HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-31 equityVERNON GRAHAM, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs
VS.
EDWARD E. STAMBAUGH and
RONALD WALLACE,
individually and t/d/b/a SOUTH
MOUNTAIN DRAGWAY,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 31 EQUITY 1992
CIVIL ACTION- EQUITY
IN RE: PETITION FOR CONTEMPT
BEFORE HESS, J.
DECREE NISI
AND NOW, this
day of August, 2000, the motion of the plaintiffs seeking a
contempt citation against the defendants is DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
Ron Turo, Esquire
For the Plaintiffs
Steven J. Fishman, Esquire
For the Defendants
ess, J.
:rim
VERNON GRAHAM, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs
VS.
EDWARD E. STAMBAUGH and
RONALD WALLACE,
individually and t/d/b/a SOUTH
MOUNTAIN DRAGWAY,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF-.-~'
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 31 EQUITY 1992
CIVIL ACTION- EQUITY
IN RE: PETITION FOR CONTEMPT
BEFORE HESS, J.
MEMORANDUM AND DECREE NISI
The plaintiffs have filed a petition in this case seeking to have the defendants found in
contempt for a violation of the order of this court dated April 20, 1995. That order ratified and
confirmed a settlement agreement of the parties. The agreement and order dealt with the
operation of a drag strip known as South Mountai.n Dragway located on approximately forty
acres of land in South Middleton Township, Cumberland County.
The recent complained-of activity at the drag strip was described at our hearing of August
14, 2000. The facts are not in dispute. The event occurred on Saturday, June 17, 2000. It
consisted of a flea market and car show. There were also games for children. There were no
rides and no car racing.
The settlement agreement and order of April 20, 1995, permitted the South Mountain
Dragway to continue to operate its facilities as a drag strip "or for similar purpose" but with
certain express limitations. We have reviewed these limitations and can find none applicable to
the June 17th event. The order provides'
NO. 31 EQUITY 1992
(a) for a beginning and end date to the racing
season;
(b) a prohibition of racing activities on Easter
Sunday;
(c) the regulation of racing on Friday;
(d) a provision for holiday racing;
(e) a prohibition against Saturday "racing events";
and
(f) start times for Friday and Sunday racing.
The order also prohibits the use of the public address system at the South Mountain Dragway
except on those days on which racing is allowed. There is not a contention in this case that the
public address system was used on June 17th. In short, even assuming that a car show is a
"purpose" subject to the limitations in paragraph 1 of the order, we are unable to find a limitation
which was violated.
The plaintiffs also contend that the activity of June 17th is a violation of the non-
conforming use to which the property is subject. Indeed, on at least one prior occasion the
township zoning officer has opined that a "flea market" was an impermissible activity at the
dragway.~ It may well be that the recent car show/flea market was in violation of the local
zoning ordinance. That, however, is not the question before us.
DECREE NISI
AND NOW, this
day of August, 2000, the motion of the plaintiffs seeking a
See Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1.
NO. 31 EQUITY 1992
contempt citation against the defendants is DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
Ron Turo, Esquire
For the Plaintiffs
Steven J. Fishman, Esquire
For the Defendants
K~A. Hess, J.
'rlm