LCB 103 N Petition Intervene 7'13'10

8/9/2019 LCB 103 N Petition Intervene 7'13'10

1/22

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Petition of : James D. Schneller

PETITION TO INTERVENE AND OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSEDCHANGE OF LICENSEE AND LICENSE LOCATION

James D. Schneller, of 500 East Lancaster Avenue # 111d, Wayne, PA, files this

petition to intervene and objections to any approval of the application to transfer the

license from 116 North Wayne Avenue to 103 North Wayne Avenue and transfer

ownership from The Pub Group II LLC, to Xilantro Wayne Investors Inc.. In objection

to the application, and in support of intervention, petitioner states the following:

1) Applicant has applied for a change in location within the Township of Radnor, and

has applied to change licensee identity.

2) James D. Schneller is a resident of the district which views the street and block of

the proposed premises to be their town center.

3) The determination in this proceeding will affect enforceable interests of

petitioner's. Petitioner's interests in this application are highly likely to be not

represented by any other party on the record.

4) The subject premises is the subject of an appeal by petitioner to the Radnor Zoning

Hearing Board, a subsequent civil complaint to the local Magistrate Court, a

PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOA

License No. R - 13486

Application for License Change ofLocation

Application for License Change ofLicensee

:

:

:

:


2/22

subsequent citizen criminal complaint submitted to said magistrate Court and the

District Attorney of Delaware County, and an appeal and complaint regarding the

magistrate's decision, in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. A copy of

the petitioner's "statement of basis and relief" accompanying the appeal to the

Radnor Zoning Board is attached as Exhibit A. A copy of petitioner's complaint filedwith the appeal to the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is attached as Exhibit

B (exhibits omitted).

5) Said entanglement stems from a complaint that the landowner is acting as if the

sidewalk where applicant seeks to serve alcohol outdoors is landowner's domain

despite many decades of use of it solely by the public as a plaza, and despite a

recently passed Wayne Business District Overlay and SALDO and underlying Master

Plan which accentuate the shortage of public space in downtown Wayne and

encourage ways to preserve what there is.

6) The landowner is acting as if he is outside of the statutes. They have not obtained

approvals usually required under municipal ordinance chapters including those

governing sidewalks, sidewalk cafes, trees, and land use.

7) The landowner has also expressly violated statutes including those governing

sidewalks and shade trees and petitioner has stood against these acts before the

Radnor Board of Commissioners, Radnor Zoning Hearing Board, and RadnorDepartment of Community Development.

8) A similar episode had occurred on a town plaza a block away in recent history, and

what was a public plaza, became the domain of a busy nightspot's sidewalk caf, with

a concurrent slight to the residents of Wayne, and a failure to use the opportunity to

increase the width of the right of way section of that sidewalk, which remains at an

egregious four feet. Allowing a license to be associated with this, the applicant's,

identical such scar, resulting as it does from failure of government to enforce the law

and Wayne Master Plan, would be beyond the thresholds of common decency, duty to

uphold the law, and perception to the public of lawfulness, fairness and impartiality.

9) The above constitute extraordinary circumstances supporting intervention by

petitioner.


3/22

10) Few or no other parties have stood to object to the liquor license proposed for this

location and petitioner believes this is not because of lack of misgivings and

objections, but rather is a result of a lessening of officials' rectitude, which has caused

the populace to avoid local land use issues, due to a perception of such being a waste

of time in light of immovable attitudes and unwilling intellect perceived in leaders, bythe public.

11) Petitioner's interests are too important to be denied review.

12) Petitioner has not unduly delayed in making application for intervention.

13) Participation of the petitioner in this matter is in the public interest.

14) Petitioner also requests to intervene because, although he lives farther than 500 feet

from the proposed premises, the block is the center of the community's small town

center and shopping district, which is visited by many, but owned by few, so that the

500 foot rule is meaningless in regard to actual numerous objections by citizens with

meaningful reasons to claim standing to oppose.

15) At their meetings the Radnor Township Board of Commissioners has declined to

investigate and/or reconsider this matter despite petitioner's explaining to them that

the Zoning Hearing Board and Department of Community Development had openlyand substantially obstructed justice and righteous enforcement of the municipal code

and Municipalities Planning Code.

