Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/35318748/LCB-103-N-Petition-Intervene-7-13-10
Timestamp: 2017-01-22 11:10:17
Document Index: 130623640

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 280', '§ 250', '§ 255', '§280', '§ 280', '§15', '§ 280', '§ 250', '§ 132', '§ 150', '§13', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 132', '§ 132', '§ 150', '§ 250', '§ 263', '§ 280158', '§ 280', '§8', '§ 8', '§ 280', '§ 280', '§ 142', '§ 250', '§ 89', '§ 4104', '§ 4902', '§ 4903', '§ 4904', '§ 4910', '§ 4952', '§ 5101', '§ 5107', '§ 5301']

LCB 103 N Petition Intervene 7'13'10 | Plaintiff | Complaint
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIAPENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD
Petition of : James D. Schneller
License No. R - 13486 Application for License Change of Location Application for License Change of Licensee
PETITION TO INTERVENE AND OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED CHANGE OF LICENSEE AND LICENSE LOCATION James D. Schneller, of 500 East Lancaster Avenue # 111d, Wayne, PA, files this petition to intervene and objections to any approval of the application to transfer the license from 116 North Wayne Avenue to 103 North Wayne Avenue and transfer ownership from The Pub Group II LLC, to Xilantro Wayne Investors Inc.. In objection to the application, and in support of intervention, petitioner states the following:
1) Applicant has applied for a change in location within the Township of Radnor, and
has applied to change licensee identity.
2) James D. Schneller is a resident of the district which views the street and block of
the proposed premises to be their town center.
3) The determination in this proceeding will affect enforceable interests of
petitioner's. Petitioner's interests in this application are highly likely to be not represented by any other party on the record.
4) The subject premises is the subject of an appeal by petitioner to the Radnor Zoning
Hearing Board, a subsequent civil complaint to the local Magistrate Court, a
subsequent citizen criminal complaint submitted to said magistrate Court and the District Attorney of Delaware County, and an appeal and complaint regarding the magistrate's decision, in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. A copy of the petitioner's "statement of basis and relief" accompanying the appeal to the Radnor Zoning Board is attached as Exhibit A. A copy of petitioner's complaint filed with the appeal to the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is attached as Exhibit B (exhibits omitted).
5) Said entanglement stems from a complaint that the landowner is acting as if the
sidewalk where applicant seeks to serve alcohol outdoors is landowner's domain despite many decades of use of it solely by the public as a plaza, and despite a recently passed Wayne Business District Overlay and SALDO and underlying Master Plan which accentuate the shortage of public space in downtown Wayne and encourage ways to preserve what there is.
6) The landowner is acting as if he is outside of the statutes. They have not obtained
approvals usually required under municipal ordinance chapters including those governing sidewalks, sidewalk cafes, trees, and land use.
7) The landowner has also expressly violated statutes including those governing
sidewalks and shade trees and petitioner has stood against these acts before the Radnor Board of Commissioners, Radnor Zoning Hearing Board, and Radnor Department of Community Development.
8) A similar episode had occurred on a town plaza a block away in recent history, and
what was a public plaza, became the domain of a busy nightspot's sidewalk café, with a concurrent slight to the residents of Wayne, and a failure to use the opportunity to increase the width of the right of way section of that sidewalk, which remains at an egregious four feet. Allowing a license to be associated with this, the applicant's, identical such scar, resulting as it does from failure of government to enforce the law and Wayne Master Plan, would be beyond the thresholds of common decency, duty to uphold the law, and perception to the public of lawfulness, fairness and impartiality.
9) The above constitute extraordinary circumstances supporting intervention by
10) Few or no other parties have stood to object to the liquor license proposed for this
location and petitioner believes this is not because of lack of misgivings and objections, but rather is a result of a lessening of officials' rectitude, which has caused the populace to avoid local land use issues, due to a perception of such being a waste of time in light of immovable attitudes and unwilling intellect perceived in leaders, by the public.
