CONTENTS · Late of the Borough of Wind Gap, Northampton County, PA Executor: Steven E. Hicks, 312 Maple Terrace, Saylorsburg, PA 18353 KUHNS, WAYNE D., dec’d. Late of the Township

(USPS 395-280)VOL. LVIII EASTON, PA December 10, 2015 NO. 102

CONTENTS

INSERT: Pink: 1. Philadelphia Flyers v. New York Rangers 2. 2015/2016 Calendar 3. NCBA/Miller Keystone Blood Center Blood Bank Program

Cream: 1. Legally Bound 2. “Positive Conflict Resolution & Mediation Skills” 3. NCBA Community Outreach Program

4. The NCBA welcomes eight new members

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or any other means without the prior written permission of the copyright holder.

NOTICE TO THE BAR...Be advised that Juvenile Court in Northampton County has been

moved from 12/26/16 to 12/27/16.* * *

Changes to DeNovo/Non-Compliance Court in 2016Be advised that Domestic Relations Court has been changed from

August 22 & 23 to August 15 & 16, 2016.Also, Domestic Relations Court has been changed from December

27 & 28 to November 21 & 22, 2016.

If you have any questions regarding these changes, please call the Court Administrator’s Office at 610-559-6700.

Administrative Assistant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Audit—Orphans' Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Bar News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Estate and Trust Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Estates Paralegal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Legal Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Limited Liability Company Notices . . . . . . . . . . 8Notice of Incorporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Notice of Nonprofit Incorporation . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Legal Assistant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

South Bethlehem Historical Society, Dana Grubb, Stephen Barron, Jeffrey Zettlemoyer and Mary Pongracz, Appellants v. City of Bethlehem, Appellee

2

Northampton County ReporterAttorney Referral & Information Service

155 South Ninth Street, P.O. Box 4733Easton, PA 18042

Phone (610) 258-6333 Fax (610) 258-8715E-mail: [email protected]

PBA (800) 932-0311—PBI (800) 932-4637

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION2015 BAR ASSOCIATION OFFICERS

Abraham P. Kassis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PresidentAlyssa Lopiano-Reilly . . . . . . . . . . . . . President-ElectMichael P. Shay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice PresidentDaniel M. O’Donnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TreasurerLisa M. Spitale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SecretaryChristopher M. Reid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Past President

BOARD OF GOVERNORSDavid M. Backenstoe

Robert EyerPaul J. Harak

Maura Zajac McGuireMichael A. Santanasto

Karley Biggs Sebia Scott M. Wilhelm

ZONE II DELEGATESMichael C. Deschler Jonathan M. Huerta Richard P. Kovacs

Ellen M. Kraft Joel M. Scheer

Christopher M. Reid (2014/2015)

BAR ASSOCIATION STAFFMary Beth Leeson . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Executive DirectorPatti A. Gober . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AccountingHeather Rizzotto-Stefanik . . . . . . . . . . . . Legal JournalChristen T. Borso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Attorney ReferralDeborah J. Flanagan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Attorney Referral

The Northampton County Reporter will be published every Thursday by the Northampton County Bar Association, 155 South Ninth St., Easton, PA 18042-4399. All legal notices relating to the business of the county, are required by rule of Court, to be published in this Journal. All legal notices must be submitted in typewritten form and are published exactly as submitted by the advertiser. Neither the Law Reporter nor the printer will assume any responsibility to edit, make spelling corrections, eliminate errors in grammar or make any changes to content.

Subscription Price—$75.00 per year.Periodical Postage Paid at Easton, PA and additional office.Postmaster: Send all communications and address changes to:

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY REPORTER155 South Ninth St., Easton, PA 18042-4399

Telephone (610) 258-6333 FAX (610) 258-8715Edward P. Shaughnessy, Esquire

Editor

3

Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil. ~ C. S. Lewis

NOTICE TO NCBA MEMBERS – BAR NEWS

Holiday Deadlines for the N.C. ReporterEarly deadline for the December 24th edition – December 18 by 2:00 p.m.Early deadline for the December 31st edition – December 24 by 10:00 a.m.

Save the Dates

Philadelphia Flyers v. NY RangersSaturday, January 16, 2016

NCBA Annual MeetingThursday, January 21, 2016Best Western Conference Center, Bethlehem.

“On Your Feet ” – Broadway in NYSaturday, May 7, 2016

2016 Bench Bar ConferenceOctober 6-8, 2016Hyatt Regency, Chesapeake Bay Golf Resort, Spa and MarinaCambridge, Maryland.

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY REPORTER Vol. 58 No. 102 12/10/2015

4

ESTATE AND TRUST NOTICESNotice is hereby given that, in the

estates of the decedents set forth below, the Register of Wills has granted letters testamentary or of administration to the persons named. Notice is also hereby given of the existence of the trusts of the deceased settlors set forth below for whom no personal representatives have been appointed within 90 days of death. All persons having claims or demands against said estates or trusts are requested to make known the same, and all persons indebted to said estates or trusts are requested to make payment, without delay, to the executors or administrators or trustees or to their attorneys named below.

FIRST PUBLICATIONCSAHUK, GEZA, dec’d.

Late of the Township of Moore, Northampton County, PAAdministratrix: Mary Ann Snell, 3400 Bath Pike, Suite 311, Bethlehem, PA 18017Attorney: Mary Ann Snell, Esquire, 3400 Bath Pike, Suite 311, Bethlehem, PA 18017

FEHNEL, VANESSA B., dec’d.Late of the Township of Plain-field, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Gloria M. Hahn c/o Theresa Hogan, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 340 Spring Garden Street, Easton, PA 18042Attorney: Theresa Hogan, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 340 Spring Garden Street, Easton, PA 18042

HOWARD, VERNA a/k/a VERNA R. HOWARD, dec’d.Late of Bethlehem, North ampton County, PA

Executrix: Summer N. Howard a/k/a Summer N. Pearyer c/o Joel M. Scheer, Esquire, Fishbone and Scheer, 940 West Lafayette Street, Easton, PA 18042Attorneys: Joel M. Scheer, Esquire, Fishbone and Scheer, 940 West Lafayette Street, Easton, PA 18042

HUGHES, ERMA K., dec’d.Late of Forks Township, North-ampton County, PAExecutrix: Kathryn A. Hughes, 1907 Ellis Hollow Road, Ithaca, NY 14850Attorney: Barbara Rush Renkert, Esquire, 2120 Northampton Street, Easton, PA 18042

McLAUGHLIN, THOMAS F., dec’d.Late of the Township of Lower Saucon, North ampton County, PAExecutor: James S. McLaughlin c/o George M. Vasiliadis, Esquire, Vasiliadis & Associates, 2551 Baglyos Circle, Suite A-14, Bethlehem, PA 18020Attorneys: George M. Vasiliadis, Esquire, Vasiliadis & Associates, 2551 Baglyos Circle, Suite A-14, Bethlehem, PA 18020

