also intends to maintain an office in the previously unoccupied building along with locker and bathrooms for his employees. The Zoning Officer testified that he was familiar with other landscape contractors who own land and operate in Upper Allen Township, (two of whom, Gutshalls and H&N, are also in the agricultural zoning district) and are either adjacent to or within sight of the Stathas property, (which is the property immediately to the west and adjacent to the Black property). The Zoning Officer testified that he personally visited and inspected the operations of two landscape contractors, one located in the Township and the other located in Mechanicsburg Borough. Finally, the Zoning Officer testified that uses identified by Black are classified by the Harrisburg Builders Exchange under category 02900-(Planting). ln addition, Black cites his P A Department of Agriculture licensing as a "Nursery Dealer". Stathas counters with evidence that Black's insurance coverage indicates that he is a "landscape contractor". Based on his review of these operations and his personal observations, as well as the application and supporting material which accompanied the permit applications, the Zoning Officer issued the zoning permits in question. The Stathas appeal asserts that the Zoning Officer erred in unnecessarily interpreting the list of pemlitted uses in the Agricultural District and in misinterpreted the Zoning Ordinance and thereby improperly issued the zoning permits in question, Stathas argues that Black in his application, his insurance and in both his and his fatller's testimony that he was in actuality a "landscaping contractor", The words "landscape contractor" are not listed as a permitted use in the agricultural zoning district, ,md Stathas argues that it is therefore not a permitted use. Stathas also argued the landscape contracting business is not an "agricultural" business. Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Zoning Officer has no discretion to interpret the Zoning Ordinance and in so doing in this case and issuing the zoning permits to what Appellant identifies as a landscape contractor, the Zoning Officer exceeded his authority. At the two (2) hearings before the Hearing Officer, testimony was taken from the Zoning Officer and from Gregory Black. Mr. Black was called to testify as on cross examination by 3 " counsel for Stathas and later on direct examination by Applicant's counseL No other witness testimony was taken. III. Finding of Fact. 1. The Zoning Officer was duly appointed by the Township's Board of Commissioners on November 8, 2000 and he was so serving at the time of submission of the zoning applications in question and continues to so serve to the date hereof. 2. The Black property is zoned (A) AgriculturaL 3. The Blacks, prior to March 28, 2002 obtained approval by the Township for a Land Development Plan for the Black property which plan is recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County. 4. The Blacks' proposed use of the property includes, (1) tWo greenhouses and field area to grow plants; (2) storage of seed, fertilizer, vegetative and non vegetative landscaping materials including tan bark, paving stone, gravel, etc.; (3) storage and maintenance of equipment related to em-site activities as well as for off-site lawn and other vegetative and non-vegetative landscaping equipment, as well as snow plowing equipment; and (4) office and facilities for the employees including locker room and bathroom. 5. The business operated by Black is multi..faceted including but not limited to growing plants, delivering and installing landscaping materials off-site (including vegetative and non-vegetative materials), off-site seeding, landscape maintenance and snow plowing, The on-site activities generate less cash flow than the off-site activities described above. IV. Conclusions of Law, 1. The Zoning Officer is authorized and empowered to issue zoning permits In accordance with provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the MPe. 2, The Zoning Officer acted properly in issuing the permits for the listed uses. Discussion: 4 The issue before the Zoning Hearing Board is whether the Zoning Officer was correct in his decision to issue the requested permits by interpreting the Zoning Ordinance and finding that the Black's proposed use of the property was permitted under the Ordinance. The following statutory authority is relevant to the decision of the Board: The following Sections refer to the Upper Allen Township Code of Ordinances: 1. Section 245-17. Use of buildings, stmctures and land restricted. "Except as provided by law or in this chapter, no building, structure or land in each district shall be used or occupied except for the purposes permitted in the district in the section of this Article applicable thereto." 2. Section 245-18. Uses permitted by right. "A use permitted by right shall be a use listed under the various zoning districts as a permitted use, subject to all applicable requirements contained within this chapter and after a zoning permit has been property issued," 3, Section 245-21. Uses by Special Exception, "Any use not specifically allowed elsewhere in this chapter shall be allowed by special exception in the district or districts where and to the extent that similar uses are permitted or allowed by special exception, provided that said use meets the requirements for a special exception in the applicable district and does not constitute a public or private nuisance. ' The applicant must show that the use proposed is similar to other uses permitted or allowed by special exception and must fuJiher show that the proposed use will not constitute a public or private nuisance or violate any provisions of this chapter. " 4. Section 245-22. Accessory Uses and Structures. "Accessory uses and structures shall be permitted in conjunction with the principal uses permitted by this chapter and shall be further subject to the requirements for accessory uses and structures as set forth in this chapter." 