11) Petitioner's interests are too important to be denied review. 12) Petitioner has not unduly delayed in making application for intervention. 13) Participation of the petitioner in this matter is in the public interest. 14) Petitioner also requests to intervene because, although he lives farther than 500 feet
from the proposed premises, the block is the center of the community's small town center and shopping district, which is visited by many, but owned by few, so that the 500 foot rule is meaningless in regard to actual numerous objections by citizens with meaningful reasons to claim standing to oppose.
15) At their meetings the Radnor Township Board of Commissioners has declined to
investigate and/or reconsider this matter despite petitioner's explaining to them that the Zoning Hearing Board and Department of Community Development had openly and substantially obstructed justice and righteous enforcement of the municipal code and Municipalities Planning Code.
16) The proposed location is a hazard with a narrow sidewalk and burdensome
sidewalk traffic that is now known, since the alterations, to be a bottleneck, a hazard, and an inconvenience. With the ingress and egress of a liquor establishment this will be aggravated and become more dangerous, and a busy right turn corner borders the curb along the premises. The location is already harmful to strollers and pets and youngsters especially. The inclusion of alcohol in this format would be unsafe and irresponsible. The applicant feasibly seeks to use the no parking zone as a drop off location yet this would be expressly dangerous.
17) Failure to gain proper approvals by landowners denies township residents the
opportunity to raise objections like those raised herein.
18) The landowner enjoys an insulated status in the above described matter and others,
which in cases like these has caused a marked appearance of bias, partiality, and unfairness.
19) Petitioner objects because Radnor Township is burdened with an inordinate
number of Board licensees, and an inordinate percentage of total Board licensees, on a township, county, and statewide basis, and recent complaints on this basis to the Board of Commissioners of Radnor Township fell on deaf ears.
20) Any establishment would be frequented by college students of the five nearby
colleges, which has been an issue before in Wayne. Most residents would prefer that liquor businesses in the Township not serve college students, yet operators frequently find it hard to avoid the extra business. Despite all optimism, and respect for the right to imbibe alcohol, this is an issue proven to be successively objected to, needful of governance, and harmful.
21) Certain classes of citizens stand to be more deeply affected by the applicant's
proposal, including the elderly, the family raising, the physical fit, jogger, and walker, the morally inclined, and others.
22) Petitioner objects because a liquor license for this location, will deprive my rights
to and enjoyment of typical and status quo elements of day to day safety, comforts, the environment, and safety, ethical fabric of the district, moral fabric of the district, morals of the youth and the impressionable, property values, liberty, travel time, and enjoyment.
23) The ability and intent of the Radnor Commissioners to protect basic comforts and
ethical and moral status quo is not exercised and may even be worked against.
24) Wayne Presbyterian Church at 125 East Lancaster Avenue and the Central Baptist
Church at 106 West Lancaster Avenue are within 300 feet of the applicant's proposed location.
25) At least two (2) other licensed liquor establishments in the vicinity are located
within 500 feet of one or both of the Wayne Presbyterian Church and the Wayne Central Baptist Church.
26) Applicant's proposed license premises is the first that would be openly visible from
27) Applicant's proposed license premises is the first that would be noticeably audible
from both churches.
28) Applicant's proposed license premises is the first that would be directly noticeable
from both churches year round.
29) The sidewalk is traversed daily by dozens of middle school students who attend the
school located 750 feet from the premises and who walk home because there is no bus service for a circumference of a mile. This side of North Wayne Avenue has no premises licensed by the Board and is also the most direct route for any students walking to North Wayne, and has become the known sidewalk of least resistance for all residents, because no sidewalk cafes exist.
30) Wayne Presbyterian Church at 125 East Lancaster Avenue and the Central Baptist
Church at 106 West Lancaster Avenue both operate schools, that are located within 300 feet of the applicant's proposed location.
31) Petitioner is a religious person and reveres the presence of these churches and
believes that their presence is a deeper and more influential one for a majority of the community and visitors and commuters, than simply a building with a steeple for Sunday worship.