MIECHUR, FRANK T., SR., dec’d.Late of the Township of Lower Nazareth, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Frank T. Miechur, Jr. c/o George M. Vasiliadis, Esquire, Vasiliadis & Associates, 2551 Baglyos Circle, Suite A-14, Bethlehem, PA 18020Attorneys: George M. Vasiliadis, Esquire, Vasiliadis & Associates, 2551 Baglyos Circle, Suite A-14, Bethlehem, PA 18020


5

Attorneys: Thomas L. Walters, Esquire, Lewis and Walters, 46 South Fourth Street, P.O. Box A, Easton, PA 18044-2099

ERDOGAN, F. a/k/a FAZIL ERDOGAN, dec’d.Late of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Barbara B. Erdogan c/o Noonan & Prokup, 526 Walnut St., Allentown, PA 18101Attorneys: Noonan & Prokup, 526 Walnut St., Allentown, PA 18101

FILIPOVITS, EDWARD a/k/a EDWARD R. FILIPOVITS, dec’d.Late of 3748 Cedar Drive, Walnutport, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Paul Mishko, Sr. a/k/a Paul J. Mishko, 1183 Blue Mountain Drive, Danielsville, PA 18038Attorneys: Joshua D. Shulman, Esquire, Shulman & Shabbick, 1935 Center Street, Northamp-ton, PA 18067

HICKS, GEORGE W., dec’d.Late of the Borough of Wind Gap, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Steven E. Hicks, 312 Maple Terrace, Saylorsburg, PA 18353

KUHNS, WAYNE D., dec’d.Late of the Township of Lower Nazareth, Northampton County, PAAdministratrix: Grace Kuhns c/o Gregory R. Reed, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 141 South Broad Street, P.O. Box 299, Nazareth, PA 18064-0299Attorney: Gregory R. Reed, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 141 South Broad Street, P.O. Box 299, Nazareth, PA 18064-0299

WUEST, BARBARA A., dec’d.Late of the Borough of Nazareth, Northampton County, PAExecutrices: Karen A. Wuest, 5925 Jannette Street, Philadel-phia, PA 19128, Cynthia W. Miller, 348 Sweetbriar Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17111 and Kim W. Kmetz, 341 Reeder Street, Easton, PA 18042Attorneys: Peters, Moritz, Peischl, Zulick, Landes & Brienza, LLP, 1 South Main Street, Nazareth, PA 18064-2083

SECOND PUBLICATIONAMELIO, DOROTHY M., dec’d.

Late of the Borough of Nazareth, Northampton County, PAExecutor: William C. Ottinger, 251 Kromer Road, Wind Gap, PA 18091-9775Attorneys: Peters, Moritz, Peischl, Zulick, Landes & Brienza, LLP, 1 South Main Street, Nazareth, PA 18064-2083

BAKER, JANE MYERS a/k/a JANE M. BAKER, dec’d.Late of the Borough of Nazareth, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Anne Baker Beste c/o Dolores A. Laputka, Esquire, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., 515 W. Hamilton Street, Suite 502, Allentown, PA 18101Attorneys: Dolores A. Laputka, Esquire, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., 515 W. Hamilton Street, Suite 502, Allentown, PA 18101

DiPASQUALE, ALBERT, dec’d.Late of the City of Easton, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Gary DiPasquale c/o Thomas L. Walters, Esquire, Lewis and Walters, 46 S. 4th Street, P.O. Box A, Easton, PA 18044-2099


6

Attorney: William E. McDonald, Esquire, 113 West Ridge Street, P.O. Box 130, Lansford, PA 18232

WEISS, ADELINA C., dec’d.Late of the Township of Lower Saucon, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Lori A. Weiss c/o R. Nicholas Nanovic, Esquire, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., 515 West Hamilton Street, Suite 502, Allentown, PA 18101Attorneys: R. Nicholas Nanovic, Esquire, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., 515 West Hamilton Street, Suite 502, Allentown, PA 18101

WEISS, WILLIAM R., JR., dec’d.Late of the Township of Lower Saucon, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Lori A. Weiss c/o R. Nicholas Nanovic, Esquire, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., 515 West Hamilton Street, Suite 502, Allentown, PA 18101Attorneys: R. Nicholas Nanovic, Esquire, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., 515 West Hamilton Street, Suite 502, Allentown, PA 18101

WIELINS, GEORGE a/k/a GEORGE WIELINS, JR., dec’d.Late of Forks Township, North-ampton County, PAExecutrix: Carolyn L. Dagnall c/o Robert C. Brown, Jr., Esquire, Fox, Oldt & Brown, 940 West Lafayette Street, Suite 100, Easton, PA 18042-1412Attorneys: Robert C. Brown, Jr., Esquire, Fox, Oldt & Brown, 940 West Lafayette Street, Suite 100, Easton, PA 18042-1412

LOPRESTI, EDNA VIRGINIA a/k/a EDNA LOPRESTI a/k/a E. VIRGINIA LOPRESTI a/k/a EDNA V. LOPRESTI a/k/a EDNA VIRGINIA PLOTTS, dec’d.Late of the Borough of West Easton, Northampton County, PAAdministrator: Lawrence Paul Lopresti, 326 10th Street, West Easton, PA 18042Attorney: Gary Neil Asteak, Esquire, 726 Walnut Street, Easton, PA 18042

MILLER, IRENE A., dec’d.Late of Allen Township, North-ampton County, PAExecutor: Lee A. Miller c/o Daniel G. Dougherty, Esquire, 881 3rd St., Suite B-3, Whitehall, PA 18052Attorney: Daniel G. Dougherty, Esquire, 881 3rd St., Suite B-3, Whitehall, PA 18052

SERFAS, GERALDINE H., dec’d.Late of Nazareth, Northampton County, PAThe Geraldine H. Serfas RLT dated 12/26/1995Trustee: Robert L. Serfas c/o Paul S. Frank, Esquire, King Spry Herman Freund & Faul LLC, One West Broad Street, Suite 700, Bethlehem, PA 18018Attorneys: Paul S. Frank, Esquire, King Spry Herman Freund & Faul LLC, One West Broad Street, Suite 700, Bethlehem, PA 18018

SMITH, LUTHER H., JR., dec’d.Late of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Pamela D. Kistler, 49 Applewood Drive, Easton, PA 18045


7

THIRD PUBLICATIONBAMBU, MARY ANN, dec’d.

