 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
White Deer Run10/12/2005
stified that it was his opinion that the decisions did not preclude utilization of the Property for the proposed use. This conclusion was reinforced by the direct knowledge of Christopher Jacquis, Appellant's Region 58 Service Coordinator, who testified that it was his belief, as a result of his prior employment with Berks County, that probationers whom he supervised and who had drug dependencies were referred to Blue Mountain House for treatment as part of their probationary programs. Moreover, Mr. Jacquis testified that he had a conversation with the Township Zoning Officer, Kenneth Bleiler, regarding the operation of the facility in terms of including detoxification services for residents and that Mr. Bleiler gave no indication that such services would not be permitted based on any prior decisions of the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board argues that the following facts establish a lack of due diligence: Appellant did not have an attorney review the prior Zoning Board decisions; Appellant did not obtain a copy of the Zoning Ordinance; and Appellant relied on what it thought Blue Mountain House was doing.
"Due diligence" may be defined as "diligence reasonably expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a person who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or to discharge an obligation." Black's Law Dictionary 468 (7th ed. 1999). In a case involving the application of the doctrine of laches and whether a party failed to engage in due diligence, this Court stated "a determination as to whether a . party acted with due diligence will depend on what the party might have known based on the information within its reach." Koter v. Cosgrove, 844 A.2d 29 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 858 A.2d 111 (2004).
In the case at hand, we cannot conclude that Appellant engaged in the level of diligence that one could reasonably expect from an entity seeking to satisfy a legal requirement under the circumstances at hand. We note that this case involves a purchase of real estate at a cost in excess of $700,000, renovations that exceeded $95,000 during the initial two-month period prior to Appellant learning that the Township opposed the proposed use, a grant from Lehigh County in the amount of $300,000 for planned renovations to the Property, and the establishment of a more expansive and intensive treatment program that would be staffed by health care professionals twenty-four (24) hours a day. The above represented significant endeavors on the part of Appellant. Given the circumstances, it was not reasonable for Appellant to simply rely on its own interpretation of the prior Zoning Board decisions and its belief of the type of services previously provided at the Property. Appellant should have retained legal counsel to determine whether the proposed use complied with the Zoning Board's prior decisions. Without advice from counsel on that issue, we cannot conclude under the circumstances of this case that Appellant exercised due diligence as required in order to establish a vested right.
Accordingly, we must affirm the order of the trial court.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of October, 2005, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County is hereby affirmed.
JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|