16) The proposed location is a hazard with a narrow sidewalk and burdensome

sidewalk traffic that is now known, since the alterations, to be a bottleneck, a hazard,

and an inconvenience. With the ingress and egress of a liquor establishment this will

be aggravated and become more dangerous, and a busy right turn corner borders the

curb along the premises. The location is already harmful to strollers and pets and

youngsters especially. The inclusion of alcohol in this format would be unsafe and

irresponsible. The applicant feasibly seeks to use the no parking zone as a drop off

location yet this would be expressly dangerous.

17) Failure to gain proper approvals by landowners denies township residents the

opportunity to raise objections like those raised herein.


4/22

18) The landowner enjoys an insulated status in the above described matter and others,

which in cases like these has caused a marked appearance of bias, partiality, and

unfairness.

19) Petitioner objects because Radnor Township is burdened with an inordinate

number of Board licensees, and an inordinate percentage of total Board licensees, on a

township, county, and statewide basis, and recent complaints on this basis to the

Board of Commissioners of Radnor Township fell on deaf ears.

20) Any establishment would be frequented by college students of the five nearby

colleges, which has been an issue before in Wayne. Most residents would prefer that

liquor businesses in the Township not serve college students, yet operators frequently

find it hard to avoid the extra business. Despite all optimism, and respect for the right

to imbibe alcohol, this is an issue proven to be successively objected to, needful of

governance, and harmful.

21) Certain classes of citizens stand to be more deeply affected by the applicant's

proposal, including the elderly, the family raising, the physical fit, jogger, and walker,

the morally inclined, and others.

22) Petitioner objects because a liquor license for this location, will deprive my rightsto and enjoyment of typical and status quo elements of day to day safety, comforts,

the environment, and safety, ethical fabric of the district, moral fabric of the district,

morals of the youth and the impressionable, property values, liberty, travel time, and

enjoyment.

23) The ability and intent of the Radnor Commissioners to protect basic comforts and

ethical and moral status quo is not exercised and may even be worked against.

24) Wayne Presbyterian Church at 125 East Lancaster Avenue and the Central Baptist

Church at 106 West Lancaster Avenue are within 300 feet of the applicant's proposed

location.


5/22

25) At least two (2) other licensed liquor establishments in the vicinity are located

within 500 feet of one or both of the Wayne Presbyterian Church and the Wayne

Central Baptist Church.

26) Applicant's proposed license premises is the first that would be openly visible fromthese churches.

27) Applicant's proposed license premises is the first that would be noticeably audible

from both churches.

28) Applicant's proposed license premises is the first that would be directly noticeable

from both churches year round.

29) The sidewalk is traversed daily by dozens of middle school students who attend the

school located 750 feet from the premises and who walk home because there is no bus

service for a circumference of a mile. This side of North Wayne Avenue has no

premises licensed by the Board and is also the most direct route for any students

walking to North Wayne, and has become the known sidewalk of least resistance for

all residents, because no sidewalk cafes exist.

30) Wayne Presbyterian Church at 125 East Lancaster Avenue and the Central Baptist

Church at 106 West Lancaster Avenue both operate schools, that are located within300 feet of the applicant's proposed location.

31) Petitioner is a religious person and reveres the presence of these churches and

believes that their presence is a deeper and more influential one for a majority of the

community and visitors and commuters, than simply a building with a steeple for

Sunday worship.

32) Moreso both of these churches have an active regimen all week involving all ages.

33) Petitioner is an architectural and historical enthusiast and believes that an

overabundance of outdoor cafes harms the town's atmosphere and the town's

ambience and character, and said church's contribution thereto.


6/22

34) Petitioner claims that each additional liquor license likewise is detrimental to the

morals of the community, and the visible affront within 300 feet of said churches and

schools would be even more detrimental.

35) The visible affront of additional liquor licensees is detrimental to the historical andunique character of the town.

36) Radnor residents have noted the concentration of liquor establishments on North

Wayne Avenue with serious concerns about the change in character of the town.

