Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2003

Home

Page 4 -- September 10, 2¢05 Z.B. 110 that ctassil]ed King's property as R-2 residential. At the t/me,. King was oper- ating a woodwor!4ng business, and he continued to operate the business as a nonconforming use. King continued the nonconforming use and ultimately expanded the wood- wor~,<ing business while applying for special use perm/ts from the local zoning board. The pen2xit applications were all denied, and, on appeal, the state courts atTzrmed the denials. King did not comply with court orders and was held in contempt on several occasions. Finally, La 1997, the court permanently enjoined King from his continued operation of the woodwor~king business. King was also ordered to remove cer- tain structures fi-om the property, and he was ordered to pay certain fines and legal fees. King finally sued the township, claiming civil rights violations, and he also challenged the constitutionality of the relevant zoning statute. The court ganted judgment to the township because of the continued operation 0f the wood- work./ng business. ~'The evidence presented clearly demonstrates that [King and his wife] have repeatedly and consciously violated zoning regulations and have ignored orders issued by the Court of Common Pleas and an ageement sig-ned by King himself." Since that decision, King received several other petitions for contempt and was ordered to be incarcerated for a two-week period. In October 2001, ,King sued the township without benefit of a lawyer. He added claims challenging the f'aJ_rness of the state court proceedings. He also alleged the township had illegally disposed of court records. DECISION: King's claims were dismissed. King's claims related to this matter had already been litigated or could have been adjudicated and were thus barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The remairfing claims related to the famaess of the state court proceedings were barred by the Rooker-Feldman docthne. Under this doctrine, federal diS- trict courts lacked jurisdiction to review the final decisions of a state court or to evaluate constitutional claims that were linked to the state court's decision [n the state court proceeding. Citation: King v. East £ampeter Township, 3rd U.S. Circzdt Court of Appeals, No. 02-2122 (2003).: The 3rd Circuit has fitrixdiction over Delaware, ~Vew Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the ~,/Trgin Islands. see also; FOCUS v. Ailegheny Count,? Court of Common Pleas, 75 F. 3d 834 (1996). Nonconformhag Use -- L~mber yard starts storing lumber on roofed metal racks Did this unlawfully expand the nonconforming rise? NEW TORK (7/14/03) -- A company operated a lumber yard p~or to the