5. Section 245-23. Table of Use Regulations. 5 "The uses permitted in the districts established by this chapter are as shown in the following Use Schedules. The uses shown as permitted in each district are the only uses permitted in the district, and all other uses are subject to 245-21." District Conservation District Agricultural District Rural Residential District Suburban Residential District Urban Residential District Planned Residential Development District Use Schedule A B C D E F Schedule B of the Zoning Ordinance lists uses which are permitted by right or by special exception. Crop farming and greenhouse uses are permitted of right. It is understood that Blacks previously applied for a special exception to permit uses of the property to be used for the same uses as proposed under the permits which are the subject of this appeaL That special exception originally granted by the Zoning Hearing Board was denied on remand and is now on appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. The decision in the special exception case is not, however, dispositive of the issue presented in this case. The testimony from 1\1r. Black and the Zoning Officer as well as the application/exhibits presented at the hearings are consistent as to the following matters. Black desires to use his property as part of his landscaping business. Black's work is primarily done off site. The proposed uses include raising of plants and other vegetative materials; storage of materials used in landscaping; storage and maintenance of vehicles and equipment to be used in the raising of the vegetative material as well as in the off site landscaping and incidental snow plowing activities, and the office uses described by Black. Black argues that the off-site activities of planting ,md maintaining lawns and ornamental plants, trees, etc., as well as some on-site activities, including storage of non vegetative materials, storage and maintenance of equipment not primarily used in raising crops or operating the greenhouse are permitted as "agricultural uses" in general, and/or as accessory uses for the "greenhouses" and "crop farming" which are themselves permitted uses under the Zoning Ordinance. 6 " The Zoning Officer has the right to consider all information available to him in making a determination that the requested use and building permits comply with the uses and structures permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Black and the attorney for the Zoning Officer argue that the Zoning Officer correctly used available relevant sources to assist him in his determination that the permits should be issued, Stathas argues that the Zoning Officer as a matter of law and fact had no reason to "interpret" the Zoning Ordinance in the face of the e:xplicit list of uses permitted in the Agricultural District, as well as the plain meaning of the terms "crop farming" and "greenhouse". Stathas points out further that "agricultural services" is in fact not a specific use permitted in the (A) Agricultural Zone. Black argues that to not allow "agriculture services" would do an irrational injustice to the intent of the Commissioner in adopting the Zoning Ordinance. Stathas argues that off-site landscaping, maintenance and snow removal are not agricultural services. In exercising authority to issue permits under zoning ordinances a Zoning Officer has certain statutory and case law guidance. The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code provides interpretive guidelines under Section 603,1 (53 P,S, 10603.1) Section 603.1. Interpretation of Ordinance Provisions. In interpreting the language of zoning ordinances to determine the extent of the restriction upon the use of the property, the language shall be interpreted, where the doubt exists as to the intended meanine: of the lan2:Uage written and enacted bv the e:overnine: bc>Qy (emphasis added), in favor of the property owner and against any implied extension of the restriction. Section 614 of the MPC defines the duties of the Zoning Officer as follows ". . . The Zoning Officer shall administer the zoning ordinance in accordance with its literal terms, and shall not have the power to permit any construction or any use or change of use which does not conform to the zoning ordinance." The Blacks, in the use permit application requested permission for crop farming, nursery, greenhouse, agricultural services and accessory uses, Crop fanning and greenhouse uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance as permitted uses. The Zoning Officer interpreted the uses described by Black as included in a broad interpretation of the terms "agricultural services" and "accessory uses". Black supports this broad interpretation as being consistent with Section 603,1 above. 7 , , Rvan on Zoning provides clarity to these issues by concluding that the key to this issue is the "intent of the (governing) Board", which can be ascertained from the language of the ordinance "with the aid, IF NECESSARY (emphasis added), of the usual interpretation tools." In this case the Zoning Hearing Board reviewed the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Township in December 1999, Agriculture is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: "Agriculture: The production, keeping, or maintenance, for sale, lease, or personal use, of plants and animals useful to man, including by not limited to; forages and sod crops; grains and seed crops; dairy animals and dairy products, poultry and poultry products; livestock, including beef cattle, sheep, swine, horses, ponies, mules, or goats or any mutations or hybrids thereof, including the breeding and grazi:ng of any or all such animals; bees and apiary products; fur animals; trees and forest products; fruits of all kinds, including grapes, nuts, and berries; vegetables; nursery, floral, ornamental, and