32) Moreso both of these churches have an active regimen all week involving all ages. 33) Petitioner is an architectural and historical enthusiast and believes that an
overabundance of outdoor cafes harms the town's atmosphere and the town's ambience and character, and said church's contribution thereto.
34) Petitioner claims that each additional liquor license likewise is detrimental to the
morals of the community, and the visible affront within 300 feet of said churches and schools would be even more detrimental.
35) The visible affront of additional liquor licensees is detrimental to the historical and
unique character of the town.
36) Radnor residents have noted the concentration of liquor establishments on North
Wayne Avenue with serious concerns about the change in character of the town.
37) The police in Radnor Township have been forced to add special personnel at this
block, and a significant reason for this is the elevated average blood alcohol content combined with diagonal parking, high pedestrian volume, and a need to prevent unruliness.
38) Having no knowledge of the date of posting of notice, petitioner demands strict
proof of it's posting on the stated day.
39) The relevant side of North Wayne Avenue is, up to present, without a liquor
establishment and this has been a noticeable feature.
40) Petitioner is unable to discern why two location dimensions have been listed on the
notice, namely, 40 x 19, and 25 x 15. Petitioner reserves the right to raise further objections upon any allowable discovery and other investigation, including regarding reputation.
41) The plaza occupied by the landowner thus is a reminder to the public that local
government has failed in their duty, and therefore the application should be denied, because applicant's association with the landowner and the property indicates an equal lack of regard.
42) The granting of the application, and of a double transfer, will indicate failure of
government and leadership, intertwined with the added objections stated herein including over saturation with Board licensees.
43) For these and additional reasons the effects of grant of the proposed license on
petitioner and on a great number of town residents and visitors would be direct, substantial, and immediate.
44) The proposal also stands to be harmful to freedom, comfort, safety, and morals of
the immediate neighborhoods, which are in fact a walking community.
45) Such additional reasons as arise before the Board.
REQUEST TO FILE OUTSIDE OF THE 30 DAY PERIOD
46) Petitioner files this petition on the 47th day from the written date on the notice. The
date of actual posting may be later than the day written on the notice.
47) Petitioner for 3 decades has traversed the location of applicant's proposed premises,
at least four times a week. Petitioner for the past 6 years has traversed the location at least five times a week, on foot or bicycle, which are his sole means of travel during the last 6 years.
48) Petitioner's means of travel causes him to be more acutely aware of his
aggrievement with the proposal for liquor license, and all of the aggrievements petitioner has claimed would be caused by grant of the application.
49) Petitioner in the same time period as the thirty days beginning on the date of
applicant's posting of notice, May 28, 2010, has embarked on a 60 day, 12 hour a day effort to acquire the lawful number of 4200 signatures, on petitions for his candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives. The said project stepped into high gear on the Memorial Day weekend where petitioner could not even attend the Wayne Memorial Day parade, at which time he was highly likely to see the applicant's notice. Since that time petitioner has, on a daily basis, necessarily travelled from his home, going in the opposite direction from the proposed premises, and returning home without time for leisure walk or ride, without exception, until Saturday, July 10, 2010, on which day he mailed some parcels at the Post Office and then traversed applicant's sidewalk and saw the notice.
50) Petitioner files this petition at the earliest opportunity because he was required to
file a petition for allowance of appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, both by midnight Monday, July 12, 2010, and so files this petition in the midnight hour of Wednesday, July 14, 2010. 51) The extraordinary circumstances and public interest of these objections support late request for intervention.
52) Such additional reasons as arise before the Board.
