Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WILLIAM E. WILSON ET AL. v. JEFFERSON TOWNSHIP ET AL. (12/27/84)

decided: December 27, 1984.

WILLIAM E. WILSON ET AL.
v.
JEFFERSON TOWNSHIP ET AL., EARL SZOYKA AND AUDREY SZOYKA, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS



Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County in case of William E. Wilson and Theresa M. Wilson, his wife; Gerald A. Day and Carol A. Day, his wife; Joseph R. Magda and Carolyn A. Magda, his wife; Joseph Zammerilli and Dorothy Zammerilli, his wife; David W. Miller and Carole A. Miller, his wife; Robert N. Davis and Bonnie S. Davis, his wife; Bruce Grandel and Stephanie Grandel, his wife; Howard R. Belle, Jr. and Jeanne Bell, his wife; Wayne A. Harn and Darlene Harn, his wife, and Frank Bodzer, Jr. and Suzanne Bodzer, his wife v. Jefferson Township and Richard Faddis, Carl Bane and William White, Supervisors of Jefferson Township, and Earl Szoyka and Audrey Szoyka, his wife, No. 20 In Equity, 1981.

COUNSEL

James Hook, Hook & Hook, for appellants.

Michael J. Healey, for appellees, William E. Wilson, et al.

William M. Radcliffe, with him, Charles O. Zebley, Coldren, DeHass & Radcliffe, and Ewing Pollock, Pollock & Thomas, for appellees, Jefferson Township, Richard Faddis, Carl Bane and William White.

Judges Rogers, Craig and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.

Author: Palladino

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 513]

Earl Szoyka and his wife appeal from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County which required them to complete the streets in a development which they built. The Wilsons, et al., are homeowners (homeowners) in the development built by the Szoykas. The homeowners originally sought to hold the Szoykas and Jefferson Township (Township), individually and severally liable for the completion of the road work. The trial court dismissed the complaint against the Township and found solely against the Szoykas.

A brief review of the factual history in this case reveals that in 1970 the Township enacted an ordinance governing construction, minimum widths, materials, and drainage provisions which had to be met as a condition to acceptance by the Township of roads to be built by developers. The trial court found that this ordinance was not a subdivision or land development ordinance under the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC).*fn1

In 1974 the Board of County Commissioners of Greene County (County) adopted a subdivision and

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 514]

    land development ordinance requiring certain drainage and road construction standards for land subdivision developments. Both the Township and the County ordinances were in effect at all times relevant to this case.

On June 7, 1976, the Township approved the Szoyka Plan of Lots subject to compliance with the Township ordinance mentioned above.*fn2 Two days later, the County approved the Szoyka Plan of Lots.

The trial court found that the Szoykas "were aware" of both ordinances prior to the construction of their housing development but failed to comply with the requirements relating to road and street work imposed by the ordinances. The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.