greenhouse products; or lands devoted to a soil conservation or forestry management program." The Board notes that one of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan is: "To promote continuations of agricultural activities on prime farm land sites by permitting a wide variety of farm related land uses, supplemental farm business and other compatible activities, and significantly curtailing non-farm activities." ( See page 4-2) The Board concluded that a "typical" farm generally may have truck, trailer, plows, generator, tilling equipment, milking equipment and that such equipment may be used on the farmers own land or be contracted out to other landowners and or farmers, and that such equipment may include snow plowing. The actual uses proposed by Black cannot exist without plant material. Most of the property will be used for growing and maintaining plant materiaL Such plant material of necessity will have to be marketed and maintained and would necessitate tree planting, mulching, fertilizing and designing of retaining walls and walkways and to maintain such plants and on a continual basis and as such most functions are those that would be encompassed by a nursery and crop farmers, Black argues that the 7,200 square foot building will be used for office/warehouse and is accessory to his operations. The Zoning Officer must find (Section 245-13 of the Ordinance) that the building must be "used for purposes customarily incidental to the main building" which in turn must be used for a permitted use or one approved by special exception, conditional use or vanance. 8 In this case the Board finds that the 7200 square foot building is accessory to the greenhouse and crop farming (nursery) pemlitted uses and is used to support all of the activities listed by Black in his application subject to the conclusions set forth herein. Conclusions. 1. The permits issued by the Zoning Officer related to the construction and use of the poly greenhouseisreaffrrrned. 2. The actions of the Zoning Officer to issue a building permit to finish the interior of the existing structure is reaffirmed. 3. The issuance of the permits as related to the permitted use of the property for agricultural uses and crop farm as proposed by Black is reaffirmed as to such use. Permitted uses shall be as listed in the description of work attached to Zoning Permit Application dated March 28, 2002, except that no off site debris may be brought on and or maintained at the property. 4. The issuance of the permit as relates to the use of the renovated existing building as accessory for the use described by Black as agricultural uses and crop farming is reaffirmed subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 3 herein. Motion moved by Herbert Thieme and seconded by James Souret. Dated: " J- ':0 f ~_, , "c ( 1 /11/{\ ," J' !,K.::J, /iv \, &'Ut /( / v Dean Otto, Chirman voted yes /~j!-(,'fc~J Uj~~ Herbert Thieme voted yes 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have on the below date, caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Land Use Appeal to be served upon the persons and in the manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL. POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Charles E. Zaleski, Esquire Reager & Adler, P. e. 2331 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Dusan Bratic, Esquire lOI U. S. Route 15 South Dillsburg, PA 17019 William E. Miller, Jr., Esquire Miller & Associates, p, C. 1822 Market Street Camp Hill, PAl 7011 LAW OFFICES SNElBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE I;J~~ Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, p, C 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (7 1 7) 697-8528 Attorneys for Appellants Edward E. Stathas and Marilyn A. Stathas Date: March 21, 2003 illWi'lID E. ST"'.THAS ""2ID MARILYN E. STATIli',S IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBL~LAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. ZONING HEARING OOAIID OF UPPER ALLEN 'I'CWNSHIP NO, 03-1255 CIVIL TERM WRI~~ OF CERTIORARI COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) SS. COU'HY OF CUMBERLAND) TO: ZONING HEI\..;:aNG OOARD OF lIPPER ALLEN KMNS:'UP, We. being w'illing for' certain reasons, to have certified a certain action beU'ieen E1J;<@JID E. STATllAS ,I\N[) MARILYN E. STA'I'H.JI.S..YS. 7.oNTNG HFARTNG ROAR)) OF UPPER ALLEN 'I'CWNSHIP penr;;,ng before you, do cOTID'md you that the record of' the action aforesaid with all things concm:ning said acticn, shall be certified and sent to our judges of our Court of Ccr'lTon Pleas at Carlisle, within 20 days of the date hereof, together with this "cit; so that we may further cause to be done that which ought to "De done accorC~ing to the la\IJS and Constitution of this CaTr'OC>nwealth~ WITNESS. ::ne Honorable GEDRGE E. HOFFER, P. J. . ""._"..""~~"",.,,,,-~ our said Court, at Carlisle, Pa", the _21ST.. day of MI>= 2003-' TRUE COpY FROM RECORD, ~ T- ~.--'1=;" ." #~s:i~ i ~'.~r~ :.m~\1: SCl fH~ n';~j:4', n;'l! ~ a')l1."lO~J'\.:t;:' "..... ,-' - ...., .. " ,'.. ,- "1'''-& "" :a:r.;d tA1 s;.::~\ ~;;l ~j.1{.o ';.,.:J<l.Jn d1 ""dL~~~ J"G.. _ n,*;i~:: '3i1 l~I.(J1.,."aJ,~ ~~) ,.' ~.L- P .:Z!~.:a~lp-ct;- - 14t\''Il'>c2!'! CORns R. LONG Prothonotary ~2.71~PJ Exhibit "C" ;}'d 8,cd:-';SS-LTL ~uawdOTaA3a ~~IunWWD~ eu. 