I, James D. Schneller, verify that the statements made in the foregoing petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
________________________________ James D. Schneller 500 E. Lancaster Avenue #111d Radnor, PA 19087 pro se 610-688-9471
Relief requested and/or basis for appearing before the Zoning Hearing Board. The premises is the premises next to the building at the eastern corner of Lancaster Avenue and North Wayne Avenue. The building line of the present structure, which was recently replaced, protrudes approximately 5 feet further streetward than the dozen or so buildings on the block, which protrusion falls somewhat in correlation with the diagonal direction of the curb, which results from an ending of diagonal parking spaces and the curb's converging to a typical distance from said corner building, which protrudes approximately 12 feet further westward than the premises at hand. The owner of 103 North Wayne or a related party ("owner" "landowner") has taken possession of the sidewalk and plaza in front of the premises up to a line extending from the building line of the corner building, extending north and then diagonally northeast, paralleling the curb described in the preceding paragraph, said line remaining parallel to said curb. Because the premises is set back said twelve or so feet farther from the street, this section of sidewalk has been for memorable time a small triangular plaza which up until recently held a bench and offered a reprieve of open space. The arbitrary boundary is apparently intended to be an outermost limit for a sidewalk café. It leaves no allotment for use a public space. The sidewalk has been re-poured separate and apart from the rest of the plaza, causing a level sidewalk that is incongruous with the rest of the noticeably graded sidewalk, removing it from public use, and the owner has constructed a berm or trough, depending on the location, on which was recently installed a waist high fence. There is a stairwell to basement level extending along the border with the adjacent corner property. Owner applied for and was granted a permit to replace the sidewalk, around the time that said alterations were made, but that permit was issued solely for a sidewalk following and not extending beyond, a swath extending approximately 7 feet from the curb and thus not including the rough triangle of plaza now possessed, measuring roughly twelve feet by fifteen feet, that has been altered by the landowner. This sidewalk alteration allowed by the permit was made. All changes were most likely made at the same time. The alteration has needlessly made the passable sidewalk cramped, uncomfortable and unattractive, and has taken from public domain the last such plaza space in the core shopping district, which has a strong characteristic of being cramped and inconvenient for pedestrians. These are ills intended to be alleviated as stated in the enacting ordinances, Township master plan, Wayne WBOD master plan, and the related comprehensive plans and preliminary studies leading up to them.
Applicant is, as an aggrieved citizen, tenant of real property, whose property, person, health, safety, and welfare will be substantially negatively affected by the objected-to acts, and whose rights to liberty, property, comfort, safety, protection of interests, and all rights due him; entitled to request certain actions by the Board, as follows. Applicant has not received any response to his letters written to the Department complaining of the issue listed herein.
1) Determination of whether the taking over of the triangular portion of the plaza that has been altered and fenced, was needful of a permit or permits, and/or permission of the department and other officials, including because it is a re-pouring of a long standing plaza, involved a permanent fixture for a sidewalk dining barrier, and has a fence erected thereon. § 280-131 2) Has the engineer or zoning officer issued a permit for sidewalk replacement in error, due to knowledge of the intent of the owner to substantially alter the other portion of sidewalk between the curbside sidewalk and the premises, said other portion not formally requested to be changed in the permit application, and other reasons ? R.M.C.§ 250-11, § 255-37, §280-139(A), § 280-131(C), 280-158, Chapter 280 Article 12A §15 3) May the department serve enforcement notice(s) on the owner ? § 280-156, § 250-6, § 132- 113.3, § 150-9 4) Is the status of the plaza that of a public plaza and commons as opposed to space freely available to adjacent property owner for sidewalk dining ? Chapter 255 Article IX §13, § 280-89.8 (C) 5) Are the possession of, and changes to, the plaza, irregular, invalid, and unapprovable ? § 280-145, § 132-113 6) Is the owner in direct violation of the municipal code for acts including altering a public sidewalk without a permit, without a sidewalk dining permit, without approval of the design review board and Shade Tree Commission, and without the approval of the Board of Commissioners and Planning Commission ? Did the physical structure hold all lawful permits and should those applications have included the plan for the
plaza alterations and possession ? § 132-113.4, § 150-9, § 250-10, § 263.9, § 280158, § 280-36.4, Chapter 255 Article IX §8, Chapter 280 Article 12A §§ 8, 15 7) Is the owner in direct violation of the municipal code for acts including altering a public sidewalk and plaza or commons and erecting a fence without variance or special exception ? 8) May the owner be fined and subject to proceedings to stop further work and proceedings to remove said alterations ? All available enforcement is requested. § 280-89.10, § 280-107, § 142.4, § 250.9, 250.14 9) May and must the Board find that the plaza is a commons, and direct allocation of the commons for public use and direct the Planning Commission, Shade Tree Commission, and/or the C.P.I.C., to determine the future of the commons due to this opportunity and finding ? Applicant reserves the right to add additional issues in his brief including those made necessary by testimony and other evidence.
