HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-2882SHlPPENSBURG TOWNHOUSES, LLC
and WESTMINSTER DEVELOPMENT,
LLC
Appellants
VS.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNSHIP,
Appellee
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
NOTICE OF LAND USE APPEAL
AND NOW, come the Appellants, Shippensburg Townhouses, LLC and
Westminster Development, LLC, by and through their attorneys, Knox McLaughlin Gomall &
Sennett, P.C., and file this Notice of Land Use Appeal stating in support thereof as follows:
1. Appellant, Shippensburg Townhouses, LLC, is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability
Company that owns real property in Shippensburg Township identified as 6 Bard Drive,
Shippensburg, PA 17257 (90 Unit Apartment House); Index No. 36-32-2269-023A.
2. Appellant, Westminster Development, LLC, is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability
Company that owns real property in Shippensburg Township identified as 605-607 East King
Street, Shippensburg, PA 17257; Index No: 36-33-1869-28 (Appellants herein shall be
collectively referred to as "Westminster").
3. The Appellee, Shippensburg Township, is a township of the second class with an address
of P.O. Box 219, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, 17257 (hereinafter referred to as the "Township").
4. The real property in question is an approximately 4.7 acre lot located partially in
Shippensburg Township and partially in Shippensburg Borough (approximately 3.4 acres are
located in the Township and approximately 1.2 acres are located in the Borough) and is
identified as tax parcel number 33-1869/Parcel 40 and located at or near the intersection of
Kenneth and Brookside Avenues (the real property at issue shall hereinafter be referred to as the
"Property"). It is believed and therefore averred that the property is owned by Lawrence and
Alice Royer with an address at 100 East Orange Street.
5. The Property is located in an R-2 Residence District according to the Shippensburg
Township Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 90-4 (hereinafter referred to as the "Zoning
Ordinance").
6. An apartment house is authorized as a conditional use under the Zoning Ordinance.
7. On December 17, 2001, the Township granted Conditional Use Permit No. 20-4
(hereinafter referred to as the "Permit") to Developer to construct an apartment complex at the
Property.
8. On the date that the Permit was issued to Developer, Developer had not yet obtained
approval for the proposed apartment house use under the Shippensburg Township Subdivision
and Land Development Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Development
Ordinance").
9. Westminster did not know nor did it have any reason to know that Conditional Use
Permit No. 20-4 had been issued by the Township until a representative of Westminster obtained
copies of the Developer's approved Land Development Plan, which Plan was received by
Westminster within 30 days of the filing of this Notice of Land Use Appeal.
10. The action of the Township in issuing the Permit to Developer was arbitrary, capricious,
contrary to law and constituted an abuse of discretion in the following particulars:
(a)
Co)
the Developer failed to comply with Section 1400(9) of the Zoning Ordinance in that
it failed to obtain approval under the Land Development Ordinance and failed to
show compliance with the various provisions of the Land Development Ordinance
prior to obtaining the Permit;~
the information submitted by the Developer in support of its Conditional Use
Application was based upon a Land Development Plan that had not yet been
approved at the time the Permit was issued. It is believed and therefore averred that
the Developer's Land Development Plan as it existed in December of 2001 was
materially different than the Land Development Plan approved by the Township on
May 4, 2002. Therefore, the Township did not have the ability to determine
Appellants herein have previously filed an appeal with this Court at Docket No. 02-2667 of the Land
Development Plan Approval issued to the Developer on May 4, 2002 for the same development that is the subject of
this Land Use Appeal. The Notice of Land Use Appeal concerning the Land Development Plan Approval is
attached to this Notice of Land Use Appeal as "Exhibit A." Appellants hereby incorporate by reference the
averments set forth in the attached Notice of Land Use Appeal in support of the present Notice of Land Use Appeal.
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance under such circumstances, and the issuance of
the Permit under such circumstances was premature and constituted an error of law;
(c) the Developer failed to comply with Sections 404 and 909 of the Zoning Ordinance
concerning parking requirements. The Land Development Plan approved by the
Township on May 4, 2002 (6 months after the Permit was issued by the Township)
indicates that 183 parking spaces are required for the proposed development. The
Zoning Ordinance requires that each parking space must provide a minimum area of
not less than 200 square feet. The Land Development Plan reflects only 77 parking
spaces that meet this regulatory definition. To the extent that the Developer proposes
to satisfy the Zoning Ordinance's parking requirements with parking spaces located
in the Borough of Shippensburg, such spaces must meet the regulatory definition as
set forth in the Shippensburg Township Zoning Ordinance (i.e. a minimum area of
200 square feet). As proposed, the proposed use fails to satisfy the parking
requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance;
(d) the Developer failed to comply with Section 914(11) of the Zoning Ordinance
concerning "recreational areas". The Developer's Land Development Plan fails to
identify or designate an area sufficient to satisfy the requirement that 20% of the total
area be "reserved and developed for outdoor recreational purposes designed to serve
the residents of the development" and the Developer otherwise failed to present such
evidence at the Conditional Use Hearing in this matter;
(e) the Developer failed to comply with Section 402(3) of Zoning Ordinance concerning
"Occupied Areas". Although the Developer's Land Development Plan identifies the
total building area as comprising 32, 400 square feet, the actual dimensions reflected
4
on the Plan reveal a total of 33,040 feet (i.e. five apartment buildings measuring 118
feet x 56 feet plus one office building approximately 48 feet x 36 feet). 10% of the
total area has been offered to Shippensburg Township by the Developer thereby
reducing the total acreage available for development to 4.2 acres. The total
impervious surface area is therefore in excess of the "Occupied Area" restriction set
forth in Section 402(3) of the Zoning Ordinance.
11. Westminster hereby specifically preserves the right to supplement this Notice of Land
Use Appeal, specifically including any procedural deficiencies that may be revealed upon having
the opportunity to review the entire certified record in this matter when such record made
available to this Court by Appellee.
WHEREFORE, the Appellants, Shippensburg Townhouses, LLC and Westminster
Development, LLC hereby request this Honorable Court to enter an Order rescinding the Board
of Supervisors of Shippensburg Township's issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 20-4.