37) The police in Radnor Township have been forced to add special personnel at this

block, and a significant reason for this is the elevated average blood alcohol content

combined with diagonal parking, high pedestrian volume, and a need to prevent

unruliness.

38) Having no knowledge of the date of posting of notice, petitioner demands strict

proof of it's posting on the stated day.

39) The relevant side of North Wayne Avenue is, up to present, without a liquor

establishment and this has been a noticeable feature.

40) Petitioner is unable to discern why two location dimensions have been listed on thenotice, namely, 40 x 19, and 25 x 15. Petitioner reserves the right to raise further

objections upon any allowable discovery and other investigation, including regarding

reputation.

41) The plaza occupied by the landowner thus is a reminder to the public that local

government has failed in their duty, and therefore the application should be denied,

because applicant's association with the landowner and the property indicates an equal

lack of regard.

42) The granting of the application, and of a double transfer, will indicate failure of

government and leadership, intertwined with the added objections stated herein

including over saturation with Board licensees.


7/22

43) For these and additional reasons the effects of grant of the proposed license on

petitioner and on a great number of town residents and visitors would be direct,

substantial, and immediate.

44) The proposal also stands to be harmful to freedom, comfort, safety, and morals ofthe immediate neighborhoods, which are in fact a walking community.

45) Such additional reasons as arise before the Board.

REQUEST TO FILE OUTSIDE OF THE 30 DAY PERIOD

46) Petitioner files this petition on the 47th day from the written date on the notice. The

date of actual posting may be later than the day written on the notice.

47) Petitioner for 3 decades has traversed the location of applicant's proposed premises,

at least four times a week. Petitioner for the past 6 years has traversed the location at

least five times a week, on foot or bicycle, which are his sole means of travel during

the last 6 years.

48) Petitioner's means of travel causes him to be more acutely aware of hisaggrievement with the proposal for liquor license, and all of the aggrievements

petitioner has claimed would be caused by grant of the application.

49) Petitioner in the same time period as the thirty days beginning on the date of

applicant's posting of notice, May 28, 2010, has embarked on a 60 day, 12 hour a day

effort to acquire the lawful number of 4200 signatures, on petitions for his candidacy

for the U.S. House of Representatives. The said project stepped into high gear on the

Memorial Day weekend where petitioner could not even attend the Wayne Memorial

Day parade, at which time he was highly likely to see the applicant's notice. Since

that time petitioner has, on a daily basis, necessarily travelled from his home, going in

the opposite direction from the proposed premises, and returning home without time

for leisure walk or ride, without exception, until Saturday, July 10, 2010, on which

day he mailed some parcels at the Post Office and then traversed applicant's sidewalk

and saw the notice.


8/22

50) Petitioner files this petition at the earliest opportunity because he was required to

file a petition for allowance of appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and a

Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, both by midnight

Monday, July 12, 2010, and so files this petition in the midnight hour of Wednesday,July 14, 2010.

51) The extraordinary circumstances and public interest of these objections support late

request for intervention.

52) Such additional reasons as arise before the Board.

I, James D. Schneller, verify that the statements made in the foregoing petition are true

and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false

statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating

to unsworn falsification to authorities.

Respectfully submitted:

________________________________ Date: July 13, 2010

James D. Schneller500 E. Lancaster Avenue #111dRadnor, PA 19087 pro se610-688-9471


9/22

EXHIBIT A


10/22

Relief requested and/or basis for appearing before the Zoning Hearing Board.

The premises is the premises next to the building at the eastern corner of LancasterAvenue and North Wayne Avenue. The building line of the present structure, which wasrecently replaced, protrudes approximately 5 feet further streetward than the dozen or sobuildings on the block, which protrusion falls somewhat in correlation with the diagonaldirection of the curb, which results from an ending of diagonal parking spaces and thecurb's converging to a typical distance from said corner building, which protrudesapproximately 12 feet further westward than the premises at hand.

The owner of 103 North Wayne or a related party ("owner" "landowner") has takenpossession of the sidewalk and plaza in front of the premises up to a line extending from

the building line of the corner building, extending north and then diagonally northeast,paralleling the curb described in the preceding paragraph, said line remaining parallel tosaid curb. Because the premises is set back said twelve or so feet farther from the street,this section of sidewalk has been for memorable time a small triangular plaza which upuntil recently held a bench and offered a reprieve of open space.