Late of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAAdministratrix C.T.A.: Kathleen Bambu, 3953 Bruce Lane, Bethlehem, PA 18020Attorney: Steven B. Molder, Esquire, 904 Lehigh Street, Easton, PA 18042

BENDER, MERRITT A., dec’d.Late of the Township of Palmer, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Kurt B. Bender c/o Bradford D. Wagner, Esquire, 662 Main Street, Hellertown, PA 18055-1726Attorney: Bradford D. Wagner, Esquire, 662 Main Street, Heller-town, PA 18055-1726

BROGAN, GAIL P., dec’d.Late of the Township of Palmer, Northampton County, PAExecutor: David W. Wolff c/o J. Stephen Kreglow, Esquire, P.O. Box 20833, Lehigh Valley, PA 18002-0833Attorney: J. Stephen Kreglow, Esquire, P.O. Box 20833, Lehigh Valley, PA 18002-0833

De CONCETTO, NANCY a/k/a NANCY M. Di CONCETTO a/k/a NANCY M. De CONCETTI, dec’d.Late of the City of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Joseph A. Di Concetto, 1999 W. Point Drive, Bethlehem, PA 18015Attorney: Daniel G. Spengler, Esquire, 110 East Main Street, Bath, PA 18014

GLICAS, VIRGINIA C., dec’d.Late of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PA

Executor: Stanley G. Glicas a/k/a Stanley Gus Glicas and Irene G. Hackett c/o Eric R. Strauss, Esquire, Worth, Magee & Fisher, P.C., 2610 Walbert Avenue, Allentown, PA 18104Attorneys: Eric R. Strauss, Esquire, Worth, Magee & Fisher, P.C., 2610 Walbert Avenue, Allentown, PA 18104

GORSKY, MARY, dec’d.Late of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Richard J. Gorsky c/o Quintes D. Taglioli, Esquire, 121 N. Cedar Crest Blvd., Allentown, PA 18104Attorney: Quintes D. Taglioli, Esquire, 121 N. Cedar Crest Blvd., Allentown, PA 18104

PIGNOTTI, GEMMA a/k/a JENNIE PIGNOTTI, dec’d.Late of 2 Gracedale Ave., Nazareth, Northampton County, PAAdministratrix: Wendy J. Ashby, Esquire, Ashby Law Offices, LLC, 246 West Broad Street, Suite 3, Quakertown, PA 18951Attorneys: Wendy J. Ashby, Esquire, Ashby Law Offices, LLC, 246 West Broad Street, Suite 3, Quakertown, PA 18951

POOK, RUTH OWEN a/k/a RUTH O. POOK, dec’d.Late of the City of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PACo-Executors: Ronald Owen Pook a/k/a Ronald Pook and Madeline P. Sachdev c/o Karl H. Kline, Esquire, Karl Kline P.C., 2925 William Penn Highway, Suite 301, Easton, PA 18045-5283Attorneys: Karl H. Kline, Esquire, Karl Kline P.C., 2925 William Penn Highway, Suite 301, Easton, PA 18045-5283


8

SHELLY, DOUGLAS J., dec’d.Late of the Township of Lower Saucon, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Alan E. Shelly c/o Gregory R. Reed, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 141 South Broad Street, P.O. Box 299, Nazareth, PA 18064-0299Attorney: Gregory R. Reed, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 141 South Broad Street, P.O. Box 299, Nazareth, PA 18064-0299

SWANGER, PATSY H., dec’d.Late of the Township of Palmer, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Brandt R. SwangerAttorney: Nicholas R. Sabatine, III, Esquire, 16 S. Broadway, Suite 1, Wind Gap, PA 18091

YEAKEL, MARCUS A., dec’d.Late of Moore Township, Northampton County, PAAdministrators C.T.A.: Eric G. Yeakel, 423 East Lawn Road, Nazareth, PA 18064 and Sherri L. Gower, 128 Mabel Lane, Effort, PA 18330Attorneys: Peters, Moritz, Peischl, Zulick, Landes & Brienza, LLP, 1 South Main Street, Nazareth, PA 18064-2083

ZAVECZ, CECELIA F., dec’d.Late of the City of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Kathleen A. Zavecz c/o Mary Ann Snell, Esquire, 3400 Bath Pike, Suite 311, Bethlehem, PA 18017Attorney: Mary Ann Snell, Esquire, 3400 Bath Pike, Suite 311, Bethlehem, PA 18017

NOTICE OF INCORPORATIONJOE KOVACS, INC.

hereby gives notice that articles of incorporation have been filed with the

Department of State of the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania, under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law of 1988, approved December 21, 1988, P.L. 1444, No. 177, effective October 1, 1989, as amended.

Dec. 10 NOTICE OF NONPROFIT

INCORPORATIONNOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that

Articles of Incorporation—Nonprofit of the:LEHIGH VALLEY LYME DISEASE

SUPPORT GROUP, INC.were filed with the Pennsylvania Department of State on November 16, 2015. This organization has been incorporated as a domestic nonprofit non-stock corporation under the provisions of the Nonprofit Corpora-tion Law of 1988.

SCOTT M. DINNER, ESQUIRE3117 Chestnut StreetCamp Hill, PA 17011(717) 761-5800

Dec. 10LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

NOTICESNOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that

a Certificate of Organization for a Domestic Limited Liability Company was filed with the Department of State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylva-nia, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on November 16, 2015, for the purposes of creating a Limited Liability Company under the Limited Liability Company Law of 1994, P.L. 703, No. 106. The name of the Limited Liability Company is:

KEYSTONE METALLURGY LLCAlfred S. Pierce, Esquire

Pierce & Steirer, LLC124 Belvidere StreetNazareth, PA 18064

Dec. 10


9

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Certificate of Organization for a Domestic Limited Liability Company has been filed with the Department of State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at Harrisburg, Penn-sylvania, on or about October 26, 2015, for the purpose of creating a Limited Liability Company under the Limited Liability Company Law of 1994, P.L. 703, No. 106.

The name of the Limited Liability Company is:RUGGIERO FUNERAL HOME LLC

David J. Ceraul, Esquire22 Market StreetBangor, PA 18013

Dec. 10IN THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ORPHANS’ COURT DIVISIONThe following Executors, Admin-

istrators, Guardians & Trustees have filed Accounts in the Office of the Orphans’ Court:

ESTATE; AccountantALBERT BRODHEAD INVEST-

MENT ENDOWMENT FUND; Lehigh University, Trustee

WILLIAM A. KIMMEL; Manufac-turers and Traders Trust Company, Executor

EDWARD L. MARAKOVITS, JR.; Patricia Ann Hanna, Executrix

LUCILLE G. YOUNG; Thomas A. Giovanni and Carol Giovanni, Co-Executors

AUDIT NOTICEAll parties interested are notified

that an audit list will be made up of all Accounts and the said list will be called for audit at the Northampton County Government Center, Easton, PA on: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2015 AT 9:00 A.M. IN COURT-ROOM #1.

Gina X. GibbsClerk of Orphans’ Court

Dec. 10, 17

NOTICE FOR CHANGE OF NAMENOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that

on December 1, 2015, the petition of Victoria Melissa Gonzalez was filed in Northampton County Court of Common Pleas to change the name of petitioner from Victoria Melissa Gonzalez to Victoria Melissa Demarco. The court has fixed January 12, 2016 at 10 a.m. in the Courtroom No. 4, at the Northampton County Court-house, when and all persons inter-ested may appear and show cause, if any, why the prayer of the petitioner should not be granted.

Dec. 10 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

ORPHANS’ COURTNOTICE TO NATURAL FATHER

JOHN DOE/UNKNOWNIN RE: TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS OF

J.L.T., a minorNO.: C0048CV2015-0065

NOTICE TO: NATURAL FATHER JOHN DOE/UNKNOWNA Petition for Involuntary Termina-

tion pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. §2512 has been filed by Michael J. Toth and Laurie A. Toth asking the court to put an end to all rights you have to your child, Jaydyn Lee Toth, age 7.