Date: June 12, 2002
# 437934
Respectfully submitted,
KNOX McLAUGHLIN GORNALL &
SENNET/~,
Timoth
Brian
120 West l0th Street
Erie, PA 16501
(814) 459-2800
Attorneys for Appellants,
Shippensburg Townhouses, LLC and
Westminster Development, LLC
owacki, Esquire
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNHOUSES, LLC and )
WESTMINSTER DEVELOPMENT, LLC )
)
Appellants )
)
)
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF )
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNSI-II~, )
)
Appellee )
)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
No.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this 12th day of June, 2002 serving a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Notice of Land Use Appeal by U.S. mail on the following:
Shippensburg Township
Board of Supervisors
c/o Ronald Turo, Esquire,
Counsel to Board of Supervisors
28 S. Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Linda Asper, Township Secretary
Shippensburg Township
P.O. Box 219
Shippensburg, PA 17257
Date: June 12, 2002
# 437934
Lawrence and Alice Royer
c/o CSR Enterprises
9767 Forest Ridge Road
Shippensburg, PA 17257
Respectfully submitted,
KNOX McLAUGHLIN GORNALL ~
SENNETT, y/Cl. - /
Timoth~/~Vl. Zie z~'ula,~ squire
120 West l0th Street
Erie, PA 16501
(814) 459-2800
Attorneys for Appellants,
Shippensburg Townhouses, LLC and
Westminster Development, LLC
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNHOUSES, LLC
and WESTMINSTER DEVELOPMENT,
LLC
VS.
Appellants
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNSHIP,
Appellee
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
NOTICE OF LAND USE APPEAL
AND NOW, come the Appellants, Shippensburg Townhouses, LLC and
Westminster Development, LLC, by and through their attomeys, Knox McLaughlin Gomall &
Sennett, P.C., and file this Notice of Land Use Appeal stating in support thereof as follows:
1. Appellant, Shippensburg Townhouses, LLC, is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability
Company that owns real property in Shippensburg Township identified as 6 Bard Driye,
Shippensburg, PA 17257 (90 Unit Apartment House); Index No. 36-32-2269-023A.
2. Appellant, Westminster Development, LLC, is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability
Company that owns real property in Shippensburg Township identified as 605-607 East King
Street, Shippensburg, PA 17257; Index No: 36-33-1869-28 (Appellants herein shall be
collectively referred to as "Westminster").
3. The Appellee, Shippensburg Township, is a township of the second class with an address
of P.O. Box 219, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, 17257 (hereinafter referred to as the "Township").
4. The real property in question is an approximately 4.7 acre lot located partially in
Shippensburg Township and partially in Shippensburg Borough (approximately 3.4 acres are
located in the Township and approximately 1.2 acres are located in the Borough) and is
identified as tax parcel number 33-1869/Parcel 40 and located at or near the intersection of
Kenneth and Brookside Avenues (the real property at issue shall hereinafter be referred to as the
"Property"). It is believed and therefore averred that the property is owned by Lawrence and
Alice Royer with an address at 100 East Orange Street.
5. On October 16, 2001, CSR Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the "Developer") filed
an Application for Subdivision and Land Development Plan Review proposing to develop the
Property with apartment houses.
6. On April 15, 2002, the Shippensburg Township Planning Commission reviewed the
"CSR Revised Land Development Plan". The Planning Commission conditionally approved the
CSR Revised Land Development Plan subject to the following:
(a) ovemoming "recreation need" as stated in the Shippensburg Township Zoning
Ordinance Section 914(11);
(b) satisfaction of the concerns raised in an April 10, 2002 letter from the Shippensburg
Township engineering firm, Martin and Martin, Inc. (Martin and Martin, Inc. letter is
attached to this Notice of Land Use Appeal as "Exhibit A"); and
(c) satisfaction of the Cumberland County Planning Commission comments.
2
7. On May 4, 2002, the Shippensburg Township Supervisors reviewed a "Revised Land
Development Plan for CSR". The Township Supervisors conditionally approved the plan as a
"Final Plan" contingent upon the following:
(a) satisfaction of the comments contained in April 10, 2002 from the Shippensburg
Township engineering firm, Martin and Martin, Inc.; and
(b) approval by the Shippensburg Borough Board of Supervisors.
8. Westminster seeks a review of the Township Supervisor's approval of the CSR Revised
Land Development Plan.