The arbitrary boundary is apparently intended to be an outermost limit for a sidewalkcaf. It leaves no allotment for use a public space. The sidewalk has been re-pouredseparate and apart from the rest of the plaza, causing a level sidewalk that is incongruouswith the rest of the noticeably graded sidewalk, removing it from public use, and the

owner has constructed a berm or trough, depending on the location, on which wasrecently installed a waist high fence. There is a stairwell to basement level extendingalong the border with the adjacent corner property.

Owner applied for and was granted a permit to replace the sidewalk, around the timethat said alterations were made, but that permit was issued solely for a sidewalkfollowing and not extending beyond, a swath extending approximately 7 feet from thecurb and thus not including the rough triangle of plaza now possessed, measuring roughlytwelve feet by fifteen feet, that has been altered by the landowner. This sidewalkalteration allowed by the permit was made. All changes were most likely made at thesame time. The alteration has needlessly made the passable sidewalk cramped,uncomfortable and unattractive, and has taken from public domain the last such plazaspace in the core shopping district, which has a strong characteristic of being crampedand inconvenient for pedestrians. These are ills intended to be alleviated as stated in theenacting ordinances, Township master plan, Wayne WBOD master plan, and the relatedcomprehensive plans and preliminary studies leading up to them.


11/22

Applicant is, as an aggrieved citizen, tenant of real property, whose property, person,health, safety, and welfare will be substantially negatively affected by the objected-toacts, and whose rights to liberty, property, comfort, safety, protection of interests, and allrights due him; entitled to request certain actions by the Board, as follows. Applicanthas not received any response to his letters written to the Department complaining of the

issue listed herein.

4a

1) Determination of whether the taking over of the triangular portion of the plaza thathas been altered and fenced, was needful of a permit or permits, and/or permission ofthe department and other officials, including because it is a re-pouring of a longstanding plaza, involved a permanent fixture for a sidewalk dining barrier, and has afence erected thereon. 280-131

2) Has the engineer or zoning officer issued a permit for sidewalk replacement in error,due to knowledge of the intent of the owner to substantially alter the other portion ofsidewalk between the curbside sidewalk and the premises, said other portion notformally requested to be changed in the permit application, and other reasons ?R.M.C. 250-11, 255-37, 280-139(A), 280-131(C), 280-158, Chapter 280Article 12A 15

3) May the department serve enforcement notice(s) on the owner ? 280-156, 250-6, 132- 113.3, 150-9

4) Is the status of the plaza that of a public plaza and commons as opposed to spacefreely available to adjacent property owner for sidewalk dining ? Chapter 255 ArticleIX 13, 280-89.8 (C)

5) Are the possession of, and changes to, the plaza, irregular, invalid, and

unapprovable ? 280-145, 132-113

6) Is the owner in direct violation of the municipal code for acts including altering apublic sidewalk without a permit, without a sidewalk dining permit, without approvalof the design review board and Shade Tree Commission, and without the approval ofthe Board of Commissioners and Planning Commission ? Did the physical structurehold all lawful permits and should those applications have included the plan for the


12/22

plaza alterations and possession ? 132-113.4, 150-9, 250-10, 263.9, 280-158, 280-36.4, Chapter 255 Article IX 8, Chapter 280 Article 12A 8, 15

7) Is the owner in direct violation of the municipal code for acts including altering apublic sidewalk and plaza or commons and erecting a fence without variance or

special exception ?

8) May the owner be fined and subject to proceedings to stop further work andproceedings to remove said alterations ? All available enforcement is requested. 280-89.10, 280-107, 142.4, 250.9, 250.14

9) May and must the Board find that the plaza is a commons, and direct allocation of thecommons for public use and direct the Planning Commission, Shade TreeCommission, and/or the C.P.I.C., to determine the future of the commons due to thisopportunity and finding ?

Applicant reserves the right to add additional issues in his brief including those madenecessary by testimony and other evidence.

4b


13/22

EXHIBIT B


14/22

James D. Schneller, plaintiffv.Radnor Township Department of CommunityDevelopment,Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board

Steven Bajus; S.W. Bajus Ltd.