The Court has set a hearing to consider ending your rights to your child on December 29, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 4 of the Northampton County Government Center at Seventh and Washington Streets in Easton, Pennsylvania. Your presence is required at the hearing.

YOU ARE WARNED THAT EVEN IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE SCHEDULED HEARING, THE HEARING WILL GO ON WITHOUT YOU AND YOUR RIGHTS TO YOUR CHILD MAY BE ENDED BY THE


10

COURT WITHOUT YOU BEING PRESENT.

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED AT THE HEARING BY A LAWYER. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.

Northampton CountyBar AssociationLAWYER REFERRAL SERVICEP.O. Box 4733Easton, PA 18043-4733Telephone: (610) 258-6333A copy of the Petition Involuntary

Termination may be obtained from the Northampton County Orphans’ Court at Case No.: 2015-0065 located at 669 Washington Street in Easton, Pennsylvania at a charge not greater than the cost of copying said Petition and/or at no charge by contacting Attorney David M. Backenstoe at the below stated address and telephone number.

DAVID M. BACKENSTOE, ESQUIRE

I.D. No. 49473Attorney for Plaintiffs

148 Main StreetHellertown, PA 18055(610) 838-2255

Dec. 10COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Northampton Area School District vs.

Jacob BarbanelDOCKET NO. C48CV-2014-10519

Notice is given that the above was named as Defendant in a civil action by plaintiff to recover 2013 real estate taxes for property located at 4656 Park Lane, Lehigh Township, PA, Tax

Parcel No. J2SE4 1 1. A Writ of Scire Facias for $5,232.88 was filed. You are notified to plead to the Writ on or before 20 days from the date of this publication or a judgment may be entered.

If you wish to defend, you must enter a written appearance person-ally or by attorney and file your defenses or objections in writing with the court. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you without further notice for the relief requested by Plaintiff. You may lose money, property or other rights important to you.

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.

Lawyer Referral ServiceP.O. Box 4733Easton, PA 18043-4733(610) 258-6333

PORTNOFF LAWASSOCIATES, LTD.

P.O. Box 391Norristown, PA 19404-0391(866) 211-9466

Dec. 10, 17, 24IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION—LAWNOTICE OF ACTION IN

MORTGAGE FORECLOSUREDeutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Argent Securities Inc., Asset-Backed

Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-M1 c/o Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,

Plaintiffvs.


11

Marilyn Rivera, Julio Pito Zaragoza, Known heir of Julio Zaragoza a/k/a

Julio A. Zaragoza, Marilyn Zaragoza, known heir of Julio

Zaragoza a/k/a Julio A. Zaragoza and Unknown Heirs, Successors, Assigns and All Persons, Firms or

Associations Claiming Right, Title or Interest From or Under Julio

Zaragoza a/k/a Julio A. Zaragoza,Defendants

NO. C-48-CV-2013-8292AMENDED COMPLAINT IN

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURETO: Unknown Heirs, Successors,

Assigns and All Persons, Firms or Associations Claiming Right, Title or Interest From or Under Julio Zaragoza a/k/a Julio A. Zaragoza, Defendant(s), whose last known addresses are 3017 East Blvd., Apt. 8, Bethlehem, PA 18017 and 1405 East 8th Street, Bethlehem, PA 18015You are hereby notified that

Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Argent Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-M1 c/o Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, has filed an Amended Mortgage Foreclo-sure Complaint endorsed with a Notice to Defend, against you in the Court of Common Pleas of Northamp-ton County, Pennsylvania, docketed to NO. C-48-CV-2013-8292, wherein Plaintiff seeks to foreclose on the mortgage secured on your property located, 1405 East 8th Street, Bethlehem, PA 18015, whereupon your property would be sold by the Sheriff of Northampton County.

NOTICEYOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN

COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the notice above, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a

written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH THE INFORMA-TION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.

Northampton CountyLawyers Referral ServiceARISP.O. Box 4733Easton, PA 18043-4733(610) 258-6333

UDREN LAW OFFICES, P.C.Attys. for Plaintiff

111 Woodcrest Rd.Ste. 200Cherry Hill, NJ 08003(856) 669-5400

Dec. 10IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION—LAWNOTICE OF ACTION IN

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURECarrington Mortgage Services, LLC,

Plaintiffvs.


12

Unknown Heirs, Successors, Assigns and All Persons, Firms or

Associations Claiming Right, Title or Interest From or Under Dolores K.

Corona, Anthony J. Corona and Dolores K. Corona, Last

Record Owner,Defendant(s)

NO. C-48-CV-2015-929COMPLAINT IN

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURETO: Unknown Heirs, Successors,

Assigns and All Persons, Firms or Associations Claiming Right, Title or Interest From or Under Dolores K. Corona and Dolores K. Corona, Last Record Owner, Defendant(s), whose last known addresses are 3404 Church Road, Easton, PA 18045 and 548-550 Broad Street, Tatamy, PA 18085You are hereby notified that

Plaintiff, Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, has filed a Mortgage Foreclosure Complaint endorsed with a Notice to Defend, against you in the Court of Common Pleas of Northamp-ton County, Pennsylvania, docketed to NO. C-48-CV-2015-929, wherein Plaintiff seeks to foreclose on the mortgage secured on your property located, 548-550 Broad Street, Tatamy, PA 18085, whereupon your property would be sold by the Sheriff of Northampton County.

NOTICEYOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN

COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the notice above, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You

are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH THE INFORMA-TION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.

Northampton CountyLawyers Referral ServiceARISP.O. Box 4733Easton, PA 18043-4733(610) 258-6333

MARK J. UDREN, ESQUIRESTUART WINNEG, ESQUIRE

LORRAINE GAZZARA DOYLE, ESQUIRE

SHERRI J. BRAUNSTEIN,ESQUIRE

ELIZABETH L. WASSALL, ESQUIREJOHN ERIC KISHBAUGH,

ESQUIRENICOLE B. LaBLETTA, ESQUIRE

DAVID NEEREN, ESQUIREAMANDA RAUER, ESQUIREUDREN LAW OFFICES, P.C.

Attys. for Plaintiff111 Woodcrest Rd.Ste. 200Cherry Hill, NJ 08003(856) 669-5400

Dec. 10


13

LEGAL ASSISTANTPosition available in Bethlehem

law office engaged in estates/elder law practice for candidate with good communication, computer, math and people skills, attention to details.

Multitasking and organizational skills required. Send resume and letter of interest to Law Office of Mary Ann Snell, 3400 Bath Pike, Suite 311, Bethlehem, PA 18017.

Nov. 26; Dec. 3, 10


14

ESTATES PARALEGALBethlehem law firm seeks full-time trust and estates

paralegal with 3+ years of recent experience. Candidate must be proficient in preparing inheritance tax returns and fiduciary accountings, with moderate to advanced knowledge of Lackner software. Salary and benefits commensurate with experience. Send resume to [email protected].

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTBethlehem law firm seeks full-time front desk receptionist/

administrative assistant. Candidate must be proficient in Word, Excel and QuickBooks software. Salary commensurate with experience. Send resume to [email protected].