9. The action of the Township Supervisors in approving the CSR Revised Land
Development Plan described above was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law and constituted an
abuse of discretion in the following particulars:
(a) the Developer failed to comply with Article III of the Township's Subdivision and
Land Development Ordinance in that it failed to submit and obtain approval of a
Sketch Plan and/or Preliminary Plan prior to submitting and obtaining approval of a
Final Plan;
(b) the Developer failed to comply with Section 303 of the Township's Subdivision and
Land Development Ordinance in that it failed to submit the information necessary to
support a development with fifty or more dwelling units proposed;
3
(c) the Township Supervisor's approval was specifically contingent upon the Martin and
Martin, Inc. letter dated April 10, 2002. The Martin and Martin, Inc. letter contains
eleven separate paragraphs detailing the various deficiencies in the CSR Revised
Land Development Plan. The Township Supervisors therefore implicitly
acknowledged that the CSR Revised Land Development Plan did not comply with the
Township's Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. The Township
Supervisors committed an area of law in approving the CSR Revised Land
Development Plan as the Plan does not comply with the Township's Subdivision and
Land Development Ordinance. Westminster specifically incorporates the averments
contained in the Martin and Martin, Inc. April 10, 2002 letter herein as specific
factual allegations in support of this Land Use Appeal;
(d) the Developer failed to comply with Section 909 of the Shippensburg Township
Zoning Ordinance concerning off-street parking spaces. The Plan indicates that 183
parking spaces are required for the proposed development. The Zoning Ordinance
requires that each parking space must provide a minimum area of not less than 200
square feet. The Developer's Final Plan reflects only 77 parking spaces that meet this
regulatory definition. To the extent that the Developer proposes to satisfy the
Shippensburg Township Zoning Ordinance's parking requirements with parking
spaces located in the Borough of Shippensburg, such spaces must meet the regulatory
definition as set forth in the Shippensburg Township Zoning Ordinance (i.e. a
minimum area of 200 square feet). As proposed, the Developer's Final Plan fails to
satisfy the parking requirements set forth in the Shippensburg Township Zoning
4
Ordinance. Moreover, although the Developer's Final Plan identifies there being 183
parking spaces provided, the actual number of spaces reflected on the Final Plan is
180 (not to mention the fact that such spaces do not meet the regulatory definitions
set forth in the Shippensburg Township Zoning Ordinance);
(e) the Developer failed to comply with Section 914(11) of the Shippensburg Township
Zoning Ordinance concerning "recreational areas". The Developer's Final Plan fails
to identify or designate an area sufficient to satisfy the requirement that 20% of the
total area be "reserved and developed for outdoor recreational puxposes designed to
serve the residents of the development." Even assuming for the sake of argument that
the three areas depicted on the Developer's Final Plan as "open space/recreation area"
(i.e. area Southeast of Building No. 1 - approximately 100 feet x 25 feet; area
between Building Nos. 3 and 4 - 120 feet x 40 feet; and, area Southeast of Building
No. 5 next to parking lot shown as a volleyball court - 50 feet x 65 feet) are the areas
intended to be "reserved and developed for outdoor recreational purposes designed to
serve the residents of the development", such areas amount to only 5.87% of the total
tract area (i.e. 0.25 acres out of 4.67 total acres);
(f) the Developer failed to comply with Section 402(3) of Shippensburg Township
Zoning Ordinance concerning "Occupied Areas". Although the Developer's Final
Plan identifies the total building area as comprising 32, 400 square feet, the actual
dimensions reflected on the Final Plan reveal a total of 33,040 feet (i.e. five
apartment buildings measuring 118 feet x 56 feet plus one office building
approximately 48 feet x 36 feet). 10% of the total area has been offered to
Shippensburg Township by the Developer thereby reducing the total acreage
available for development to 4.2 acres. The total impervious surface area is in excess
of 60% of the total tract area and therefore violative of Section 402(3) of the
Shippensburg Township Zoning Ordinance. Attached to this Notice of Land Use
Appeal as "Exhibit B" and incorporated herein by reference are two illustrations
detailing the deficiencies described in subparagraphs (e) and (f) herein.
10. Westminster hereby specifically preserves the right to supplement this Notice of Land
Use Appeal upon having the opportunity to review the entire certified record in this matter when
such record made available to this Court by Appellee.
6
WHEREFORE, the Appellants, Shippensburg Townhouses, LLC and Westminster
Development, LLC hereby request this Honorable Court to enter an Order reversing the Board of
Supervisors of Shippensburg Township's approval of the CSR Revised Land Development Plan
and directing that the Revised Land Development Plan at issue be denied.
Date: May 30, 2002
# 435873
Respectfully submitted,
KNOX McLAUGHLIN GORNALL &
SENNETT, P.C.
BY: / · ',fT/' ~ /f
Timoth~Vl.;HZZieziula~Esquire
Brian ~iowacki, Esquire
120 West l0th Street
Erie, PA 16501
(814) 459-2800
Attorneys for Appellants,
Shippensburg Townhouses, LLC and
Westminster Development, LLC
7
SHI?PENSBURG TOWNttOUSES, LLC and
WESTMINSTER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
VS.
Appellants
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNSHIP,
Appellee
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
No.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this 30th day of May, 2002 serving a tree and correct copy of the
foregoing Notice of Land Use Appeal by U.S. mail on the following:
Shippensburg Township
Board of Supervisors
c/o Ronald Turo, Esquire,
Counsel to Board of Supervisors
28 S. Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Linda Asper, Township Secretary
Shippensburg Township
P.O. Box 219
Shippensburg, PA 17257
Date: May 30, 2002
#435873
Lawrence and Alice Royer
c/o CSR Enterprises
9767 Forest Ridge Road
Shippensburg, PA 17257
Respectfully submitted,
KNOX McLAUGHLIN GOKNALL &
SENNETT, P.C.~
A
BY: Timothy ~'~ '. Zieziul~, ~quire
Brian G16~vacki
120 West l0th Street
Erie, PA 16501
(814) 459-2800
Attorneys for Appellants,
Shippensburg Townhouses, LLC and
Westminster Development, LLC
martin and martin, incorporated
37 south main street · suite A · chambersburg, pennsylvania · 17201-2251
(717) 264-6759
(717) 264-7339 (fax)
April 10, 2002
Shippensburg Township Supervisors
P. O. Ilox 219
Sh~ppensburg, PA 17257
Re: Final I.and Deveh~pment Plan
CSR Enterprises
Our file: 492.97 (T36-49297)
Gentlemen:
Our office has reviewed the above referenced plaq in accord~mce with the Township Ordinancea
and in light ot'our earlier comments dated November 13. 2001. We would note the following
remaining comments for your consideration.
1. Pennsylvania DEP planning module approval is required. (308.J)
2. County Conservetioo District approval is required. (308.1.1)
Tire Developer is required to guarantee the completion of all public intprovements prior to
release of an approved Final Plan. (307.D) A co~t cslimalc has hccn provided for review.
We believe two additional items shonld he included within this estimate: the proposed
sidewalk within the Brookside Avenae righl.-Td'-way and the proposed "No Exit" sign along
Kenneth Avenue. Upon submission ora revised cost estimatc, our office will issue a
determinnlion of adequate
4. The ultimate resolution of thc Parker prnporty's encroaching mobile home should bc
determined.
S. The ov, qler's certification must be signed and m~tari~d. (308.E)
6. The surveyor's certification of accuracy and the ~r-rm dminagn plan certif~cntion '~h°uld be
signal and dated.
7. A portion of'the property lies within the [lorough of Shippcnsburg and the plan is, thcrct'ore,
subject to approval by the Borough Council.