To: Radnor Township Department of Community Development,Radnor Township Zoning Hearing BoardSteven Bajus; S.W. Bajus Ltd.

NOTICE TO DEFEND

You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in thefollowing pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint andNotice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by an attorney and filing inwriting with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. Youare warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgement maybe entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in thecomplaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or

property rights important to you.

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOTHAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THISOFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER.

IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TOPROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFERLEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.

Lawyer's Reference Service

Front & Lemon StreetsMedia, Pennsylvania 19063(610) 566-6625

James D. Schneller .PLAINTIFF pro se

:

:

:

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASOF DELAWARE COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT OF

DISTRICT JUSTICE

No. 10 - 52231


15/22

James D. Schneller pro se500 East Lancaster Avenue #111dRadnor, PA 19087 610-688-9471

James D. Schneller, plaintiffv.Radnor Township Department of Community Development,Radnor Township Zoning Hearing BoardSteven Bajus; S.W. Bajus Ltd.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff appeals from the decision of Magisterial Court 32-1-29 granting judgmentto defendants and against plaintiff and finding lack of jurisdiction over claims, stating asfollows:

1) Plaintiff is a resident of Radnor Township, residing at 500 East lancaster Avenue #111d, Radnor, PA 19087 for seven years, and residing in the immediate area for 40 years.

2) Defendant Radnor Township Dept. of Community Development of 301 Iven

Avenue, Wayne, Pa 19087, contains the entire Radnor Township staff directly involved

with land use and subdivision and related applications and permits including the

engineer, zoning officer, inspectors and support staff, and is the body which processes

appeals to defendant Zoning Hearing Board of Radnor Township, also of 301 Iven

Avenue, Wayne, Pa 19087.

3) Defendants Stephen W. Bajus and his firm S.W. Bajus Ltd., of 919 Conestoga Road

#203

4) Rosemont, PA 19010, are the owner of the land and the applicant for permits for

alteration to the premises at issue, which is a commercial building on the main shopping

:

:

:

:

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAOF DELAWARE COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT OFDISTRICT JUSTICE

No. 10 - 52231


16/22

street named North Wayne Avenue, address 103 North Wayne Avenue, Wayne,

Pennsylvania.

5) A true and correct copy of the complaint filed by plaintiff in the magisterial court is

attached hereto as EXHIBIT A.

6) Plaintiff claims that the district Court has erred substantially in law and

apprehension of fact in a volume which supports reversal and trial de novo, and trial of a

set of claims left unaddressed by the magisterial Court.

7) The trial Court has erred in issuing judgment for defendants because plaintiff

testified with great credibility and was unopposed, or opposed in small part and/or only

with verbal statements by counsel for defendant Department of Community

Development.

8) Error is therefore great in the legal conclusion of judgment for defendants as well.

Plaintiff sought refund of the filing fee and damages because crucial and clearly pertinent

documents bearing substantially on decision to appeal and the appeal itself, were

prevented of any revealing to plaintiff pursuant to his information requests filed before

appeal was taken to defendant Zoning Board, and before the Zoning Board hearing.

9) The only plan revealed to plaintiff was a sidewalk plan, for a permit for re-laying of

the sidewalk portion of the construction, whereas at hearing the defendants suddenly

revealed three (3) other plans, stating them to be of record in the matter.

10) A true and correct copy of the decision is attached hereto as EXHIBIT B.

11) The trial Court has erred in issuing judgment for defendants because plaintiff's

claims for $ 8,000.00 in compensatory and exemplary damages was declared to be

irrelevant or outside of jurisdiction of the district Court, and these matters beared heavily

on the claim that was decided and yet were not taken into consideration before judgment

entered.

12) Plaintiff also requests trial of matters not addressed by the District Court, including,

as stated in the complaint below:

13) Obstruction to Radnor Township Zoning Appeal No. 2820, filed by plaintiff,

including because of the claim stated above that crucial and clearly pertinent documents

were prevented of any revealing to plaintiff pursuant to his information requests filed

before appeal was taken.


17/22

14) Conspiracy to obstruct, retaliate, and interfere with said appeal and with

administration of justice.