Dec. 3, 10, 17


15

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY REPORTER

17


6639


South Bethlehem Historical Society et al. v. City of Bethlehem812 Vol. 58

South Bethlehem Historical Society et al. v. City of Bethlehem

South Bethlehem hiStorical Society, Dana GruBB, Stephen Barron, Jeffrey Zettlemoyer and mary

ponGracZ, appellants v. city of Bethlehem, appellee

Zoning and Planning—Municipal Corporations/Local Agency Law—Stand-ing—Constitutional Law.

Appellants, South Bethlehem Historical Society and the Society’s President, Past-President and Board Members, filed a local agency appeal, asking the Court to revoke Cer-tificates of Appropriateness that were approved by Bethlehem’s City Council. The Certificates of Appropriateness approved the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a nine-story mixed-use building located within the South Bethlehem Historic Conservation District, which is a historic district established by Article 1714 of the City’s Codified Ordi-nances. The Appellants specifically sought relief on the basis that City Council failed to comply with the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S.A. §555. Appellee filed Preliminary Objections to the appeal, arguing, among other things, that the Historical Society lacked standing to pursue the appeal.

The Court found that Appellants lacked standing to pursue the appeal. A crucial com-ponent of the Historical Society’s mission—to promote preservation and restoration of his-toric buildings in South Bethlehem—was not implicated as the Certificates of Appropriateness were issued for the construction of a new building to be constructed in place of current structures. Even if this mission was implicated, however, pursuant to the case of Armstead v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia, 2015 WL 1826390 (Pa. Commw. 2015), the court held that organizations are not granted standing in every case where the mis-sion of the organization is implicated. The Historical Society lacked standing to pursue the Appeal on the basis that it was not aggrieved because it did not possess a demonstrable direct, substantial and immediate interest in the underlying matter.

In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Pennsylvania, Civil Division—No. C-48-CV-2014-11463.

Gary Neil asteak, esquire, for Appellants.

Matthew J. Deschler, esquire, for Appellee.

Order of the Court entered on May 26, 2015 by sletvolD, J.

OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on the Preliminary Objections of Appellee, City of Bethlehem (“Appellee” or “the City”), to the Local Agency Appeal pursuant to the Pennsylvania Local Agency Law (“Appeal”) filed by Appellants, South Bethlehem Historical Society (the “Historical Society”), Stephen Barron (“Barron”), Dana Grubb (“Grubb”), Jeffrey Zettlemoyer (“Zettlemoyer”), and Mary Pongracz (“Pongracz”) (collec-tively “Appellants”).

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 11, 2014, B Land Co., LLC filed an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness1 with the City for property located at 24-30 ———

1 A “certificate of appropriateness” is “[t]he approval statement signed by the City Council which certifies to the historical appropriateness of a particular request for the erection,

16

813South Bethlehem Historical Society et al. v. City of Bethlehem

West 4th Street, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, which lies within the South Bethlehem Historic Conservation District, a historic district established by Article 1714 of the City’s Codified Ordinances and authorized by 53 P.S. §8002. (See Appeal ¶¶8-10.) The application called for demolition of exist-ing buildings and construction of a nine-story mixed-use building. Id. At a regular meeting on November 5, 2014, Bethlehem City Council (“City Council”), pursuant to 53 P.S. §8004, approved Resolution No. 2014-221 and Resolution No. 2014-222 (collectively, the “Resolutions”), therein approving two Certificates of Appropriateness (“COA”) “to demolish the existing two, vacant buildings at 24-30 W. Fourth St. contingent upon the approval of a new building of appropriate scale” and “to construct a 9 story mixed-use building conditional on the approval of details and materi-als at 24-30 W. Fourth St.,” respectively. Appeal at ¶¶11, 12.

On December 2, 2014, Appellants, who are, in addition to the His-torical Society,2 its President, Past-President, and Board Members, filed the instant Appeal, in which they request that the Court revoke the Certificates of Appropriateness3 on the basis that City Council failed to comply with ———alteration, reconstruction, repair, restoration, demolition or razing of all or part of any build-ing or structure within a historic or conservation district.” Art. 1714.04(j).

2 Appellants assert that the South Bethlehem Historical Society is a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation, incorporated on September 3, 1985, a recognized charitable, tax-exempt organization within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, whose mission statement and purpose are articulated “to preserve and make known the second chapter of Bethlehem’s history (1850-on) by focusing on the individuals, ethnic groups and material evidence which helped make possible the industrialization in South Bethlehem.” See Appellants’ Brief at p. 2.

3 In their brief, Appellants phrase their request for relief as follows:City Council on November 5, 2014, received public comment but not

sworn testimony and thereafter approved two (2) Resolutions, in the absence of the issuance of findings of fact or conclusions of law, authorizing the issu-ance of Certificates of Appropriateness to demolish the existing two (2) vacant buildings and construction of a 9-story mixed-use tower. A review of the Minutes of the Meeting reveals that comments provided by Appellants, the developer, and others, were not taken under oath nor stenographically re-corded. The reasons for issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness were not set forth by City Council in writing containing findings and the reasons for the adjudication.

Appellants, invoking the requirements of the Local Agency Law, filed this Appeal seeking an Order of Court revoking the Certificate of Appropriate-ness for the construction of a 9-story mixed-use building at 24-30 West 4th Street, Bethlehem, and suggest that the matter ought to be remanded for the conduct of appropriate proceedings and adjudication in accordance with the Local Agency Law.

The record upon which the Court shall determine Appellee’s Preliminary Objections consists of the pleadings, Appellants’ Affidavit Submitted Pursuant to Rule 1028(c)(2) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and Deposi-tions of Dana Grubb and Stephen Barron dated February 16, 2015, along with the exhibits submitted.

Appellants’ Brief at pp. 4-5; see also, Appeal at ¶¶12-19.

17


the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S.A. §555. Appeal ¶13. On December 17, 2014, the City filed Preliminary Objections to the Appeal. On December 19, 2014, B Land Co., LLC filed a Petition for Intervention and Answer with New Matter and Counterclaims to the Appeal. For reasons that are not clear from the record, B Land Co., LLC has not taken any additional steps to pursue the Petition for Intervention, and to date, the Petition has not been granted or denied.4 On December 23, 2014, Appellants filed an Answer to the City’s Preliminary Objections. On January 5, 2015, the City filed a brief in support of its Preliminary Objections and also filed a Praecipe placing its Preliminary Objections on the Argument List of January 27, 2015. Sub-sequently, on January 23, 2015, upon petition by Appellants, the Honorable Michael J. Koury, Jr., entered an Order authorizing discovery in this matter limited to the issue of Appellants’ standing. The matter was then stricken from the Argument List of January 27, 2015. Depositions of Grubb and Barron were taken on February 16, 2015. The parties agreed to resubmit their briefs with respect to the City’s Preliminary Objections in light of the deposition testimony of Grubb and Barron. The parties filed briefs, and the matter was assigned to the undersigned pursuant to the April 28, 2015 Argument List. Oral argument was conducted on April 28, 2015.

ISSUES PRESENTED5

A. Whether Appellants lack standing to pursue the Appeal because they were not aggrieved by City Council’s approval of the COAs.

B. Whether the Appeal is legally insufficient because Appellants were not aggrieved by City Council’s approval of the COAs, nor were they ag-grieved by the manner in which the COAs were approved.