8. With regard to stormwater managemenL, a table outlining the overall pre- and post-
development dischargg rates should be inchsdcd within the narrative. (506)
EXHIBIT
Shippensburg Township Supervisors
April 10, 2002
Page 2
9. The proposed recreation areas illustrated on the Preliminary Plan have been eliminated from
the Final Plan. The applicant must demonstrate how the plan will meet the recreation
requirement~ of Section 914. I I of the Zoning Ordinance.
I 0. Thc intbrmation required in Sections 913.2 and 913.3 of Thc Zoning Ordinance should be
addressed. This infhrmalion includes architcctur;sl views and floor plans ol'th~: proposed
structures and details on owncrshlp and maintenance o1' the premises.
I I. Screening h~s been provided as required in the Conditiom~l Use approval, however thc
double tow of tr~,'cs is narrowed to a single rnw along a portion o1' thc ElhRi,i property. [fat
all possible, this should be increa;~cd lo a double row of trees as wcll.
Should you have any questions concerning this correspondence, plea.~e don'l hesitate to contact
this oft'ice at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
MARTIN AND MARTIN, INCORPORATED
TCC
cc; Planning Commls.~ion
Carl Bert & Associates
Timothy C. Company, AICP
lllustra~ion 1.
CSR Plan ,~uare feet Acreaqe ,% Of total
Total land 203~382 4.67
Land offered to Shipl~nsburg Township 20,261 0.46512 10%
As shown on CSR Plan
Total land for development 183.12' 4.20
..De_siqnated Recreational areas
.,Ama SE of buildin~ 1 100' x 25' 2500
Area b~.~veen Building 3 & 4 125' x 40' 5000
Area SE of Buildln,q 5 next to Perl<in9 lot 50' x 65' 3250
shown a,s sand ~oll~¥ball court 1075{ 0.25 5.87%
' 'oral area designated as recrea,,tJonal'area
I
Area required by the Township Ordinance
Section 914.11 38m624 0.84 20%
designated as recfasfional area
Additional ama required not shown mt C~R Plan 2,~y874 0.594 14%
Illustration 2.
CSR Plan Seuare feel =vcreaue % Of total N~tes
~'otal land 203,382 4.67
Land offered to Shippenaburg Township 20~261 0.4661 10% As shown on CSR Plan
Total land for development 183m121 4.20
~tual building area 34,768 0.80 19% Plan sMtes proposes building area of,
(5) apt bldgs measuring 118' x 56' = 6608 33,040 32,400; the a, ctual plans dimensions are
(!)office building appmx 48' x 3~' = 1725 1,728 not conaistant with the plan statement
I
Proposed sidewalk area 13,478 0.31 7% As shown on CSR Plan
Proposed driveways/parkln~ area 65~775 1.51 36% As shown on CSR Plan
Total impervious surface 114,021 2.82 62.3%
Impervious surface maximum 109~873 2.52 60.0%
Exceeds Ordinance Section 402.3 4,148 0.10 2.3%
"If proper parking was included to meet minimum size: this would further increase the excess of iml;ervious surface
SHIPPENSBURG
TOWNHOUSES, LLC AND
WESTMINSTER
DEVELOPMENT, LLC
Vs.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNSHIP
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 02-2882 Civil TERM
WRIT OF CERTIORARI
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
: SS.
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND)
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SHIPPENSBURG TOWNSHIP,
We, being willing for certain reasons, to have certified a certain action between
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNHOUSES, LLC AND WESTMINSTER
DEVELOPMENT, LLC VS. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SHIPPENSBURG
TOWNSHIP, pending before you, do command you that the record of the action
aforesaid with all things concerning said action, shall be certified and sent to our judges
of our court of Common Pleas at Carlisle, within 20 days of the date hereof, together with
this writ; so that we may further cause to be done that which ought to be done according
to the laws and Constitution of this Commonwealth.
WITNESS, The Honorable George E. Hoffer, P.J. our said Court, at Carlisle, Pa.,
the 14TH day of JUNE, 2002.
CURTIS R. LONG
Prothonotary
Postmark
Here
Street, Apt. No; or ,°~ -b~,~ ~[ ........................................
ems 1 2, and 3. Also complete
Complete it ........ ~s desired.
item 4 t~ RestricteCl ue,w~y,
~ that we can~U~ck of the mai~piece,
a A~h th s cam to
or on the ~nt if space perm
~.O.~
~ns~g, PA 17257
02.2882 civil IM
Copy from se~ice I~e~
7099
o~ ~nrm Ju{y 1999
DomestiC Return Receipt
., of Delivery
Agent
Yes
~ No
for'Merchandise
Yes
102595-00-M'0952
· Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box ·
02
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNHOUSES, LLC
and WESTMINSTER DEVELOPMENT,
LLC,
Appellants
Vo
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNSHIP,
Appellee
and
CAROL VESCHI, SEAN TIGHE,
ROBERT VESCHI, t/dfo/a CSR Enterprises,:
Intervenor
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO. 02-2882 Civil Term
: Land Use Appeal
NOTICE OF INTERVENTION
Please take notice that Carol Veschi, Scan Tighe, and Robert Veschi, t/d/b/a CSR
Enterprises, the owner of the premises located generally between Kenneth and Brookside
Avenues, Shippensburg Township and Shippensburg Borough, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, the property directly involved in the decision of the Board of Supervisors of
Shippensburg Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, from which this appeal has
been lodged, intervenes in the Appeal in support of the decision of the Board of
Supervisors.
Dated:
Respectfully submitted:
COYNE & COYNE, PC.
a, isa Marie C/oyne, Esquire
3901 Marke! St.
Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227
(717) 737-0464
Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 53788
Attorneys for Intervenor
CSR Enterprises
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire, of Coyne & Coyne, P.C., hereby certify that true copy of the
foregoing NOTICE OF INTERVENTION was served this date upon the below-referenced
individuals at the below listed address by way of first class mail, postage pre-paid:
Ron Turo, Esquire
Solicitor, Shippensburg Township
28 South Pitt St.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Timothy M. Zieziula, Esquire
Knox, McLaughlin, Gomall & Scnnett, P.C.