'so ED 92 ..Je;J ED'ttTARD E. S'l'ATa:a.s &'iD,. ~~ILYN Ea STAT}~3, IN TRB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBEPLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V5. ...,. THE ZONING REARING BOARD ,TO~~SHIP OF UPPSR ALLEN, CCUNTY OF CUJoIBE:RLI\ND, PENlfS):LVAKIA, No, 03-1255 CIVIL TERM ANSWER ~'() WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND NOW,TEIS TEE 10TH DAY OF )\PRIL, 2003, GEAALD R, SOUDERS, ZONING OFFICER 0 THE TOWNSFJP OF UPPER ALLEN, COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, COMES SEFOR YOU, THE HO::,O;'<'>BLE JUDGE, GEORGE E, HOFFER, P.J" COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 0 CUMBERLAND ComITY, PENNSYLVANIA, IN RESPONSE TO THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI DATE TEE 21ST DAY OF j>!l'.RCH, 2003, IN REGARDS TO THE PENDING CASE BEFORE YOU,O EI,W,ARD E. STATHI'3 AND MARILYN E. STATHAS VS, ZONING HEARING BOARD OF UPPE ALLEN TOWNSElI', lffiEREAS YOU HAVE COMMANDED, TEA.T TRE RECORD OF ACTJ:ON IN TEE ABOVE REFERENCE WSTER AND F.LL THINGS CONCERNING SAID ACTION BE SENT TO THE COURT. I GERALD R, SOUDERS, ZONING OFFICER OF THE TOWNSHIP OF UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, COUNTY OF cm:mE~MD, PENNSYLVANIA, DO CERTIFY T3AT THE ATTACHED INDEX I RE:SPONSE TO WRIT OF CERTIORAcZC AND THE DOCUMENTS LISTED THEREIN WHICH AR HEREBY TF.l\}lSMITED ARE THE COMPLETE OFFICIAL RECO,RDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS I TEISCASE 3EFOF~E TC1E VPPER Jl.LLEN TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD, COl~nr OP' PE::.IiNS:~Ii71\NrA CO"Jlit'rY OF Ct~l.and, On this t:he lO:;;h day 0:: April, 2003,. before me, the under signed office!:', pe;:-sor.all apj)eared Ge::a..l::t K, S;OU'~S . -..,;he ac.mowlectges himse:J.f to be the ZONING OFFICER of the UP ALIJ:aiJ t'OWN"S-alfi. ;no t.h.at he as :;:u::n , being- authO.!"2.zed to do so, ~xecuted the foregain in ::trument for ~he PI..!~S the.re.:. n contained. / / m WIT~"QS/;m:al:mOF, I hereun-:.c set my hand and se?;l. r '{ ; .- '\ i / ~. , /? \'} f , ,,,,~!fti ii,""'/'c- 7,---- l . -"'~~---~ ; [ Gttr...la: 'R: SC'UQere :./ , NOTARIAl SEAl. NANCr f. ZEN11Iml IllWlY PUBliC Ul'I'EIl AIlfN lWP., CUMBERlAND COUNTY MY COMMISSION ElII'1RES IElRUAR'( 21. 2005 My Commission e~pires: (SEAL) Exhibit "D" ~'d B,'.i.E:- TSS-,c 1,c +uawdOIa^3Q h~~unwwo~ eSO:11 EO oT ~d~ Index RESPONSE TO ,)(RIT OF CERTIORARI, DATED MARCH 21, 2003 EXHmITS item # I Item #2 Item #3 hem #4 I,.em #5 Ii:em#6 Item #7 Item #8 Item #9 Item #10 Item #1l Item #12 1t=#13 Copy of Writ ofCertJorari, dated March 21,2003 and Attachment Uppec' Allen Township, Zoning Hearing Board Application, Submitted by ],11'" & Mrs, Stathas to Township, Marked "Received April 12, 2002~ Tr-dllScript of Upper pJlen Towr:ship Zoning Hearing Board, Copy of OriginaL Dated May 9, 2002 Trausmpt of Upper Allen Township Zoning Hearing Board, Copy of Original. Dat.ed JUle 13, 2002, Volurrce 2 :'rnns,;ript of Upper Allen Township Zoning Hearing Board, Copy of OriginaL Dated June 21, 2002, Volume 3 TrmlScript of Upper Allen Township Zoning Hearing Board, Copy of Orig-inaL Dated Ar:gust 8, 2002, Volume 4 Tr-clJ:lscript of Upper AJlen Township Zoning Hearing Board, Copy of OrigjrtaL Dated August 27, 2002, Volume 5 TroJ'lscript of Upper Allen Township Zoning Hearing Board, Copy of OrigjnaL Dated October 10, 2002 Trzx"script of Upper Allen Towmhip Zoning Hearing Board, Copy of OriginaL Dated October 21, 20,)2 Trmescript of Upper pJlen Township Zoning Hearing Board, Copy of OriginaL Dat,ecl October 24, 2002 TL'aIlS(,ript of Opper Allen Township Zc,ning Hearing Board, Copy of OriginaL Dated Jarmary 9, 2003 Transcript of Upper Allen Township Ze,ning Hearing Board, Copy of OriginaL Dated Jmmary 30, 2003, Volwne 7 Copy of Zoning Hearing Board Decisim No. 02-6 Gerald R. So ud trs E'd 8GLC- .,S5-l.1l. ~uawdOla^3a ~~JunwwoJ ~SD:ll ED 01 ~d~ ,." - lAW OF"FIC:::S SNEL3AKER, 2 REN NEMAN 8: SPARE - , ~ -ED WARDE. STATHAS and MARILYN A. STATHAS, Appellants v, ZONING HEARING BOARD OF UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Appellees and GREGORY E. BLACK and CHRISTY A. BLACK, Intervenors TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN-IHECOURI Q[c;OMr:J9N PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANrA : NO, 2003-1255 CIVIL ACTION PRAECIPE (') r- ~ -0[$ LpG zr"-' C/J)-.'" ~~; ~L~' 7... ::;:::<:1 -c:; ~ o w ",. -r:J : ~~ .i:!~ 0:0 ZO om :;;: ::0 -< o '17 -" '- ~ I'V '::J Please withdraw the Notice of Land Use Appeal filed by the Appellants in the above- captioned action and mark this case'discontinued and ended on your docket and indices. Date: April 17, 2003 - - - - SNELBAKER, BRliNNEMAN ~,SPARE, P. C. vi~VL- BY: Keith 0, Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street MechaIilcsburg,PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Appellants Edward E. Stathas and Marilyn A. Exhibit "E" Stathas CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have on the below date, caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to be served upon the persons and in the manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID, ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Charles E. Zaleski, Esquire Reager & Adler, P. C. 2331 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 170l I Dennis J. Shatto, Esquire Cleckner & Fearen 119 Locust Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Dusan Bratic, Esquire lOI U. S, Route l5 South Dillsburg, PA 17019 William E. Miller, Jr., Esquire Miller & Associates, P. e. 1822 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 r11W~ LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER BRENNEMAN & SPARE Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P, C. 