My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/11/2007
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/11/2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:41:53 AM
Creation date
7/5/2007 3:11:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
07/11/2007
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
212
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />June 15, 2007 I Volume 1 I No. 12 <br /> <br />Watson had requested a directed verdict during the trial and was <br />denied. On appeal, Watson challenged that decision. However, he re- <br />lied on an il1.applicable legal principal in the initial request. Only a <br />jury renders a verdict; trial courts rendered judgments. He should have <br />requested that the court dismiss the case, but even that request would <br />have been denied given the weight of the evidence. <br />The case focused on whether Watson grew or produced the major- <br />ity of the items for sale at his market. At trial, Tillman and the previ- <br />ous zoning inspector testified that most of the items for sale were pre- <br />, packaged or bottled, making it clear that rhey were bought for resale <br />and not produced on the farm. The court also viewed the market at <br />the beginning of the trial and found Tillman's assessment to be reason- <br />able. Watson's tax returns also indicated that more than 50 percent of <br />his sales came from resale items. <br />Watson testiL-'1ed that the tax returns did not accurately reflect the <br />source of these items and that significantly more than the required half <br />of the farm market's sales came from the. sale of items raised on the <br />farm. Watson also produced a sales analysis that showed between 56 <br />and 61 per~ent of sales came from produce raised on the farm, but the <br />court found this evidence to be less credible than the tax returns and <br />the observations made at the farm. <br />Because a trial court was given deference with regard to credibility <br />determinations, and because the burden was on Watson to show that <br />his farm was exempt under the ordinance and could not, the appeals <br />court could not find the lower court's decision contrary to the law or the <br />weight of the evidence. The decision of the lower court was affirmed. <br /> <br />Ordinance-Property owner challenges ordinance <br />placing weight limitations on local roads <br /> <br />Claims limits designed to discourage mining business <br /> <br />Citation: Blackwood, Inc. 1/. Township of Reilly, 2007 WL 1452492 <br />(Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007) <br /> <br />PENNSYLVANIA (05/i8/0l)-In late 2003 or early 2004, a coal <br />mining company asked the township of Reilly for permission to drive <br />40-ton dump trucks on Flicker Road, which had a two-ton weight <br />limit since sometime before the year 2000. In considering .this re- <br />quest, the toVitilship conducted an engineering and traffic study of <br />"roadway geometric review, traffic volume, pavement analysis, and a <br />past highway breakup review." <br />As a result, the township ultimately adopted an ordinance that set <br />weight limits varying from two to ten tons on four roads: Black Dia- <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />101 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.