15) Concealing and removing of public instruments and documents of record in land

development applications.

16) Violations of Radnor Township Zoning Code 280 including 89, 145, 152, 250,

and 263 and other Chapters.

17) Conspiring to cause multiplicity of litigation and appeal.

18) Failure to enforce 18 Pa. C.S. Crimes Code and/or violating 18 Pa.C.S. 4104, 18

Pa.C.S. 4902, 18 Pa.C.S. 4903, 18 Pa.C.S. 4904, 18 Pa.C.S. 4910, 18 Pa.C.S.

4952, 18 Pa.C.S. 5101, 18 Pa.C.S. 5107, 18 Pa.C.S. 5301, and other statutes.

19) Plaintiff included, regarding the claim stated in the preceding paragraph, a claim of

failure to report violations to the appropriate authorities, failure to warn, and failure tonote violations during administrative hearings or proceedings.

20) Plaintiff raised additional statutes claimed to be violated in pleadings and at trial and

stood ready to prove his claims.

21) Plaintiff requested adjudication of the claims stated in paragraphs 12 to 17 and as

otherwise raised in the proceedings, because of a claim for compensatory damages that he

explained at trial was inherent in the complaint.

22) Plaintiff requested punitive or exemplary or trebled damages at trial for reason of the

imtentional, willful, and outrageous acts of the defendants.

23) Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint in this regard also, which is pending with the

Office of the District Attorney. That complaint names the Radnor Township Board of

Commissioners as defendants. A true and correct copy of the complaint is attached

hereto as EXHIBIT C

24) Plaintiff incorporates said complaint and the claims alleged therein as if set forth in

full herein.

25) These two (2) complaints are lawfully worthy of amendment due to ongoingadditional violations of law by the defendants.

26) These two (2) complaints are lawfully worthy of trial in this action.

27) At the least the Court is authorized, as the most efficient, lawful and equitable

remedy for defendant's physical concealment of evidence with intent to affect a citizen's

perception, and fraudulently cause said party to initiate litigation, in a retaliation to


18/22

plaintiff and in an effort to create intimidating circumstances, to reverse and cause refund

of the filing fee, where acceptance of the filing fee constituted acknowledgment of the

duty of public officers and adjudicative officers, and said judgment is apportionable

between all three defendants.

28) Plaintiff attempted to raise a new claim after trial, that defendants, due to plaintiff'smisunderstanding of the amount of the filing fee, accepted a $ 550.00 filing fee. The fee

required of plaintiffs for an appeal from the zoning hearing board was $ 500.00.

29) Therefore, plaintiffs were overcharged by $ 50.00 and the Court is authorized to

amend judgment to include judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $ 50.00.

30) The District Court has not included defendants Radnor Township Zoning Hearing

Board nor Stephen Bajus and S.W. Bajus Ltd. in the caption of the judgment order.

31) The order does not decide the case as to defendant Stephen Bajus and S.W. Bajus

Ltd. nor the Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board. Therefore plaintiffs request

adjudication of the case by plaintiffs against Stephen Bajus and S.W. Bajus Ltd. and

Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board and/or such action deemed just and proper.

32) Plaintiff claimed a right to take his case to the Magisterial Court because there were

substantial and well defined issues regarding the filing fee and his demand for

reimbursement of it, and because that issue encompassed and related to a wider scope of

violations of law and intentional acts, which are within the scope of the Pa.R.J.A. and are

in fact within Pa.R.J.A. Rules 1000 et al regarding appeal.33) Plaintiff had strong reason to preserve his rights by way of cautiously litigating in

this manner because the defendants in pro se complaints filed by plaintiff and the estate

trusts of his parents, have been deluged with false claims of litigiousness as of late, due

apparently to said defendants' inability to end said cases, and plaintiff had urgent reason

not to file an additional appeal directly to this Court because he has been consistently,

arbitrarily, and vigorously opposed by Radnor Township in three (3) land use appeals

taken to this Court on the basis of standing, and all of said defendants in their entirety

seek to foment any appellate ruling possible, that might find plaintiff to be an improperly

litigious party and therefore it would be claimed, a litigious party who deserves valid andlawful injunctive relief.