C. Whether the Appeal is not ripe for review because the City Build-ing Official and/or the Bureau of Code Enforcement has not yet issued building and/or demolition permits for 24-30 West 4th Street.

D. Whether the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Ap-pellants have failed to join an indispensable party.

DISCUSSION

The Matter Is Ripe for Disposition and the Court Has Jurisdiction

At the outset, we find that this matter is ripe for disposition. We reject the City’s argument that the matter is not ripe because the City Building Official and/or Bureau of Code Enforcement has not yet issued building and/or demolition permits for 24-30 West 4th Street. Appellants seek relief specifically from the process involved in the issuance of the COAs. The Court will address the issues.———

4 At oral argument in this matter, counsel for Appellants indicated that the Petition for Intervention has been withdrawn, but the docket does not so reflect.

5 The City initially raised five issues in its Preliminary Objections. In its Brief and at oral argument, it opted to pursue relief with respect to only four issues. (See Appellee’s Brief in Support of Preliminary Objections at p. 5.)

18


Further, the City alleges that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdic-tion because Appellants have failed to join an indispensable party, that party being B Land Co., LLC. As noted supra, B Land Co., LLC filed the Petition for Intervention. Its counsel and principals were in attendance at oral argument in this matter. B Land Co., LLC is well aware of this litiga-tion and could actively pursue the Petition for Intervention if it wished. We do not find Appellants’ failure to join B Land Co., LLC as a party to be fatal to its appeal.

Appellants Lack Standing to Pursue the Appeal

The City argues that Appellants’ appeal should be dismissed because Appellants lack standing. A party may file preliminary objections challenging the standing of another party to litigate the action. Pa. R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(5); Howard v. Commonwealth, 957 A.2d 332, 336 (Pa. Commw. 2008). The City avers that Appellants lack standing because (a) they are not “aggrieved” pursuant to the Municipal Historic District Law (“MHDL”); (b) the Local Agency Law does not apply to the appeal; and (c) even if the Local Agen-cy Law applied, Appellants are still not “aggrieved” persons.

In 1961, the General Assembly enacted the Municipal Historic District Law (“MHDL”), 1961, June 13, P.L. 282, No. 167

[f ]or the purpose of protecting those historical areas within our great Commonwealth, which have a distinctive character recall-ing the rich architectural and historical heritage of Pennsylva-nia, and of making them a source of inspiration to our people by awakening interest in our historic past, and to promote the general welfare, education and culture of the communities in which these distinctive historical areas are located.

53 P.S. §8002. Accordingly, the MHDL authorized certain classes of mu-nicipalities, including third-class cities such as Bethlehem, “to create and define, by ordinance, a historic district or districts within the geographic limits of such political subdivisions.” Id.

The MHDL provides that:(a) Any governing body shall have the power and duty

to certify to the appropriateness of the erection, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, demolition or razing of any building, in whole or in part, within the historic district or districts within the political subdivision. Any agency charged by law or by local ordinance with the issuance of permits for the erection, demolition or alteration of buildings within the historic district shall issue no permit for any such building changes until a certificate of appropriateness has been received from the gov-erning body.

(b) Any governing body in determining whether or not to certify to the appropriateness of the erection, reconstruction,

19


alteration, restoration, demolition or razing of a building, in whole or in part, shall consider the effect which the proposed change will have upon the general historic and architectural nature of the district. The governing body shall pass upon the appropriateness of exterior architectural features which can be seen from a public street or way, only, and shall consider the general design, arrangement, texture, material and color of the building or structure and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings and structures in the district. The govern-ing body shall not consider any matters not pertinent to the preservation of the historic aspect and nature of the district. Upon giving approval, the governing body shall issue a cer-tificate of appropriateness authorizing a permit for the erection, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, demolition or razing of a building, in whole or in part. Disapproval of the governing body shall be in writing, giving reasons therefor, and a copy thereof shall be given to the applicant, to the agency issuing permits and to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Com-mission.

53 P.S. §8004(a)-(b).The MHDL authorizes municipalities to adopt Ordinances implement-

ing the provisions thereof. The City enacted Article 1714 of the City’s Codified Ordinances establishing, inter alia, the South Bethlehem His-toric Conservation District, which indicates the following purpose:

It is the purpose and intent of the City of Bethlehem to promote, protect, enhance, and preserve historic resources and traditional community character for the educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public through the pres-ervation, protection and regulation of buildings and areas of historic interest or importance within the City; to safeguard the heritage of the City by preserving and regulating districts which reflect elements of its cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural history; to preserve and enhance the environmen-tal quality of neighborhoods; to foster economic development; to strengthen the City’s economy by the stimulation of tourism; to establish and improve property values; to foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the City’s past; and to preserve and protect the cultural, historical and architectural assets of the City which have been determined to be of local, state or national significance.

See Exhibit “A” of Appeal, Ordinance at Article 1714.03.Article 1714 created a Historic Conservation Commission to review

building permit applications in the South Bethlehem Historic Conservation District and to recommend to City Council whether a certificate of appro-

20


priateness should be approved for the work. See Art. 1714.07; see also, 53 P.S. §8003. Upon receipt of the recommendation, City Council then votes to approve or disapprove the certificate. Id.; see also, 53 P.S. §8004(a).

Section 4(d) of the MHDL provides that: “[a]ny person aggrieved by failure of the agency charged by law or by local ordinance to issue a permit for such building changes by reason of the disapproval of the governing body may appeal therefrom ... .” 53 P.S. §8004(d). The City argues that pursuant to the express language of section 4(d) of the MHDL, it is impos-sible for any person to be aggrieved by City Council’s approval of a COA if the COA was approved. The City argues that a person is aggrieved by the failure of the agency charged by law or by local ordinance to issue a permit for such building changes only by reason of disapproval. The City further asserts that Appellants would not be afforded standing pursuant to Article 1714, which limits the right of appeal to an applicant whose ap-plication was disapproved by City Council.6 See Appellee’s Brief at p. 7.

In response, Appellants argue that:This case involves an analysis of the procedural require-

ments juxtaposing the Municipal Historic Districts Law, 53 P.S. 8001, et seq., and the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S.A. 551, et seq. The Municipal Historic Districts Law has a designated purpose of protecting those historical areas which have distinc-tive character; the Local Agency Law provides procedural due process involving decisions of local agencies that affect per-sonal or property rights.

Appellants’ Brief at p. 6.The Local Agency Law provides that “[a]ny person aggrieved by an

adjudication of a local agency who has a direct interest in such adjudication shall have the right to appeal therefrom to the court vested with jurisdiction of such appeals by or pursuant to Title 42 ... .” 2 Pa. C.S.A. §752.7 Appel-lants cite to the case of Scott v. City of Pittsburgh, 903 A.2d 110 (Pa. Commw. 2006) for the position that decisions of local agencies affecting personal or property rights are appealable under the Local Agency Law, which requires an evidentiary hearing before the issuance of an adjudica-tion. See Appellants’ Brief at pp. 6-7. By contrast, the City argues that ———

6 Article 1714.11(h) of the local ordinance provides that, “[u]pon receipt of a written disapproval of the City Council, the Building Official shall disapprove the application for a building permit and so advise the applicant. The applicant may appeal this disapproval to the County Court of Common Pleas within the time specified by law.” Art. 1714.11(h).