James D. Schneller, plaintiff v. Radnor Township Department of Community Development, Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board Steven Bajus; S.W. Bajus Ltd.
: OF DELAWARE COUNTY,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT JUSTICE No. 10 - 52231
To: Radnor Township Department of Community Development, Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board Steven Bajus; S.W. Bajus Ltd. NOTICE TO DEFEND 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 twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by an 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 judgement 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 rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.
Lawyer's Reference Service Front & Lemon Streets Media, Pennsylvania 19063 (610) 566-6625
James D. Schneller PLAINTIFF pro se
James D. Schneller pro se 500 East Lancaster Avenue #111d Radnor, PA 19087 610-688-9471 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, James D. Schneller, plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA v. : Radnor Township Department of Community Development, Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT OF Steven Bajus; S.W. Bajus Ltd. : DISTRICT JUSTICE
No. 10 - 52231
Plaintiff appeals from the decision of Magisterial Court 32-1-29 granting judgment to defendants and against plaintiff and finding lack of jurisdiction over claims, stating as follows: 1) Plaintiff is a resident of Radnor Township, residing at 500 East lancaster Avenue # 111d, Radnor, PA 19087 for seven years, and residing in the immediate area for 40 years. 2) Defendant Radnor Township Dept. of Community Development of 301 Iven Avenue, Wayne, Pa 19087, contains the entire Radnor Township staff directly involved with land use and subdivision and related applications and permits including the engineer, zoning officer, inspectors and support staff, and is the body which processes appeals to defendant Zoning Hearing Board of Radnor Township, also of 301 Iven Avenue, Wayne, Pa 19087. 3) Defendants Stephen W. Bajus and his firm S.W. Bajus Ltd., of 919 Conestoga Road #203 4) Rosemont, PA 19010, are the owner of the land and the applicant for permits for alteration to the premises at issue, which is a commercial building on the main shopping
street named North Wayne Avenue, address 103 North Wayne Avenue, Wayne, Pennsylvania. 5) A true and correct copy of the complaint filed by plaintiff in the magisterial court is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A.
6) Plaintiff claims that the district Court has erred substantially in law and apprehension of fact in a volume which supports reversal and trial de novo, and trial of a set of claims left unaddressed by the magisterial Court. 7) The trial Court has erred in issuing judgment for defendants because plaintiff testified with great credibility and was unopposed, or opposed in small part and/or only with verbal statements by counsel for defendant Department of Community Development. 8) Error is therefore great in the legal conclusion of judgment for defendants as well. Plaintiff sought refund of the filing fee and damages because crucial and clearly pertinent documents bearing substantially on decision to appeal and the appeal itself, were prevented of any revealing to plaintiff pursuant to his information requests filed before appeal was taken to defendant Zoning Board, and before the Zoning Board hearing. 9) The only plan revealed to plaintiff was a sidewalk plan, for a permit for re-laying of the sidewalk portion of the construction, whereas at hearing the defendants suddenly revealed three (3) other plans, stating them to be of record in the matter. 10) A true and correct copy of the decision is attached hereto as EXHIBIT B. 11) The trial Court has erred in issuing judgment for defendants because plaintiff's claims for $ 8,000.00 in compensatory and exemplary damages was declared to be irrelevant or outside of jurisdiction of the district Court, and these matters beared heavily on the claim that was decided and yet were not taken into consideration before judgment entered. 12) Plaintiff also requests trial of matters not addressed by the District Court, including, as stated in the complaint below: 13) Obstruction to Radnor Township Zoning Appeal No. 2820, filed by plaintiff, including because of the claim stated above that crucial and clearly pertinent documents were prevented of any revealing to plaintiff pursuant to his information requests filed before appeal was taken.