34) Plaintiff, who lives at distances over 1500 feet from the sites of the proposed land

uses including the principal lot named in this appeal, 103 North Wayne Avenue, has

claimed standing in all of the Zoning Hearing Board proceedings for numerous reasons,

that were added to in this case by plaintiff's claim that the lot is in a small downtown


19/22

district utilized by the community at large and thus a substantial aggrievement on his part

including due to plaintiff's travel being limited to foot and bicycle, plaintiff's daily

traversing of the lot, plaintiff's being a historical and statute-adherence activist, and other

reasons including the fact that overt violations of statutes ought to support aggrievement

of any citizen standing to oppose the inflictors, where even the governing body, and

possibly the District Attorney, have disregarded the violations.

35) Plaintiff expressed at trial his objection that the trial was not transcribed

36) Obstruction and retaliation and intimidation continues by defendants up to present

including also the magisterial court, in actions including failure to correct the blatant

violations of law present, failure to report the violations of law present, and failure to

enter all four (4) defendants in this case onto the record.

37) Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of order of judgment entered May 4,

2010, encompassing the claims stated in paragraphs above.

38) Defendant's insufficient production of the records and all of the acts complained of,

have caused harm to plaintiff, which includes the costs of said requests for records, of

legal research, of this action, vexation and anguish, and loss of time and resources.

39) Defendants' acts were willful, wanton, intentional, and reckless, thus entitling

plaintiffs to punitive damages.

40) Defendants' acts were negligent and grossly negligent.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests the court to vacate or reverse judgment

entered by the Magisterial District Court.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests the court to try the case de novo and in

regard to all claims including those not addressed in the proceedings in the district Court..

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests adjudication of the case by plaintiff againstStephen Bajus and S.W. Bajus Ltd.; and the Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board,

and in the alternative, requests judgment for plaintiffs against Radnor Township Zoning

Hearing Board and/or Stephen Bajus and S.W. Bajus Ltd., and hearing for assessment of

damages, findings and conclusions on questions, and/or such action deemed just and

proper.


20/22

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests the court to amend judgment to include

judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $ 50.00.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff requests the Court's Order which directs defendants toproduce all records relating to this case.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff requests the Court's Order which recommends referral of

this case to the District Attorney with findings that statutes have been substantially

violated.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff requests compensatory damages, and punitive damages,

which may be in excess of Fifty thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), delay damages pursuant

to Pa. R.C.P. 238, interest, allowable costs of suit, and such further action as the Court

may deem just and proper.

________________________________ Date: June 23, 2010

James D. Schneller pro se500 E. Lancaster Avenue # 111D

Radnor, PA 19087610-688-9471

James D. Schneller, plaintiff

:

:

:

:



No. 10 - 52231


21/22

v.Radnor Township Department of CommunityDevelopment,Radnor Township Zoning Hearing BoardSteven Bajus; S.W. Bajus Ltd.

VERIFICATION

I, James D. Schneller, verify that the statements made in the foregoingComplaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. Iunderstand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.

C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

_______________________________________ Date: June 23, 2010James D. Schneller

James D. Schneller, plaintiff

:

:

:

:



No. 10 - 52231


22/22

v.Radnor Township Department of CommunityDevelopment,Radnor Township Zoning Hearing BoardSteven Bajus; S.W. Bajus Ltd.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, James D. Schneller, certify that I served a true and correct copy of the within

complaint upon all parties, by mailing copies off the notice of appeal and cover sheet tothe following via USPS certified mail:

Honorable John C. TutenMagis. Dist. 32 - 1 - 29230 Sugartown Road Ste 105Wayne, PA 19087

John B. Rice EsquireGrim, Biehn & Thatcher

104 South Sixth Street, P.O. Box 215Perkasie, PA 18944

S.W. Bajus Ltd.919 Conestoga RoadBldg. One, Suite 203Rosemont, PA 19010

__________________________________ Date: June 23, 2010

James Schneller

MAKE COPY FOR SERVICE

LCB 103 N Petition Intervene 7'13'10

Documents

Transcript of LCB 103 N Petition Intervene 7'13'10