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Edward E. Stathas and Marilyn A. Stathas Date: April I?, 2003 .. J ~ ._~ 1 _ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: M.A.RK E. LEWIS. PT--..sidem DAVID S. FRAZER Vice President VIRGINIA M. A.NDERSON JAMES G. COCHRAN JOSEPH J. qIICK COlVfMISSIONERS of UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHiP CUMBERLAND COUNTY JOO GFITYSBURG PIKE MECHANJCSBURG, PA 17055-5698 19 July 2004 TOWNSHIP MANAGER; LOU FAZEKAS TELEPHONE: 1717)766-0756 FAX: (717.1 796--9S33 E-MAIL: Lfmkas"@uppernJle1ltwp.org WEB PAGE: twp.upper-allen.p:Lus POSTMASTER: PLEASE,FORWARD TO ADDRESSEE VIA FIRST CLASS AND CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. and Mrs, Edward E. Stathas 1350 East Lisbum Road , Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 fILE COpy Re: Gregory and Christy Black Special Exception Request Before the Upper Allen Township Zoning Hearing Board Edward and Marilyn Stathas Appeal of Zoning Officer's Decision to the Upper Allen Township Zoning Hearing Board Dear Mr. and Mrs. Stathas: Upper Allen Township has incurred substantial costs as a result of the two above- referenced Zoning Hearing Board matters, which were concluded last year in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code CMPC") Sections 908 (1,1) and 908 (7) provide for reimbursement to the Township for advertising, administrative expenses, stenographer fees and transcripts in such cases. In the Black special exception case, you were labeled an appellant for a portion of the case" but the costs of transcripts, for which you othelWise would have been liable were ordered by the Zoning Hearing Board. I\s to your appeal from the decisions of the Zoning Officer, you were both applicants and appellants and are liable for the advertising and administrative costs for the court reporter appearance fees and hearing transcripts as is clearly provided by the above cited MPC Sections. Accordingly, under the authority of MPC Sections 908 (1.1) and (7) and the Township Fee Schedule, the Township hereby demands the payment of the total of $2,260.44 in the matter of your appeal from the Zoning Officer's decisions, Enclosed herewith is a summary of those costs, We should also advise you that the costs actually incurred by the Township in these matters far exceed the amounts reflected in the enclosed statement. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me, Sincerely, .'-..L/ .~ i ;.../--X:>e--~ ~,"1' -;.)~~v~!..--' Lou Fazekas Township Manager Exhib it "F" Enclosure cc: Mark E. Lewis, P.E., President . .., . COSTS DUE FROM MR. AND MRS. STATHAS STATHAS APPEAL FROM ZONING OFFICER'S DECISION: Administrative Costs: - Advertising (per hearing date) 05/09/02 $ 76.39 (% bill) 06/13/02 63,66 (% bill) 08/08/02 101.39 09/10/02 56,03 10/21/02 64.64 11/14/02 49.64 C bill) 01/09/03 72.96 (% bill) - Postage 82.74 Total Costs Less Filing Fee Paid $ 650.19' (400,OCU Subtotal 250.19 Court Reportinq Costs: - Appearance Fees (1/2 of applicable fees) 05/09/02 $ 50.00 06/13/02 50.00 06/21/02 22,50 0711102 60.00 08/08/02 37.50 08/27/02 43.75 10/10/02 56.25 10/21&24/02 45.00 11/14/02 1Q 7;:::' IU.J '-' 01/09/03 62.50 01/30/03 75.00 Subtotal $ 521.25 - Transcript Costs 07111/02 $ 24,00 05/09/02 247.50 06/13/02 118.25 ..........,......../,...,,..,, 129.25 VOIL I/UL 07/11/02 24.00 08/08/02 19.25 08/27/02 13.75 10/10/02 198,00 10/21 &24/02 550.00 01/09/03 270.00 01/30/03 447.00 Subtotal $ 1 ,489.0C~ TOTAL DUE $2,660.44 , " , . . '. ", COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF, CUMBERLAND Mal;. ElIIlL No,: 09-3".--05" CIVIL COMPLAINT OJ N._, Hoo,' GAYLE f.... ELDER Add_?O 7~NOF,W US; MECHANICSJ3tl'RG, PLAINTIFF r. _ __> . . . __. NAME, ~d ADDRESS WPER_.~ TO\1iNSE)JP 1qO: GETTYSBURG PIKE, , L<~G, FA 17055 'I .J T.'.phoo., ( 717) 766::4 57 5 DEFENDANr: r- t'l~E and ADDRESS I EDWl\RD E. STA1'RI\S and w.fuLYi~ A~ S]'A1'W'S, BSO EAST LI:S,BURN ROAD L MECiJJ.N.['CSBURG, FA 17055 VS. 'I .J Docket No" Date Filed: AMOUNT DATE PAID / / I / / / FILING COSTS $ SERVING COSTS $ TOTAL $ TO THE DEFENDANT: 'The above named plaint1fF(s) asks judgment against you for $ 2,660.44 together with costs upon the following claim (Civil fines must include citation of the statute or ordinance violated), Upper Allen Township (the "Township") asserts that Edward E. Stathas and Marilyn-A Stathas owe $2,560.44 to the Township on account of their failure to pay reimbursable costs properly charged to them under provisioGs of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning C,ode, 53 P,S. SS 10908(1.1) and 10908(7). The costs are attributable to advertising fees, transcript fees and one-half the cost of court reporter appearance fees incurred in the matter before the Township Zoning Hearing Board in the Appeal of Edward E, and Marilyn A Stathas from the Determination of the Zoning Officer, docketed to No. 02-6. - , I, ri)u fAZ~:; 'J.'<;)~ip iI.an:a$teT- ' verify that the facts set forth in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, informalion, and befieL This statement is made subject to the penalties Df Section 4904 of the Crimes CDde (18 PA, S.CA ii 4904) related to unsworn falsification to authorities. LWPPR"AtLm~~:t' By; . _ (SIj;loature of ~la10~ff. or A~thor~ed Agent) Leu Fazekas, Township 1-1anE.ger' ~~~~~~~ mii~'E. ~4U;;"7~ $'.\'" E$~iJ;e T .I.phon~: C71 n ']:5,7 ;g'ri 0: ' Add,...: 18-22 Market Street Carr!D F.ilL PA 17011 IF YOU INTEND TO ENTER A DEFENSE TO THIS COMPLAINT NOTIFY THIS OFFICEIMMEDIATEL Y AT THE ABOVE . .' . _' I TELEPHONE NUMBER YOU MUST APPEAR AT THE HEARING- AND PRESENT YOUR DEFENSE. UNLESS YOU DO, JUDGMENT Will BE ENTERED AGAINSTYOU BY DEFAULT. If you have a claim agafnst the plaintiff which is within district justice jurisdiction and which yoll intend to assert at the hearillg, you must file it on a complaint form at thls office at Jeast live (5) days before the date set for tile iieari.ng. If you have a dafm against the plaintiff which is ",at within district justice jurisdiction, you may request infmmation from this office as to the procedures you may foflow. < Exhibit "G" COMMONWEALTH OF PENN COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAN.U '.1 Mag. Dist. No' . .-1 OJ Name: Han. I ',"co" 1 I' T",pho"" (717) 766-4575 VANIA 17055 NOTICE ( JUDGMENTtTRANSCRIPT CIVIL CASE PLAINTIFF NAME and ADDRESS 'uPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP I 100 G]~TTYSBURG PIKE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 L ~ VS. DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS IsTATffi!