14) Conspiracy to obstruct, retaliate, and interfere with said appeal and with administration of justice. 15) Concealing and removing of public instruments and documents of record in land development applications.
16) Violations of Radnor Township Zoning Code 280 including §§ 89, 145, 152, 250,
and 263 and other Chapters.
17) Conspiring to cause multiplicity of litigation and appeal.
18) Failure to enforce 18 Pa. C.S. Crimes Code and/or violating 18 Pa.C.S. § 4104, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4902, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4903, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4910, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4952, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5101, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5107, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5301, and other statutes. 19) Plaintiff included, regarding the claim stated in the preceding paragraph, a claim of failure to report violations to the appropriate authorities, failure to warn, and failure to note violations during administrative hearings or proceedings. 20) Plaintiff raised additional statutes claimed to be violated in pleadings and at trial and stood ready to prove his claims. 21) Plaintiff requested adjudication of the claims stated in paragraphs 12 to 17 and as otherwise raised in the proceedings, because of a claim for compensatory damages that he explained at trial was inherent in the complaint. 22) Plaintiff requested punitive or exemplary or trebled damages at trial for reason of the imtentional, willful, and outrageous acts of the defendants. 23) Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint in this regard also, which is pending with the Office of the District Attorney. That complaint names the Radnor Township Board of Commissioners as defendants. A true and correct copy of the complaint is attached hereto as EXHIBIT C 24) Plaintiff incorporates said complaint and the claims alleged therein as if set forth in full herein. 25) These two (2) complaints are lawfully worthy of amendment due to ongoing additional violations of law by the defendants. 26) These two (2) complaints are lawfully worthy of trial in this action. 27) At the least the Court is authorized, as the most efficient, lawful and equitable remedy for defendant's physical concealment of evidence with intent to affect a citizen's perception, and fraudulently cause said party to initiate litigation, in a retaliation to
plaintiff and in an effort to create intimidating circumstances, to reverse and cause refund of the filing fee, where acceptance of the filing fee constituted acknowledgment of the duty of public officers and adjudicative officers, and said judgment is apportionable between all three defendants. 28) Plaintiff attempted to raise a new claim after trial, that defendants, due to plaintiff's misunderstanding of the amount of the filing fee, accepted a $ 550.00 filing fee. The fee required of plaintiffs for an appeal from the zoning hearing board was $ 500.00.
29) Therefore, plaintiffs were overcharged by $ 50.00 and the Court is authorized to
amend judgment to include judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $ 50.00. 30) The District Court has not included defendants Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board nor Stephen Bajus and S.W. Bajus Ltd. in the caption of the judgment order. 31) The order does not decide the case as to defendant Stephen Bajus and S.W. Bajus Ltd. nor the Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board. Therefore plaintiffs request adjudication of the case by plaintiffs against Stephen Bajus and S.W. Bajus Ltd. and Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board and/or such action deemed just and proper. 32) Plaintiff claimed a right to take his case to the Magisterial Court because there were substantial and well defined issues regarding the filing fee and his demand for reimbursement of it, and because that issue encompassed and related to a wider scope of violations of law and intentional acts, which are within the scope of the Pa.R.J.A. and are in fact within Pa.R.J.A. Rules 1000 et al regarding appeal. 