120 West 10z Street
Erie, PA 16501
Dated: .~
oyne, Esqu~e
(390~Market Street ~
C-~amp Hill, PA 170114227
(717) 737-0464
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNHOUSES, LLC
and WESTMINSTER DEVELOPMENT,
LLC,
Appellants
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNSH~,
Appellee
and
CAROL VESCHI, SEAN TIGHE,
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
:
:
:
: NO. 02-2882 Civil Term
:
ROBERT VESCHI, t/dPo/a CSR Enterprises,:
Intervenor :
Land Use Appeal
INTERVENOR'S PETITION TO COMPEl,
APPELLANTS TO POST BOND PURSUANT TO SECTION 1003-A(d)
OF THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING CODE {53 Pa. C.S.A. § 1003-A(d)
TO THE HONORABLE, JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
AND NOW COMES the Petitioner, Intervenor, CSR Enterprises, by and through
its attorney, Lisa Made Coyne, Esquire and avers the tbllowing in support of this
PETITION TO COMPEL POSTING OF BOND:
2. Respondents are Shippensburg Townhouses, LLC
Development LLC, the Appellants in the underlying Land Use Appeal.
3. Respondents' are owners and operators of an apartment complex located in
Shippensburg Township, Cumberland County, called "Bard Meadows".
Petitioner, is CSR Enterprises, the Intervenor in underlying Land Use Appeal.
and Westminster
4. "Bard Meadows" apartment complex is located approximately one and a half
miles from the Petitioner's property in question.
5. On December 17, 2001, the Shippensburg Township Board of Supervisors
approved Petitioner's Conditional Use Application concerning Petitioner's proposed use of
their property for the construction of five (5) apartment buildings and one (1) laundry as an
accessory building to the apashuent buildings.
6. On December 17, 2001, Shippensburg Township issued to Petitioners
Conditional Use Permit No. 20-4.
7. Respondents never appealed the Conditional Use Permit until June 13, 2002,
which was more than thirty (30) days following the issuance of the Permit.
8. Respondents never appeared, nor objected to Petitioner's Conditional Use
Application at any of the various public meetings or heatings concerning the review and
approval process of the Conditional Use Application.
9. Respondents filed the Land Use Appeal concerning the Conditional Use Permit
for no legitimate or defensible reason, but for the fact the in granting the Petitioners' a
Conditional Use Permit for an apartment complex, the Petitioners would be in direct
competition with Respondents' "Bard Meadows" complex.
10. The "points of error" raised in Respondents' Land Use Appeal are frivolous and
not supportable by law or fact.
11. Respondents Land Use Appeal is untimely and therefore must be quashed.
12. Respondents lack standing to bring their Land Use Appeal as they are not an
"aggrieved party".
13. Petitioner has filed an Answer and Motion to Quash and Motion to Dismiss
concerning the Land Use Appeal. (Copy of Answer and Motion to Dismiss is attached as
Exhibit "A").
14. Petitioner has sustained significant monetary loss and delay in pursuing the
construction of Petitioner's apartment complex because of Respondents' frivolous Land
Use Appeal, which was brought to harass Petitioner who was the successful bidder on the
property in question.
15. Respondents sought to purchase the property in question, however, CSR
Enterprises were the successful, timely bidders on the property.
16. Petitioner requests that pursuant to 53 Pa. C.S.A. § 1003-A(d), that the
Respondents post bond in sufficient amount and sufficient warranty and duration as
required by Respondents filing of their frivolous Land Use Appeal.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner, CSR Enterprises, respectfully requests that the
Respondents, Shippensburg Townhouses, LLC and Westminster Development, LLC post
sufficient bonding as is warranted in the frivolous land use appeal they have filed which
has caused delay and damages to the Petitioner in the construction of Petitioner's
apartment complex and attorney fees and other such relief as the Court shall find just and
appropriate in light of Respondents' frivolous, vexatious and obdurate conduct.
Dated: /~rO~t. /.~/ 2.o0 Z.
Respectfully submitted:
COYNE & COYNE, PC.
/'/Eisa Marie C~/yne, Esquire
(~/3901 Market"St.
Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227
(717) 737-0464
Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 53788
,4ttorneys for Petitioner--
CSR Enterprises
SHIPPENSBURG TOWN"HOUSES, LLC
and W-ESTMINSTER DEVELOPMENT,
LLC,
Appellants
Vo
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNSHI!P,
Appellee
and
CAROL VESCHI, SE.-~\' TIGHE,
ROBERT VESCHI, t/ ' '
&b/a CSR Enterprises,:
Intervenor :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO. 02-2882 Civil Term
Land Use Appeal
INTERVENOR'S ANSWER. MOTION TO QUASH/uN-D
MOTION TO DlSbllSS APPELLANTS' LAND USE APPEAl.
AND NOW COMES the Intervenor, CSR Enterprises, by and throu~ its attorney,
Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire and avers the following in support of this ANSWER. MOTION
TO QUASH and MOTION TO DISMISS:
2.
3.
4.
Admitted uoon information and belief.
Admitted uoon information and belief,
Admitted.
Admitted in pan and Denied in part
It is admitted that the real property in
question is a lot, approximately 5 acres in size, located partially in Shippensburg Township
and partially in Shippensburg Borough. It is denied however, that Lawrence and Alice
Royer own the property. The property in question is owr~ed by CSR Enterprises, a
registered partnership with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
5. Admitted. By way of further ansxver, only that portion of the property which is
located in Shippensburg To~vnship is zoned R-2 Residential District.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted. By way of further answer, the conditional use permit was granted
after two (2) public heatings. Furthermore the conditional use application concerned a use
which consisted of five (5) apartment buildings containing sixty (60) units and one laundry
building as an accessory use to the apartment buildings.
8. Admitted in van and Denied in part. It is adrnitted that at the time of the
issuance of the Conditional Use Permit the Township had not approved CSR Enterprises'
Land Development Plan. It is denied however that a Land Development I_and must be
approved before a Conditional Use Permit can be issued.