7 An “adjudication” isAny final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency

affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities or obligations of any or all of the parties to the proceeding in which the adju-dication is made. The term does not include any order based upon a proceeding before a court or which involves the seizure or forfeiture of property, paroles, pardons or releases from mental institutions.

2 Pa. C.S.A. §101.

21


section 4(d) of the MHDL provides the exclusive means through which an aggrieved person may challenge a governing body’s decision with respect to a certificate of appropriateness. See Appellee’s Brief at pp. 8-9. “The Local Agency Law does not exist to expand appeal rights otherwise estab-lished by statute. ... Accordingly, since Appellants do not qualify as ‘ag-grieved’ persons pursuant to Section 4(d), they cannot claim to be ‘ag-grieved’ pursuant to 2 Pa. C.S.A. §752.” Id.

Here, we need not specifically determine whether Appellants have standing based upon the approval (as opposed to denial) of the COAs or whether Appellants have procedural rights conferred upon them pursuant to the Local Agency Law that are separate and apart from those conferred upon a party pursuant to the MHDL. We find that the Historical Society lacks standing to pursue the Appeal on the basis that it is not aggrieved by City Council’s approval of the COAs because it does not possess a demon-strable direct, substantial, and immediate interest in the underlying matter.

Appellants cite to the case of Society Hill Civic Association v. Phila-delphia Board of License & Inspection Review, 905 A.2d 579 (Pa. Commw. 2006) for the proposition that they have standing to raise these issues before the Court. In Society Hill, the Society Hill Civil Association challenged the decision of the Philadelphia Board of License and Inspection Review which upheld a decision of the Philadelphia Historical Commission allowing a property owner to reconstruct marble cornices with fiberglass on the facades of historically designated properties located in the Society Hill section of Philadelphia. Id. at 581. The property owner contended that the Association lacked standing. Id. at 585. The Commonwealth Court determined that the Association had standing to appeal because its purpose was to promote the preservation and restoration of historic buildings, and because the Asso-ciation included over 900 dues-paying members dedicated to protecting historic buildings who had actively negotiated with the property owner over the preservation of several townhouses. Id. at 586.

Instantly, Appellants argue that:South Bethlehem Historical Society stands in the same

shoes as Society Hill Civic Association. The Association and its members are directly involved in the preservation of his-toric buildings in South Bethlehem, have expressed their concerns at various public meetings before the Historic Con-servation Commission, and its designated purpose is to promote preservation and restoration of historic buildings in South Bethlehem. Identically, the South Bethlehem Historic Society and Society Hill Civic Association both have, per the Com-monwealth Court test, a substantial, direct and immediate inter-est in the outcome of the litigation.

See Appellants’ Brief at pp. 7-8.22


In the case of Pittsburgh Trust for Cultural Resources v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 145 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 503, 604 A.2d 298 (1992), both the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust and Penn-Liberty Association contested the Pittsburgh Zoning Hearing Board’s granting of a special exception and variances allowing the applicant to open an amuse-ment arcade in the Penn-Liberty Historic District of downtown Pittsburgh. See id. at 507, 604 A.2d at 300. The applicant challenged the standing of the Trust and of the Association. Id. at 510, 604 A.2d at 301. The Com-monwealth Court concluded that both the Trust and the Association had standing. With respect to the Trust, the court considered that it was head-quartered in the Penn-Liberty Historic District, had made a substantial fi-nancial investment in the District, and also had a fundamental commitment to nurturing cultural activity in the area of the proposed arcade. Id. at 515, 604 A.2d at 304. The arcade would have been located within 200 feet of the Trust’s headquarters. Id. With respect to the Association, the Common-wealth Court determined that is was comprised of approximately 60 dues-paying property owners in the Penn-Liberty area who all had a substantial, direct and immediate interest in maintaining the integrity of the Historic District and in encouraging upscale commercial establishments that would be adversely impacted by an amusement arcade. Id. at 516, 604 A.2d at 304.

However, both the Commonwealth Court and the Pennsylvania Su-preme Court clarified the holdings of Pittsburgh Trust and Society Hill in three separate appeals which were consolidated before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the case of Spahn v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 602 Pa. 83, 977 A.2d 1132 (2009). The Commonwealth Court discussed this clarification in Armstead v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia, 2015 WL 1826390 (Pa. Commw. 2015). The Commonwealth Court stated as follows:

In the third consolidated case in Spahn, SCRUB [Society Created To Reduce Urban Blight] argued it had organizational standing based on Society Hill and Pittsburgh Trust. Spahn, 977 A.2d at 1150. On appeal to this Court, we held that ‘neither Society Hill ... nor Pittsburgh Trust stands for the proposition that a civic group must be granted standing in any zoning liti-gation involving the mission of that group, no matter how re-mote the impact.’ SCRUB, 951 A.2d at 402. Because SCRUB ‘fail[ed] to show or allege any interest beyond the common interest of all citizens in procuring obedience to the law,’ we determined it lacked standing. Id. at 403.

On appeal from this Court’s decision, our Supreme Court adopted the reasoning of this Court regarding SCRUB’s failure to establish standing, determining that SCRUB’s interest was no ‘greater than any other citizen of Philadelphia.’ Spahn, 977

23


A.2d at 1152. The Supreme Court determined, in addition, that although SCRUB’s mission to enforce the Zoning Code, oppose ‘illegal billboards, and foster community development’ was laudable, it was ‘no different from the abstract interest that all citizens have in the outcome of the proceedings.’ Id. In addition, the Supreme Court concluded that Society Hill and Pittsburgh Trust were factually distinguishable from SCRUB’s situation. Spahn, 977 A.2d at 1152. Specifically, the Supreme Court noted that unlike Society Hill, where the organization was in-timately involved in preservation negotiations and participated in public hearings, and Pittsburgh Trust, where the organization had made significant investments and whose offices were within 200 feet of the proposed arcade, SCRUB had not dem-onstrated that it was aggrieved. Spahn, 977 A.2d at 1152. With respect to whether SCRUB had standing based on its members’ residences, the Supreme Court concluded that the members were not aggrieved because they did not live in the vicinity of the proposed billboard but, rather, lived over a mile away. Id.