33) Plaintiff had strong reason to preserve his rights by way of cautiously litigating in this manner because the defendants in pro se complaints filed by plaintiff and the estate trusts of his parents, have been deluged with false claims of litigiousness as of late, due apparently to said defendants' inability to end said cases, and plaintiff had urgent reason not to file an additional appeal directly to this Court because he has been consistently, arbitrarily, and vigorously opposed by Radnor Township in three (3) land use appeals taken to this Court on the basis of standing, and all of said defendants in their entirety seek to foment any appellate ruling possible, that might find plaintiff to be an improperly litigious party and therefore it would be claimed, a litigious party who deserves valid and lawful injunctive relief. 34) Plaintiff, who lives at distances over 1500 feet from the sites of the proposed land uses including the principal lot named in this appeal, 103 North Wayne Avenue, has claimed standing in all of the Zoning Hearing Board proceedings for numerous reasons, that were added to in this case by plaintiff's claim that the lot is in a small downtown
district utilized by the community at large and thus a substantial aggrievement on his part including due to plaintiff's travel being limited to foot and bicycle, plaintiff's daily traversing of the lot, plaintiff's being a historical and statute-adherence activist, and other reasons including the fact that overt violations of statutes ought to support aggrievement of any citizen standing to oppose the inflictors, where even the governing body, and possibly the District Attorney, have disregarded the violations. 35) Plaintiff expressed at trial his objection that the trial was not transcribed 36) Obstruction and retaliation and intimidation continues by defendants up to present including also the magisterial court, in actions including failure to correct the blatant violations of law present, failure to report the violations of law present, and failure to enter all four (4) defendants in this case onto the record. 37) Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of order of judgment entered May 4, 2010, encompassing the claims stated in paragraphs above. 38) Defendant's insufficient production of the records and all of the acts complained of, have caused harm to plaintiff, which includes the costs of said requests for records, of legal research, of this action, vexation and anguish, and loss of time and resources.
Defendants' acts were willful, wanton, intentional, and reckless, thus entitling plaintiffs to punitive damages. Defendants' acts were negligent and grossly negligent.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests the court to vacate or reverse judgment entered by the Magisterial District Court. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests the court to try the case de novo and in regard to all claims including those not addressed in the proceedings in the district Court.. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests adjudication of the case by plaintiff against Stephen Bajus and S.W. Bajus Ltd.; and the Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board, and in the alternative, requests judgment for plaintiffs against Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board and/or Stephen Bajus and S.W. Bajus Ltd., and hearing for assessment of damages, findings and conclusions on questions, and/or such action deemed just and proper.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests the court to amend judgment to include judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $ 50.00.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff requests the Court's Order which directs defendants to produce all records relating to this case.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff requests the Court's Order which recommends referral of this case to the District Attorney with findings that statutes have been substantially violated.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff requests compensatory damages, and punitive damages, which may be in excess of Fifty thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), delay damages pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 238, interest, allowable costs of suit, and such further action as the Court may deem just and proper.
________________________________ James D. Schneller pro se 500 E. Lancaster Avenue # 111D Radnor, PA 19087 610-688-9471
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT JUSTICE No. 10 - 52231
James D. Schneller, plaintiff
