HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-3721 (2)
RODNEY L. YENTZER, CAROL M. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON
YENTZER, JEFFREY A. YENTZER: PLEAS OFCUMBERLAND COUNTY,
AND RODNEY L. YENTZER, II, t/d/b/a : PENNSYLVANIA
DOUBLIN GAP MOTOCROSS, INC., :
PLAINTIFFS :
:
V. :
:
HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP, :
DEFENDANT : 07-3721 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE
OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925
Masland, J., September 19, 2012:--
Plaintiffs, Rodney L. Yentzer, Carol M. Yentzer, Jeffrey A. Yentzer, and
Rodney L. Yentzer II, t/d/b/a Doublin Gap Motocross, Inc., appeal this court’s
verdict in favor of Defendant, Hopewell Township, following a non-jury trial. In
1
relevant part, Plaintiffs complain of the following errors on appeal:
II. Judge Masland’s trial errors
6. Judge Masland erred in not permitting testimony
by Plaintiffs’ witnesses as to business [sic] within the
township which exceed the threshold of 450 persons
and are not subject to public gathering ordinance
enforcement.
Judge Masland’s failure to consider such
testimony resulted in the Court not being able to
determine the township’s standards for inapplicability
of the ordinance.
1
Plaintiffs filed a lengthy Statement of Errors alleging no less than eighteen mistakes for
appellate review. A review of the issues raised, reveals that the vast majority of these issues
have already been comprehensibly addressed in the memorandum opinion of Judge Bayley, filed
May 13, 2008, and the memorandum opinion drafted by the undersigned and filed July 24, 2012,
rendering a verdict following the non-jury trial. The court now adopts and incorporates those
opinions herein, and addresses the two issues not already explained in those opinions.
07-3721 CIVIL TERM
7. Judge Masland erred in not permitting Plaintiffs to
develop testimony through the zoning officer as to
occupancy limits, building codes and other matters
which would tend to show that the law recognizes a
relationship between size of a site, dimensions of
buildings and the legal occupancy permitted as to
same.
This testimony would have allowed the Court to
determine that the proper measure of people to
trigger the applicability of the Public Gathering
Ordinance must bear a reasonable relationship as to
same.
Statement of Errors, filed August 31, 2012.
Appellate review of this court’s ruling on a motion in limine is governed by
an abuse of discretion standard. Turner v. Valley Housing Development Corp.,
972 A.2d 531, 535 (Pa. Super. 2009). Questions concerning the admissibility of
evidence are within this court’s sound discretion and these rulings “will not be
disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” Id.
Our Rules of Evidence provide:
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its
probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the
jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of
time, or needless presentation of cumulative
evidence.
Pa. R.E. 403.
At trial, Plaintiffs sought to introduce evidence regarding the disputed
Public Gathering Ordinance’s inapplicability to a grocery store and a Turnpike
2
Plaza within the Township. The court sustained Defendant’s objection to this
evidence on the grounds of relevance. The Turnpike Plaza and grocery store are
2
Notes of Testimony, February 8, 2012 at 10. (N.T. at __).
-2-
07-3721 CIVIL TERM
significantly different in kind from Plaintiffs’ motocross facility rendering them
3
irrelevant to the ultimate resolution of the underlying dispute. Testimony
regarding the nature of these businesses, which are not only familiar to this court,
but to anyone with a pulse, would have provided little if any assistance in our
determination of this case.
Plaintiffs also sought to introduce the testimony of the Township’s Zoning
4
Officer. Again, the court sustained Defendant’s objection on the basis that the
5
testimony would not be relevant. Simply put, the disputed Public Gathering
Ordinance is not a Zoning Ordinance, and therefore, any testimony by the
Township’s Zoning officer would be an unnecessary waste of time. Hopefully, it
is evident from the lengthy transcript, in this relatively simple case, that we gave
both parties more than enough rope for a knot-tying exhibition. The exclusion of
a slipknot from Plaintiffs’ repertoire did not render our review incomplete.
For these reasons, and the reasons explained at length in the two
opinions incorporated herein, the Commonwealth Court should affirm this court’s
verdict and allow this protracted litigation to come to a conclusion.
By the Court,
Albert H. Masland, J.
3
N.T. at 12.
4
N.T. at 6.
5
N.T. at 7.
-3-
07-3721 CIVIL TERM
William A. Duncan, Esquire
For Yentzers t/d/b/a Doublin Gap Motocross, Inc.
Sally J. Winder, Esquire
For Hopewell Township
:saa
-4-