\.S, EDWARD E, ET AL. 1350 EAST LISBURN ROAD MEC~~ICSBURG, PA 17055 L I 09-3-05 GAYLE A. ELDER 507 N YORK ST MECHANICSBURG, PA ,-ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ',-WILLIAM E MILLER JR MILLER & ASSOC 1822 MARKET ST CAMP HILL, PA 17011-4824 ~ CV-0000296-04 11/04/04 I Docket ~Jo,: Date FIIEld: THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: FOR PT.I\.TNTIFF [iJ [iJ Judgment was entered for: (Name) n'P'PR'R llT.T.17.N rrnWf\T!=:nfTP J JudgmElnt was entElrEld against: (Name) !'lTI\.THMl. F.DWI\.Rn F. in the amount of $ ? 7~~ 1Q on: (Date of Judgment) 1 10Fo 10" o Defendants are jointly and severally liable, 2"- 0 Damages will be assessed on: -" 0 This case dismissed without prejudice, (Date & Time) '-~.~, ,.,,' " 0 Amount of Judgment Subject to , " Attachmentl42 Pa,C.S. S 8127 $ , ' 0 Portion of Judgment for physical , damages arising out of residential lease $ Amount of Judgment $ 2,644.19 Judgment Costs $ 89.00 Interest on Judgment $ .00 Attorney Fees $ .00 Total $ 2,733.19 Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ ------------ ------------ Certified Judgment Total $ ,',\; , : ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT rD APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION, YOU ,MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NonCE OF JUDGMENTiTRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR DISTRICT JUSTICES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FUlnHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT .OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE DISTFlICT JUSTICE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE DISTRICT JUSTICE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. ';-,.' / / (p /0 5" Date I , District Justice I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the record of the proceedings containing the judgment. I j Date , District Justice I ~~-" '....,- My commission expires first Monday of January, 2006. ., Exlnb l t "H" AOPC 315-03 DATE PRINTED: 1/07/05 1: 11: 21 PM SEAL . -, COMMONWEALTH OF PENN. COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND VANIA NOTICE \. JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT CIVIL CASE PLAINTIFF: NAME and ADDRESS 'uPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP -, 100 GETTYSBURG PIKE MECHAliIICSBURG, PA 17055 L ~ VS. Mag. Dis\. No.: '''''~', ,1 DJ N,m" Hoc I 09-3-05 Address' GAYLE A. ELDER 507 N YORK ST MECHANICSBURG, PA Te~phpne (717) 766-4575 17055 DEFENDANT: NAME alldADDRESS IsTATHA.s, EDWARD E, ET AL. 1350 EAST LISBURN ROAD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 L -, UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP 100 GETTYSBURG PIKE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 Docket No.: cv- 0000296 - 04 Date Filed: 11/04/04 ~ "~,,,.,,- ~ "".,"", "THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: FOR PI.AINTIFF [iJ [iJ Judgment was entered jor: (Name) npPRR lIT.r.R1IT 'T'O~IN!lHTP Judgment was entered against: (Name) flTA'T'HlIS. MlIRTI.YN II ", in the amount of $ :2 7~~ 1q on: (Date of Judgment) 1/06/0'i ': D Defendants are jointly and severally liable, D Damages will be assessed on: D This case dismissed without prejudice. (Date & Time) D Amount of Judgment Subject to Attachment/42 Pa.C.S. S 8127 $ , 0 Portion of Judgment for physical damages arising out of residential lease $ Amount of Judgment $ 2,644.19 Judgment Costs $ 89.00 Interest on Judgment $ .00 Attorney Fees $ .00 Total $ 2,733.19 Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ ------------ ------------ Certified Judgment Total $ .~ , ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF rHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR DISTRICT JUSTICES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ~LECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHEH PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT JUSTICE. " UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE 'A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE DISTRICT JUSTICE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, :: OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. , 1/&/05" Date r (/. Cf (!'PJ , District Justice I II certify that this is a true and correct copy of the record 01 the proceedings containing the judgment. I Date , District Justice My commission expires first Monday oj January, 2006 SEAL AOPC 315,03 DATE PRINTED: 1/07/05 1:14:10 PM - . ~~~" ., " c _" . . "'. ' . ~_ '-(" .;"""U":,;,' COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA''':' COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NOTICE OF ApPEAL .~,.' '>,,"'~.,. ,',',' , , ",' "', ',,',".' ", ~,.',',',J,"",',',"",",.'.,:,_,",'.'.".,',..,'~,'.m"".",',"','",C",.,',.".,,"."".",',"',..,'i",',;:',","." o~t~~~X~(:\l:':t.;:;.,,:-::i:':~~;0;;~;;;_1,G;;,,~~.:~::,'~:,y~ _ ,,_'~-:_". _.' ," -. ,,,'~ ',-' ~",,'.-',if " Judicial District, County Of CUOabed4lld ' " FROM' , ",'."t,'; '1-';'h''''!ii'~ ElISTRICT.J~~TICE JUDGMENT : "j'fl"'V(0fi , NOlle. OF APP':~MMO" """,k , -: . "'" i:'i",i'~!I Notice 'i~ 'given that the appe,Hant has 'filed in th'e above" Court of Common Pleas:an appeal from the judgment rendered by the Oi~trict Justice ~h -~:~~,; -the date and in the case reference-d below. " " ,-'., _ " ,"';:; . - -' :__~,,~j:1:~~ . >". "~ . . -"',:,-;,~::!~;~, ::4#fi~~[rS~i1l~~':;n~1!al"ilYUA. 6l:ar.h MAG;;~;~S N^;.~F~~ A. !Uhf ADDRESS OF,~PPEI:.lANT ' CITY ; STATE :;;~- c,,'- ".+ti,";l'i-}, _"'~' .'1350iUn'(L DATE O~ JUDGMENT ,_ ,,', ,i:~c.,~""",; ....~' .- ,,- _~, ",;;.,~t",>'~:z,;;:'i""~':1"'~"'r"''r''.">''';' .~" '.taw..ary,6 '; "200' ',,' ;,~111f~\~~t:"J~~::/1'>~ "", (Defendant)' ,~rl ," Sea,baa, Edward E. et SIGNAT.URE OF APPEI.LANT OR ATTORNEY OR AGENT 11111~'V-'- Atror_yf"r Al'pellanu If appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R. C.P.D.J. No.- . '.- , .' ". .. ,.: ,'~.,J.' },:;t.,~ i'_ be'tore a District Justice, A COMPLAltyT MUSTBE FILED ~ith'in --twe~~ (20) days after ffling the NOTICE of APPEAL -, '~. ;rhi.s_:;~lo~~,'~i'"~,pe,sign..~l..d, 9~~ y .