Id. at *399.In Armstead, the Commonwealth Court determined that Scenic

Philadelphia lacked standing as an organization to oppose the zoning board’s granting of a variance to an applicant (the Franklin Institute) who wished to change the sign faces on its accessory, free-standing sign. Id. at 392. The court noted:

Here, Scenic Philadelphia has not established that it has standing as an organization to oppose the ZBA’s granting of a variance to Applicant. As our Supreme Court held in Spahn, Scenic Philadelphia cannot establish standing simply by virtue of its organizational purpose. As laudable as Scenic Philadel-phia’s mission may be, this interest is no different than ‘the abstract interest that all citizens have’ in ensuring obedience to zoning laws. Spahn, 977 A.2d at 1152; SCRUB, 951 A.2d at 402. Moreover, although Scenic Philadelphia relies on Society Hill and Pittsburgh Trust to argue that it has standing, as we noted in SCRUB, those cases do not stand for the proposition that organizations are granted standing whenever the mission of the organization is implicated. SCRUB, 951 A.2d at 402. Unlike Society Hill, Scenic Philadelphia has not been involved with negotiations with Applicant over the preservation of the Parkway. Further, in contrast to Pittsburgh Trust, Scenic Philadelphia has neither alleged that it has significant invest-ments in the Parkway area nor presented evidence to demon-strate that its offices or members are located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed sign. Therefore, under Spahn, Scenic

24


Philadelphia does not have standing arising from its organi-zational purpose to oppose illegal billboards.

Id. at **399-400 (emphasis added).8

Appellants argue that the Historical Society and its members “have been involved since 1985 in efforts to preserve the historic character of South Bethlehem, promote preservation and restoration of historic buildings in South Bethlehem.” Appellants’ Brief at pp. 2-3. “The [Historical] Soci-ety has been involved by providing members’ advice and counsel to Beth-lehem City Council and the South Bethlehem Historic Conservation Com-mission, an agency of the City, as well as has participated in the development of design guidelines for the South Bethlehem Historic District.” Id. “It is undisputed that the purpose of the South Bethlehem Historical Society, its officers, Board of Directors, and members, is to promote preservation and restoration of historic buildings in South Bethlehem and is representative of individuals who have a substantial, direct, and immediate interest in such activities.” Id. We accept these assertions as true. However, based on Arm-stead, and the cases cited therein, we find that these facts are insufficient to confer standing upon the Historical Society in this matter.

Importantly, this is not a case where the Historical Society is seeking to preserve the historical integrity of current buildings. The facts of record demonstrate that the buildings currently existing at 24-30 West 4th Street in Bethlehem are vacant and subject to demolition. There is no evidence of record that the current buildings have any historical significance. The COAs were issued for the construction of a brand new building to be con-structed in place of the current structures. Here, the historical Society is not interested in preserving the past, it is opposed to the modern design of the proposed office building. Accordingly, a crucial component of the Histori-cal Society’s mission—to promote preservation and restoration of historic ———

8 At oral argument, counsel for Appellants conceded that the individual appellants lack standing and argued that it was the Historical Society who should be afforded standing. In light of this concession, we do not address the issue of whether the individual Appellants have standing. We note however, that based upon the record before this Court, had that argument been asserted, it would have likely failed. In Armstead v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia, 2015 WL 1826390 (Pa. Commw. 2015), the Commonwealth Court noted that although organizations such as Scenic Philadelphia can establish standing based on their members’ own standing, in order to do so succesfully, the individual members must be aggrieved. Id. at *400. In the City’s brief, the City points to numerous reasons contained in the factual record developed during the course of discovery as to why the indivdual Appel-lants lack standing, including, but not limited to, the distance in the location of their homes from the site of the proposed office building and their location outside of the South Bethlehem Historic Conservation District. See Appellee’s Brief at pp. 13-19. “Here, neither Barron, Grubb, nor Zettlemoyer actually reside within the South Bethlehem Historic Conservation District.” Id. at p. 12 (citations to record omitted). “And while Pongracz appears to reside within the South Bethlehem Historic Conservation District, she lives approximately 0.2 miles and mul-tiple city blocks from the proposed development at 24-30 West Fourth Street.” Id. Appellants essentially conceded these facts at oral argument.

25


buildings in South Bethlehem—is not implicated. But even if it were, as noted in Armstead, supra, organizations are not granted standing when-ever the mission of the organization is implicated. Id. at *400.

Consistent with the Commonwealth Court’s analysis in Armstead, we contrast the facts of this matter with the facts of Society Hill and Pitts-burgh Trust. Here, unlike in Society Hill, the Historical Society has not been involved with negotiations with the developer over the preservation of the buildings or the area in question. In fact, when questioned at oral argument, the Historical Society acknowledged, through its counsel, that the Historical Society has not had any discussions at all with the devel-oper. Further, in contrast to Pittsburgh Trust, the Historical Society has neither alleged that it has significant investments in the area nor presented evidence to demonstrate that its offices or members are located in the im-mediate vicinity of the proposed building. To the contrary, the City alleges, and the factual record demonstrates, that the Historical Society’s registered address is 1304 East Sixth Street, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, which is not within the South Bethlehem Historic Conservation District. See Appellee’s Brief at p. 17. For these reasons, under current case law, the Historical Society does not have standing arising from its organizational purpose to oppose the issuance of the COAs.9

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, we enter an Order consistent with this Opinion.———

9 Appellants suggest that they are the “guardians” of the Commonwealth’s Municipal Historic Districts Law, City of Bethlehem Historic Conservation District Ordinance, and the South Bethlehem Historic District itself by virtue of Article I, Section 27, of the Pennsylvania Constitution which states:

The people have a right to clear air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and aesthetic [sic] values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustees of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all people.

See Appellants’ Brief at p. 8. At oral argument, Apellants’ counsel denied that he was making a standing argument based upon Robinson Township, Washington County, PA v. Commonwealth, 623 Pa. 564, 83 A.3d 901 (2013) (plurality opinion). However, without specifically citing Robinson, the argument contained in Appellants’ brief, which is based on the portion of the Pennsylvania Constitution referenced supra, suggests an extension of Robinson. Importantly, Robinson, being a plurality opinion, suggests that only the result carries precedential weight. See Commonwealth v. Bethea, 574 Pa. 100, 111, 828 A.2d 1066, 1073 (2003), (“when a court is faced with a plurality opinion, usually only the result carries precedential weight; the rea-soning does not”). Most recently, the Commonwealth Court deemed Robinson to be “not binding precedent on this Court.” Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Com-monwealth, 108 A.3d 140, 156 n.37 (Pa. Commw. 2015). “For our purposes, we find the plurality’s construction of Article I, Section 27 persuasive only to the extent it is consistent with binding precedent from this Court and the Supreme Court on the same subject.” Id. To the extent that Appellant’s argument herein relies on the reasoning of Robinson, which is not binding precedent, we decline to confer standing upon Appellants on that basis.

26


ORDER

AND NOW, this 26th day of May, 2015, Appellee, City of Bethle-hem’s Preliminary Objections are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Preliminary Objections alleging that this matter is not ripe for review and that this Court lacks jurisdiction because Appellants have failed to join an indispensable party are OVERRULED.

The Preliminary Objections alleging that Appellants’ [sic] lack stand-ing to pursue this Appeal are GRANTED. For the reasons stated in the Opinion submitted in conjunction with this Order, this Court finds that Appellants lack standing to pursue this Appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal is DISMISSED.

27

DELI TO: VER

PERIODICAL PUBLICATION* Dated Material. Do Not Delay. Please Deliver Before Monday, December 14, 2015

Documents

CONTENTS · Late of the Borough of Wind Gap, Northampton County, PA Executor: Steven E. Hicks, 312 Maple Terrace, Saylorsburg, PA 18353 KUHNS, WAYNE D., dec’d. Late of the Township