9. Denied~ It is denied that Appellants did not know or have any idea concerning
the Conditional Use Application. It is averred that the Appellant, or its desi~ee, attended
at least one of the Public Heatings concerning the Conditional Use .application.
Furthermore, the Conditional Use Application was properly advertised in advance of the
public hearing and therefore, Appellants were on notice con,:eming the Application and
further.more, the notoriety of the issue was reported in the local newspapers thereby giving
additional notice of the pending Conditional Use application.
I0. (a) Denied. It is denied that CSR Enterprises failed to comply wSth the Zoning
Ordinance or that a Land Development Plan must be approved prior to action taken
concerning a Conditional Use Application. Further, it is denied that the Township
Supervisors' approval of the Conditional Use Permit was arbitrary, capricious, and
contrary to law or constituted an abuse of discretion. Further, the averments of this
subparagraph state a legal conclusion, which requires no response. To the extent that a
response may be deemed required, CSR Enterprises' intended use of this tract of land was
for five (5) apartment buildings and one laundry. The intended use of this tract of land was
and remained for five (5) apartment buildings and one laundry. It is denied that the
Appellants fairly or accurately states the action taken by the Board of Super~-isors
(b) Admitted in part and Denied in part It is admitted that at the time the
conditional use permit was issued, CSR Enterprises' Land Development Plan had not been
approved. It is denied, however, that approval of a I_an:d Developmenr Plan was a
prerequisite or a condition precedent for approval of a Conditional Use application.
Furthermore, it is denied that the proposed use at issue for the Conditional Use application
had changed. The intended development of this tract of land was and r~mains for an
apartment complex consisting of five (5) apartment buildhags ~md one laund~.-.
(c) Denied. It is denied that CSR Enterprises fail[ed to comply ~Sth Sections
404 and 909 of the Zoning Ordinance concerning Parking requirements, p~ the Zoning
ordinance 180 parking spaces are required and 180 parking spaces are provided. It is
further denied that the CSR Enterprises' Land Development Plan had'to be approved prior
to approval of a conditional use application.
(d) Denied, The averments of this subparagraph state a legal conclusion, which
requires no response. To the extent that a response may be deemed required, it is denied
that the approved and re-approved Final Land Development Plan subrn/rred by CSR
13.
placed
Development Plan.
Enterprises fails to comply with Section 914(11) of the Township's Zoning Ordinance
concerning recreational area designations.
(e) Denied. The averments of this subparagraph state a legal conclusion, which
requires no response. To the extent that a response may be deemed required, it is denied
that the developer failed to comply with Section 402(3) of the Zoning Ord/nance as it
relates to calculation of occupied areas.
11. Denied. This is a request for action to which no response is required and same is
therefore denied.
WHEREFORE, Intervenor, CSR Enterprises respectfully requests that this Land
Use Appeal be Denied and that the Appellantsl pay Intervenor's costs, attorney fees and
expenses related to this frivolous appeal.
MOTION TO QUASI4'
12. Paragraphs 1 thru 11 are incorporated herein.
The conditional use conditions imposed by Conditoinal Use Permit No. 204 were
of record upon the coversheet of all versions ,of CSR Enterprises' Land
14. Appellants filed this Land Use Appeal on June 13, 2(}02, which is more than five
months alSer the Conditional Use Permit was granted, i.e., December 17, 200 I.
15. Appellants had until January 15, 2002 to file a timely appeal of the granting of CSR
Enterprises' Conditional Use Permit No. 20-4.
16. Appellants' Land Use Appeal is untimely and therefore prohibited by the
Municipal Planning Code of Pennsylvania. 53 Pa. C.S. § 1002-A.
WHEREFORE, Intervenor, CSR Enterprises respectfully requests that this Land
Use Appeal be Quashed as untimely filed and that Appellants be directed to pay
Intervenor's attorney fees and all other relief deemed appropriate by this Honorable Court.
MOTION TO DISMISS
17. Paragraphs 1 through 16 are incorporated herein.
18. Throughout the public review and approval process concerning CSR Enterprises'
Conditional Use Application, Appellants never once appeared or objected to the said
Application at any of the open and public meetings or hearings.
19. Appellants are the owners and operators of Bard Meadows Apartments located in
Shippensburg Township.
20. Bard Meadows Apartments are an apartment facility which provides housing to
primarily university students fi.om Shippensburg University.
21. CSR Enterprises' proposed apartment complex would be in direct competition to
Bard Meadows Apartment in that it will provide housing to primarily university students
fi-om Shippensburg University.
22. Appellants' Bard Meadows complex is not an adjoining property owner to the
subject property.
23. Appellants' Bard Meadows is located approximately one and a half miles fi.om the
subject property.
24. Appellants are not a "person aggrieved" concerning the approval of CSR
Enterprises' conditional use application, rather, Appellants are merely a competitor who is
concerned with the competition which CSR Enterprises' apartment complex would bring
in the student housing market and it would therefore, adversely affect Appellants profit
margins from its commercial enterprise, Bard Meadows.
25. Appellants lack standing to object to the approved plan in question in that
Appellants never once attended a meeting to voice any opposition to the proposed
conditional use.
WHEREFORE, the Intervenor, CSR Enterprises, respectfully requests that
Appellants' frivolous Land Use Appeal be dismissed for lack of standing and that
Appellants be directed to pay Intervenor's attorney fees, and all other relief deemed
appropriate by this Honorable Court.
Dated: ,~ov. 1 5, '2 0o~.
I
Respectfully submitted:
COYN-E & COYNE, PC.
By:(~ (~4~ ?~ -
f///~;~ MMa~ceCt ~ tYn. e'~E squire
Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227
(717) 737-0464
Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 53788
Attorneys for CSR Enterprises
.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire, of Coyne & Coyne, P.C., hereby certify that true copy of the
foregoing Answer, Motion to Quash and Motion to Dismiss Appellants' Land Use Appeal was
served this date upon the below-referenced individuals at the below listed address by way of first
class mail, postage pre-paid:
Ron Turo, Esquire
Turo Law Offices
28 South Pitt St.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Timothy M. Zieziula, Esquire
Knox, McLaughlin, Gornall & Sennett, P.C.