v. Radnor Township Department of Community Development, Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board Steven Bajus; S.W. Bajus Ltd.
I, James D. Schneller, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
_______________________________________ James D. Schneller
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James D. Schneller, certify that I served a true and correct copy of the within complaint upon all parties, by mailing copies off the notice of appeal and cover sheet to the following via USPS certified mail: Honorable John C. Tuten Magis. Dist. 32 - 1 - 29 230 Sugartown Road Ste 105 Wayne, PA 19087 John B. Rice Esquire Grim, Biehn & Thatcher 104 South Sixth Street, P.O. Box 215 Perkasie, PA 18944 S.W. Bajus Ltd. 919 Conestoga Road Bldg. One, Suite 203 Rosemont, PA 19010
MAKE COPY FOR SERVICE
__________________________________ James Schneller
More From This UserCahillTwp StrmwtrTwp StrmwtrStormwater User Fee Comment Handout 8.20.13 2Stormwater Utility Comment 2 8 26 132012 Radnor Township Manager Budget Recommendation ReportElaine LitIthan CreekPoll and Focus Group ResultsGarden ApplicationFirst StabRipoffAudit Report Final 09-10Tri Party AgreementRtk radnor memorial field peterson tract 03 25 11rtk agnes irwin draft lease 03 21 11Conflictpolice chiefPolice Chief20100148 Deegan-Wind Gap Boroughplu1161718281_334381Elaine StatementBashore Ethics Rulingcbfac
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulLCB 103 N Petition Intervene 7'13'10 by lchipsEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedThomas v. Muskogee Sheriff, 10th Cir. (2005)by Scribd Government DocsEstavillo Labayogby Josine ProtasioSps Javier vs de guzmanby Vanessa Canceran AlporhaQuizon vs Saludby Joseph PamaongRuben Manalang vs. Bienvenido and Mercedes Bacani, g.r. No. 156995, January 12, 2015by Jerry SerapionBarney E. Sachs v. Margheritta C. Sachs, 265 F.2d 31, 3rd Cir. (1959)by Scribd Government DocsRobert Kissh Judgement for $37,503by Hudson Valley Reporter- PutnamRobbins v. Black et al - Document No. 7by Justia.comGov.uscourts.cand.198311.3.0,Gov.uscourts.cand.198311.3.1,Gov.uscourts.cand.198311.4.0,Gov.uscourts.cand.198311.4.1by MercilessTruthWells v. Douglas County (PAPER FILE) - Document No. 15by Justia.comKayaian v. American Ambulance - Document No. 3by Justia.comFlaquer v. Diaz - Document No. 3by Justia.com(PS) Kayaian v. City Of Fresno - Document No. 3by Justia.comPFRCASESby poiuytrewq9115Cordero vs Cabralby Patrick RamosBenjamin Quirindongo Pacheco v. Jose L. Rolon Morales, 953 F.2d 15, 1st Cir. (1992)by Scribd Government DocsRule 57: Preliminary Attachment Cases by siggiveromierElliott v Verska Opinionby acousticfreezeHousley v. Burrows, 10th Cir. (1998)by Scribd Government DocsCLAYTON v. CLEMENT et al - Document No. 2by Justia.comRuther v. Simmons et al - Document No. 3by Justia.comMASON v. COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY Notice of Removalby ACELitigationWatchAccion Publicianaby Rommel TottocLynn v. Kunen, 162 F.3d 1173, 10th Cir. (1998)by Scribd Government DocsPriester v. Serot - Document No. 5by Justia.comRemission documentsby MArieMigallenRosario vs. Carandangby AJ AslaronaG.R. No. 156360 - sampayan_stealth.pdfby MarvieKateIIISimilar to LCB 103 N Petition Intervene 7'13'10Thomas v. Muskogee Sheriff, 10th Cir. (2005)Estavillo LabayogSps Javier vs de guzmanQuizon vs SaludRuben Manalang vs. Bienvenido and Mercedes Bacani, g.r. No. 156995, January 12, 2015Barney E. Sachs v. Margheritta C. Sachs, 265 F.2d 31, 3rd Cir. (1959)Robert Kissh Judgement for $37,503Robbins v. Black et al - Document No. 7Gov.uscourts.cand.198311.3.0,Gov.uscourts.cand.198311.3.1,Gov.uscourts.cand.198311.4.0,Gov.uscourts.cand.198311.4.1Wells v. Douglas County (PAPER FILE) - Document No. 15Kayaian v. American Ambulance - Document No. 3Flaquer v. Diaz - Document No. 3(PS) Kayaian v. City Of Fresno - Document No. 3PFRCASESCordero vs CabralBenjamin Quirindongo Pacheco v. Jose L. Rolon Morales, 953 F.2d 15, 1st Cir. (1992)Rule 57Elliott v Verska OpinionHousley v. Burrows, 10th Cir. (1998)CLAYTON v. CLEMENT et al - Document No. 2Ruther v. Simmons et al - Document No. 3MASON v. COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY Notice of RemovalAccion PublicianaLynn v. Kunen, 162 F.3d 1173, 10th Cir. (1998)Priester v. Serot - Document No. 5Remission documentsRosario vs. CarandangG.R. No. 156360 - sampayan_stealth.pdfBanking Cases 29/29 Hillary Clinton Response to Benghazi LawsuitLCB 103 N Petition Intervene 7'13'10