\y~e~ this notation ~,~ .r~qu~ed ~nd7r. Pa. RC.Pp,J"Nq.)008B., c"!:..,; "}'......",.;,, , ,..,''', ,',' '..'" Thts'..Notice~bf,Ap'peal..when'ied3ived by Jhe District Justice','will operate as a- SUP" '''OEAS to't'he'judgmerit for possession hi this case. '~(,~f;;1~:0:{'~:(,;:~:::;'v]f.,:\':.;< .,' ',," .',' jhC~1i\},~;;~}.t:':;:, .'. ',..,. '...?t~~~a"'~~~~"'o?"'.:; ~9,p"'r . ''h~;.-:tr;'';,~r~~~i'--,,;,;'" . ,~ .;' .';.~'. c.-:". ...; ",' ,.->,~,;;'-:~G:2~:t1~,~.:;1~:/~:,'-'.. :;.~:~~~'f';.-~:~,~t<~''r~':;J/..,:' ..";' ,'!:'.c_,' "" ',- -".-' .. '- , 'i'.tt.,\:1(c,.;'<' , '. ,~~~~I~E TO ENT~R RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE l;(7his..4~~tio;;,gtfqP'.t9k(y~!!dpN.L'(,.'!'hen, appe/lantyv,as PEfENDANT/see Pa.R,C.PD,J, No, 1001(7) in action befqre District Justice. ,\J .'NOTPSEO:deiachfron,copY'ofniiticeofappealto 6e served upon appellee. " ' : /': ,,~f-':~1~~:!:;.~<;,<-~<' '<.:~_',,~_,,_ __.. '. - '- .~ , PRAEC~PE: To Prothonotary - ,\~, ~'f';'hYi} ;- ,,: :'. . :." '.'-, " , Enter rule upon tlppt;r Allen Township appenee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal ',-' -Name of appelfee(s) , " (Common PI~as No, (',,:,. .:;;,,, I " I :"':/:~ l,;'" ) within twenty (20) days after service of rul~ or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. !l1t-t~ '.';- A.e 1. t t'i v.. tlcennems.u ~ Gt9,;;Ul'iit 6~ppeJfant or attorney or agent RULE: To Upper Allen T~hip , appenee( s) Name of appel/ea(s) (1) You are notified that a rule- is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of seNice of this tl!le upon you, b~:.R:e.~~~.l~(:r:vice or by certified.or registered mail. . _,<",~ :tt.'.V"....:-. ('! . . .:. ' (2) II yOu_di!.:;;-~ll:':i!j~~~~~~!-:..iihjr this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTER'EQ AGAINST YOU. =~ ." , ~. J'~1,. ,'~"'" (3) Th~.,l"/f;;e~~~.o,~hiS.ru"(il;~ce was by mail is the date olthemalling.//}_;1. ' ::) ,"-< Dale: :::.~:' n......,XJ6? : ::. ;:; , :;[.,/ V\, 't-, ,.-#...,;! _;, .,'1"- .- ',~ '.-, 'V ~, . / .1 .. ~. " - _ .. .... ....,.......""":'-Bignature of Prothonofary or Deputy ~ it' - " ,,- . ,T' 'f, ~ ~-.I. ..."..."" . \ ~ -'" . "\-'~._. ..,..... .. ,.... / i '~:t -n\ .~,. ~~-.~"t."f_<";;:-: ...............- 3 ' _ '. . 'YOU Mu'sl~Ni;L,\JDE')!(COf'Y 6F'iHE NOTICE OF JUDGMENTfTRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. t'-l <~':..,:~..... .,'~\)!. ~ --1). l.. ~;.-; '1-!".-r\ V ......_...... ',,- ~. .' ,.- "'..... '~,,~':\"~,'\"',.... - AOPC 312,02 Exhibit "I" COPY, TOc B!:, SERVED' ON APPEl.LEE UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, EDWARD E. STATHAS and MARILYN A STATHAS, Defendants No, CIVIL ACTION-LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William E. Miller, Esquire, attorney for Upper Allen Township, hereby certify that I have caused a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Plaintiff s Complaint to be served by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the date set forth below, upon the following individual: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire Snelbaker & Brenneman, P.C 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 ~~ William E, Miller, Jr., Ulre Dated: 28 January 2005 . .. . Ill,. .... ,: -, {;~,:, ()'1 _~-,:l' i.'~) , ~/~^ c \', 'c- f;. ii~ \~1.~ >-' \5 (:") <:'J. " ,:: ' ,.." ~ -~ \# , C) -------- LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER 8< BRENNEMAN II Ii ii i, Ii Ii Ii II[ UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, I Plaintiff ~ i v. EDWARD E. STATHAS and MARILYN A. STATHAS, Defendants TO: Upper Allen Township, Plaintiff and William E. Miller, Jr., Esquire Miller Associates, p, e. 1822 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2005-281 CIVIL ACTION-LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD You are hereby notified that you have twenty (20) days in which to plead to the enclosed New Matter or a Default Judgment may be entered against you. Date: February 25, 2005 SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P. C. l~ By: Keith 0, Brenneman, Esquire 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorney for Defendants Edward E. Stathas and Marilyn A. Stathas UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO, 2005-281 EDWARD E. STATHAS and MARILYN A. STATHAS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION-LAW DEFENDANTS' ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER Defendants Edward E, Stathas and Marilyn A. Stathas, by their attorneys, Snelbaker & Brenneman, P. C., submit this Answer with New Matter in response to Plaintiffs Complaint as follows: ANSWER 1. Admitted, 2. Admitted. 3, Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied, It is denied such an appeal was filed on April 1 I, 2002. On the contrary, an appeal was filed by the Defendants on April 12, 2002, By way of further response, Defendants' appeal, being in writing, speaks for itself; accordingly, Plaintiff's characterization of Defendants' purpose in filing the appeal as alleged in Paragraph 5 ofthe Complaint is denied. 6. Admitted, to the extent relevant. 7. Admitted, to the extent relevant. 8. Admitted, to the extent relevant. LAW OFFICES 9. Admitted. SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN 10. Admitted. ~ I l. Admitted in part; denied in part. Although it is admitted that Plaintiff by letter dated ,July 19,2004 requested reimbursement from Defendants in the amount of $2,260.44, the !,remaining allegations contained in Paragraph II of Plaintiff's Complaint contain unwarranted >,conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Defendants pursuant to Pa.R.e.P, ',iI029(d); therefore, same are deemed to be denied, It is further denied that any amount is owed I: lito Plaintiff by Defendants for the reasons set forth in this Answer and New Matter, the averments I "of which are incorporated by reference herein. 12. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff by letter dated July 19, 112004 requested reimbursement in the amount of $2,260.44. It is further admitted that a copy of ii i, ithe letter requesting reimbursement including the summary of costs is included as Exhibit F to 'i I' irlaintiff's Complaint. This party is without sufficient information as to the truth of the averment il !conceming what Plaintiff was "actually" seeking reimbursement of; therefore, same is denied i~nd strict proof demanded. II 13. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants did not reimburse !~Iaintiff for any costs alleged to be owed by Defendants to Plaintiff. It is denied that any sums l~re owed to Plaintiff for the reason set forth in this Answer and New Matter, the averments of I hich are incorporated by reference herein, 14. Admitted, although irrelevant. IS. Admitted, although irrelevant. 16. Admitted, although irrelevant. 17, Admitted, although irrelevant. LAW OFFICES l8, Denied. The Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the SNELBAKER & II i I I -2- BRENNEMAN truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint; therefore, same are denied and strict proof thereof demanded. 19. Admitted, although irrelevant. 20. Admitted, although irrelevant. I I I , I ~udgment in their favor together with costs of this action. i 21. Admitted, although irrelevant. WHEREFORE, Defendants request this Court to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint and enter NEW MATTER 22. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state any claim or cause of action upon which relief may ibe granted against the Defendants. 23. Plaintiffs Complaint sets forth no statutory, contractual or other basis for its claim of I I"reasonable attorney's fees"; accordingly, such a claim should be stricken, I 24. The appeal filed by the Defendants on April 12, 2002 was accompanied by a payment to Upper Allen Township in the amount of $400.00. 25, The governing body of Upper Allen Township did fail or may have failed to prescribe reasonable fees with respect to hearings before the Zoning Hearing Board. 26. In the alternative to Paragraph 25, above, the governing body did fail or may have failed to adopt reasonable fees with respect to hearings before the Zoning Hearing Board by either resolution or ordinance. 27, The governing body did fail or may have failed to adopt the prescribed fees by either LAW OFFICES -3- SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN I I Iresolution or ordinance with respect to the specific court stenographer or stenographic reporting I ifees or rates alleged to be due by the Defendants. I 28. The amounts alleged to be due by Defendants characterized as advertising costs for IhearingS were or may have been incurred in whole or in part for continuances or changes in hearing dates occasioned by events not caused by the Defendants or were incurred unnecessarily, 29. Defendants purchased copies of hearing transcripts from the court reporter or stenographer and by law the costs of the original transcripts are to be paid by the Zoning Hearing Board, 30, Upper Allen Township has no standing as a matter of law to make claim for costs due by or payable by the Zoning Hearing Board. 31, The transcript costs alleged to be due by the Defendants are believed to include costs of original transcripts which by law are the responsibility of the Zoning Hearing Board to pay, WHEREFORE, Defendants request this Court to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint and enter 'udgment in their favor together with costs ofthis action. SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P. e. t/l1/!/WL---. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN February 22, 2005 BY: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Defendants Date: -4- LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER '" BRENNEMAN !I I !i II r I VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer with New Matter are true and orrect. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of l8 Pa,e.S. ection 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ;;:; d ~ ) j1 " ( .:7(/~ {J 7 ./ uY-q/~s/ . Edward E. Stathas Date: ~~d..;';\,-OS- Marilyn A, Sta s Date: .;L-d.-d.-06 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN II " CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have, on the below date, aused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter to be served upon the erson and in the manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID, ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: William E. Miller, Jr., Esquire Miller Associates, P. e. 1822 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C, IIuvvc--. By: Keith 0, Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street P. 0, Box 318 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Defendants ate: February 25, 2005 -.7':> "3 t i5 8"- -n ffi '" I.f\ .::1> ;; -' ~' <S> UPPER ALLEN TOWNSillP, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v, EDWARD E. STATHAS and MARILYN A STATHAS, Defendants No, 05-281 CIVIL ACTION-LAW PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw the Complaint filed by the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter and mark this case discontinued and ended on your docket and indices, Dated :5 f If ~ --- --- ---~ William E, Miller, Jr, Esqu Alicia S, Miller, Esqui MILLER & ASSOCIATES, PC 1822 Market Street Camp Hill, PA nOli (717)737-9211 (717) 737-9215 ID No, 07220 and 82099 UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, EDWARD E. STATHAS and MARILYN A. STATHAS, Defendants No, 05-28\ CIVIL ACTION-LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William E. Miller, Esquire, attorney for Upper Allen Township, hereby certify that I have caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to be served by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the date set forth below, upon the following individual: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire Snelbaker & Brenneman, P.e. 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 William E, Miller, Jr, Esquire Dated: 8 March 2005 :1,