120 West l0th Street
Erie, PA 16501
Dated: [Xf oq,
isa ar~e~olyne, Esquir. '
ket Street
L--~mp Hill, PA 17011-4227
(717) 737-0464
,CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire, of Coyne & Coyne, P.C., hereby certify that true copy of the
foregoing Intervenor's Petition to Compel Posting of Bond was served this date upon the below-
referenced individuals at the below listed address by way of first class mail, postage pre-paid:
Ron Turo, Esquire
Turo Law Offices
28 South Pitt St.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Timothy M. Zieziula, Esquire
Knox, McLaughlin, Gomall & Sennett, P.C.
120 West 10t~ Street
Erie, PA 16501
Dated:
~arket Stree~ ~sa Marie Coyne,
Camp Hill, PA 170114227
(717) 737-0464
SHIPPENSBURG TOWN-HOUSES, LLC
and WESTMINSTER DEVELOPMENT,
Appellants
Vo
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNSHIP
Appellee
and
CAROL VESCHI, SEAN TIGHE and
ROBERT VESCHI, fid/b/a/CSR Enterprises,
Intervenor
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO. 02-2882 Civil Term
Land Use Appeal
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court.
1. State matter to be argued: Land Use Appeal Concerning Apellee's approval of a
Conditional Use Permit and Intervenors' Motion to Quash and Motion to Dismiss appeal.
2. Identify counsel who will argue case:
Timothy M. Zieziula, Esquire
Knox, McLaughlin, Gomall
& Sennett, P.C.
120 West 10t~ Street
Erie, PA 16501
Attorney for Appellants
Ron Turo, Esquire
Turo Law Offices
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Appellees
Dated:
Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire
Coyne & Coyne, P.C.
3901 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227
Attorney for Intervenor
I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for
argument.
Argument Court Date: December 6, 2002
Respectfully submitted:
COYNE & COYNE, P.C.
By:
///Lisa Marie Coyn~, Esquire
[ / Pa. Supreme Ct.'No. 53788
k/ Attorney for Intervenor
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire, of Coyne & Coyne, P.C., hereby certify that tree copy of the
foregoing Praecipe for Argument Court was served this date upon the below-referenced
individuals at the below listed address by way of first class mail, postage pre-paid:
Ron Turo, Esquire
Turo Law Offices
28 South Pitt St.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Timothy M. Zieziula, Esquire
Knox, McLaughlin, Gomall & Sennett, P.C.
120 West l0th Street
Erie, PA 16501
Dated: /~ //~ ~0Z-- ~~.~'~--
/ L/ilaMarie Coyne, ,Ejlquire
~/320~l~Mla~ke t Str eet0'
Camp Hill, PA 1170114227
(717) 737-0464
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNHOUSES, LLC
and WESTMINSTER DEVELOPMENT,
LLC,
Appellants
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNSHIP,
Appellee
and
CAROL VESCHI, SEAN TIGHE,
ROBERT VESCHI, t/d/b/a CSR Enterprises,:
Intervenor
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO. 02-2882 Civil Term
: Land Use Appeal
INTERVENOR'S ANSWER~ MOTION TO QUASH AND
MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLANTS' LAND USE APPEAL
AND NOW COMES the Intcrvenor, CSR Enterprises, by and through its attorney,
Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire and avers the following in support of this ANSWER, MOTION
TO QUASH and MOTION TO DISMISS:
1. Admitted upon info~ation and belief.
2. Admitted upon information and belief.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that the real property in
question is a lot, approximately 5 acres in size, located partially in Shippensburg Township
and partially in Shippensburg Borough. It is denied however, that Lawrence and Alice
Royer own the property. The property in question is owned by CSR Enterprises, a
registered partnership with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
5. Admitted. By way of further answer, only that portion of the property which is
located in Shippensburg Township is zoned R-2 Residential District.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted. By way of further answer, the conditional use permit was granted
after two (2) public hearings. Furthermore the conditional use application concerned a use
which consisted of five (5) apartment buildings containing sixty (60) units and one laundry
building as an accessory use to the apartment buildings.
8. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that at the time of the
issuance of the Conditional Use Permit the Township had not approved CSR Enterprises'
Land Development Plan. It is denied however that a Land Development Land must be
approved before a Conditional Use Permit can be issued.
9. Denied. It is denied that Appellants did not know or have any idea concerning
the Conditional Use Application. It is averred that the Appellant, or its designee, attended
at least one of the Public Heatings concerning the Conditional Use Application.
Furthermore, the Conditional Use Application was properly advertised in advance of the
public hearing and therefore, Appellants were on notice concerning the Application and
furthermore, the notoriety of the issue was reported in the local newspapers thereby giving
additional notice of the pending Conditional Use application.
10. (a) Denied. It is denied that CSR Enterprises failed to comply with the Zoning
Ordinance or that a Land Development Plan must be approved prior to action taken
concerning a Conditional Use Application. Further, it is denied that the Township
Supervisors' approval of the Conditional Use Permit was arbitrary, capricious, and
contrary to law or constituted an abuse of discretion. Further, the averments of this
subparagraph state a legal conclusion, which requires no response. To the extent that a
response may be deemed required, CSR Enterprises' intended use of this tract of land was
for five (5) apmtment buildings and one laundry. The intended use of this tract of land was
and remained for five (5) apartment buildings and one laundry. It is denied that the
Appellants fairly or accurately states the action taken by the Board of Supervisors
(b) Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that at the time the
conditional use permit was issued, CSR Enterprises' Land Development Plan had not been
approved. It is denied, however, that approval of a Land Development Plan was a
prerequisite or a condition precedent for approval of a Conditional Use application.
Furthermore, it is denied that the proposed use at issue for the Conditional Use application
had changed. The intended development of this tract of land was and remains for an
apartment complex consisting of five (5) apartment buildings and one laundry.
