Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/01/2007

Home

Z.B. Page 3 lease required McDonald's to apply for the necessary building permits without reasonable delay. If McDonald's could not obtain all necessary permits within 365 days, it could terminate the lease by delivering written notice to Girard. Within weeks, McDonald's applied for the necessary permits. After the permits were denied, McDonald's immediately appealed the decision to the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment. Pursuant to bo~d rules, McDonald's had to post notice on each street frontage of the premises. However, one of the notices soon went missing. Even so, the board found the notice adequate. and granted the permits. A neighborhood civic group sued, claiming that McDonald's provided in- adequate notice. Girard and McDonald's joined as co-defendants. When the court permitted limited construction; ap.appeal fiom the neighborhood group w~ still pending. By,that time, 365 days had passed. Consequently, McDonald's terminated the lease agreement. ' , Girard sued to ,enforce the lease. The court ruled, in McDonald's favor. Girard appealed, claiming that it was unreasonab~e for McDonald's to liti-, gate, the posting issue once it knew that there was evidence of possible imid- , equate notice in the' July posting. Girard argued that MeDonald's sl;1ould have either produced evidence to the contrary or sought to reschedule, the: zoning , board heanng so it could repost. ' DECISION:Aflinned. McDonald's did not breach its obligation under the lease to apply for all permits "without unreasonable ,delay." . Girard signed off on McDonald's decision to litigate' and was a named party in the litigation. If Girard thought litigat:iD.~ the issue was unreasonable, thelease agreement provided that it did not have tojoin as a party to the litigation, Without Girard as a n~ed party, McDonald's w6~ld have been unable to proceed and would have' been forced to prepare for am~ther hearing before the zoning board. '. To'come before the c~:)Urt after an unsatisfactory ruling in the lower court and argue that the litigation ne'Ver should have taken place would have allowed Girard to have it both ways. Finally, all submitted evidence suggested that Mcl!onald's did everything in its power to obtain the necessary permits to begin construction on the restaurant. Appeal- Commission wrongly denies sub~vision plan Unnecessary interpretation used in denial Citation: Pappas v. Enfield PZC, Superior Court of Connecticut, No. CV054010049 (2006) CONNECTICUT (01/30/06) - Pappas owned land in a section of Enfield that authorized single-family residences. Pappas wanted to divide the land into three building lots. She applied for subdivision, and her plan included constructing a @ 2006 West, a Thomson business. Quinlan ™ is a Thomson West brand. Any reproduction is prohibited. 37