(c) Denied. It is denied that CSR Enterprises failed to comply with Sections
404 and 909 of the Zoning Ordinance concerning Parking requirements. Per the Zoning
ordinance 180 parking spaces are required and 180 parking spaces are provided. It is
further denied that the CSR Enterprises' Land Development Plan had to be approved prior
to approval of a conditional use application.
(d) Denied. The averments of this subparagraph state a legal conclusion, which
requires no response. To the extent that a response may be deemed required, it is denied
that the approved and re-approved Final Land Development Plan submitted by CSR
Enterprises fails to comply with Section 914(11) of the Township's Zoning Ordinance
concerning recreational area designations.
(e) Denied. The averments of this subparagraph state a legal conclusion, which
requires no response. To the extent that a response may be deemed required, it is denied
that the developer failed to comply with Section 402(3) of the Zoning Ordinance as it
relates to calculation of occupied areas.
11. Denied. This is a request for action to which no response is required and same is
therefore denied.
WHEREFORE, Intervenor, CSR Enterprises respectfully requests that this Land
Use Appeal be Denied and that the Appellantsl pay Intervenor's costs, attorney fees and
expenses related to this frivolous appeal.
MOTION TO QUASIt
12. Paragraphs 1 thru 11 are incorporated herein.
13. The conditional use conditions imposed by Conditoinal Use Permit No. 20-4 were
placed of record upon the coversheet of all versions of CSR Enterprises' Land
Development Plan.
14. Appellants filed this Land Use Appeal on June 13, 2002, which is more than five
months after the Conditional Use Pek,nit was granted, i.e., December 17, 2001.
15. Appellants had until January 15, 2002 to file a timely appeal of the granting of CSR
Enterprises' Conditional Use Permit No. 20-4.
16. Appellants' Land Use Appeal is untimely and therefore prohibited by the
Municipal Planning Code of Pennsylvania. 53 Pa. C.S. §1002-A.
WHEREFORE, Intervenor, CSR Enterprises respectfully requests that this Land
Use Appeal be Quashed as untimely filed and that Appellants be directed to pay
Intervenor's attorney fees and all other relief deemed appropriate by this Honorable Court.
MOTION TO DISMISS
17. Paragraphs 1 through 16 are incorporated herein.
18. Throughout the public review and approval process concerning CSR Enterprises'
Conditional Use Application, Appellants never once appeared or objected to the said
Application at any of the open and public meetings or hearings.
19. Appellants are the owners and operators of Bard Meadows Apartments located in
Shippensburg Township.
20. Bard Meadows Apartments are an apartment facility which provides housing to
primarily university students from Shippensburg University.
21. CSR Enterprises' proposed apartment complex would be in direct competition to
Bard Meadows Apartment in that it will provide housing to primarily university students
from Shippensburg University.
22. Appellants' Bard Meadows complex is not an adjoining property owner to the
subject property.
23. Appellants' Bard Meadows is located approximately one and a half miles from the
subject property.
24. Appellants are not a "person aggrieved" concerning the approval of CSR
Enterprises' conditional use application, rather, Appellants are merely a competitor who is
concerned with the competition which CSR Enterprises' apartment complex would bring
in the student housing market and it would therefore, adversely affect Appellants profit
margins from its commercial enterprise, Bard Meadows.
25. Appellants lack standing to object to the approved plan in question in that
Appellants never once attended a meeting to voice any opposition to the proposed
conditional use.
WHEREFORE, the Intervenor, CSR Enterprises, respectfully requests that
Appellants' frivolous Land Use Appeal be dismissed for lack of standing and that
Appellants be directed to pay Intervenor's attorney fees, and all other relief deemed
appropriate by this Honorable Court.
Respectfully submitted:
COYNE & COYNE, PC.
Dated:
~isa Marie Coyne,,~Esquire
/r3901 Market St. '
Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227
(717) 737-0464
Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 53788
Attorneys for CSR Enterprises
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa Marie Coyne, Esquire, of Coyne & Coyne, P.C., hereby certify that true copy of the
foregoing Answer, Motion to Quash and Motion to Dismiss Appellants' Land Use Appeal was
served this date upon the below-referenced individuals at the below listed address by way of first
class mail, postage pre-paid:
Ron Turo, Esquire
Turo Law Offices
28 South Pitt St.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Timothy M. Zieziula, Esquire
Knox, McLaughlin, Gomall & Sennett, P.C.
120 West l0th Street
Erie, PA 16501
Dated:
(717) 737-0464
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNHOUSES, LLC
and WESTMINSTER DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Appellants
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNSHIP,
and
Appellee
CAROL VESCHI, SEAN TIGHE, and ROBERT
VESCHI, t/d/b/a CSR ENTERPRISES,
Intervenor
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO. 02-2882 Civil Term
Land Use Appeal
PRAECIPE FOR A DISCONTINUANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
You are hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to withdraw WITH
Prejudice the above-captioned Land Use Appeal.
Date:
November 19, 2002
Respectfully subrnitted,
KNOX McLAUGHLIN GORNALL
& SENNETT, P.C.
pTia.ms°lu~rYe~ne Ct. No.~' Zieziula73716
120 West Tenth Street
Erie, PA ![6501-1461
(814) 459-2800
Counsel for Shippensburg Townhouses, LLC
and Westminster Development, LLC
# 463901
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNHOUSES, LLC
and WESTMINSTER DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Appellants
Vo
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
SHIPPENSBURG TOWNSHIP,
and
Appellee
CAROL VESCHI, SEAN TIGHE, and ROBERT
VESCHI, t/d/b/a CSR ENTERPRISES,
Intervenor
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO. 02-.2882 Civil Term
Land Use Appeal
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on the I~day of November, 2002, a
copy of the within Praecipe for a Discontinuance was served on upon the below-referenced
individuals at the below listed address by way of first class mail, postage pre-paid:
Ron Turro, Esquire
Turo Law Offices
Solicitor, Shippensburg Township
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Lisa Made Coyne, Esquire
Coyne & Coyne, P.C.
3901 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227,//~~~~/~/b~//~'
Timot~ M. Zieziula, ~squire
Attorneys for Appellants,
Sluppensburg Townhouses, LLC and
Westminster Development, LLC
# 463901