I'm so happy I purchased a report, I learned that my doctor has been over charging me for medication for years. Emergency overflow which prevents topping of the dam during a flood. Appellees counter-claimed alleging that the Board of Directors of Buck Hills Falls Company illegally removed Appellee Press from the Board.3. 5.14 The permanent impoundment is 69 acre feet. 3.01 The impetus for the project arose from the flood of 1955. I agree to defend and indemnify the Buck Hill Inc. for any and all claims, including subrogation and/or derivative claims brought by any third party or insurer, which I may cause. Patient Testimonials. 14.07 Federal action affecting the environment, if requiring an environmental impact statement, must be enjoined pending preparation of such a statement unless rare and unusual circumstances exist. 100, 672 A.2d 1373, 1375 (1996). 4.17 Overall, 208 acres would be cleared in the construction of the three dams. (Id. 5.18 The distance between the energy dissipator and the original stream channel is about 150 feet. Email: robs@umich.edu U.S. mail: Robert Schweitzer 3661 Waldenwood Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 Phone: 734/668-0298. 6.08 PA-465, the dam deleted, affected 80% of the watershed area and its elimination considerably reduced the level of protection. As owner of the Inn and the stream, Buck Hill Falls Company stocks the stream and assures access to all the public who use the Inn. Only 90 minutes from Philadelphia and New York City, Buck Hill Falls gives those who live in and love the urban life an opportunity to balance that energy with restorative serenity, rejuvenating fresh air, and health-enhancing recreation. The standards of reviewability of the agency's action with respect to the Watershed Protection Act are different from those under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Court in this case is not called upon to consider the question of standing. 7.23 Silting from the construction of dams has a serious effect on downstream water life. 8.05 There is no policy dispute between the Pennsylvania Fish Commission and Soil Conservation Service. v. School Dist. Citizens in Buck Hill Falls, Pennsylvania should be aware of illegal activities surrounding police brutality among their police departments and take actions against them. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court made an error of law, and that by keeping chickens, Appellees are in violation of the restrictive covenant prohibiting poultry on their property.4. 12.10 The "Negative Declaration" purported to find that the project will *408 have no significant environmental impact. The Defendants, officials of the U. S. Department of Labor, propose to construct a dam across the stream in the proximity of the Plaintiffs' homes. We disagree. 4.03 The primary purpose of the project is to reduce the problem in the watershed arising from flood water damage. Inquiries have raised significant questions regarding the effects on aesthetics, fisheries and the economic merits of the projects, none of which have been conclusively determined. ... or want to establish employment policies to prevent situations that may result in a lawsuit… 6.03 A dry dam is a dam with a pipe through it, open at all times, and there is no impoundment until the water flow exceeds the capacity of the pipe. For the reasons set forth below we reverse. Because of the exigent circumstances of the case it was necessary to issue an order unaccompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law. See 42 U.S.C. Malpractice Lawsuits. There are no individuals being relocated as a result of the project. 1.04 The Plaintiff Gee is a Commissioner of the National Water Study Commission and a member of the Board of Buck Hill Falls Inn, a corporation whose stock is publicly traded. Therefore, we find that here too the trial court made an error of law, and that Appellees are in violation of the covenant prohibiting the construction of a chicken house on their property. Appellant argues that the Poultry Covenant is clear and unambiguous, and, since Appellees' chickens are poultry, they are prohibited. states that "The reviewing court shall(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be. By Order dated August 22, 2000, both the petition for a permanent injunction and Appellees' counter-claim were denied. Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. 2.05 There are 200 residences in the area. . 14.27 The Negative Declaration gave an introduction on a three dam basis, a benefits to costs analysis on a three dam basis and an impact analysis on the basis of this dam alone. A. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The former statute provides that the secretary "is authorized" to assemble a benefitscosts analysis of a project falling under the jurisdiction of the Act. 14.16 Erection of Dam PA-466 will have a significant impact on the environment. For example, the document which has become known as an environmental impact statement must discuss the "environmental impact of the proposed action, . The scope of a preliminary injunction ends when a petition for a permanent injunction is either granted or denied. 5.03 The plan for the construction of this dam was originally formulated in 1961. Patient Reviews. A cold water bypass through the base of the riser is designed to reduce the temperature of the stream below the dam. During the summer of 1998 Appellees had as many as twenty chickens, including a number of roosters. Buck Hill Falls is a private 4,500 acre resort community in the area of Pennsylvania called The Poconos. § 4332(2) (C). While the phrase “household pet” is somewhat ambiguous, nevertheless the language prohibiting poultry makes it clear that chickens were not intended to be included in the covenant's meaning of the phrase “household pet.” 5  Keeping in mind that the rules of construction require us to examine the language of the covenant in light of the subject matter surrounding it, we conclude that the trial court erred in finding that Appellees' chickens are household pets. We need not decide what the parties may or may not have meant when using the word “outbuilding” when the definition of “chicken house” is obvious. Plaintiffs in this case have a very real controversy with the Soil Conservation Service over the construction of the Buck Hill Falls dam. In addition, Appellees' property is further restricted, until January 1, 2050, by a covenant in its chain of title which provides in pertinent part: And the said Grantee, for herself, her heirs, and assigns, further covenants and agrees to and with the said Grantor, its successors and assigns, that ․ no barn, stable, cow-shed, chicken-house, pig-pen, detached privy, or other out-building, shall ․ be erected or constructed ․ upon any part of the hereby granted premises. Other names that Harrel uses includes Harrel S Silverstein. Defendants have acted on a basis generally applicable to the class, the common questions of the law and fact predominate over individual issues, and efficiency, fairness and the public interest will benefit from a single determination of the issues in dispute between the members of the class and defendants. 5.27 A maximum probable storm will produce 20 inches of runoff in the area. 5.15 Riprap of 5900 cubic yard of rock will run from a point near the highway even with the dam down to a point where the old stream bed will receive water from the dam. 1.02 Defendants are Kenneth Grant, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., Administrator of the Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture ("SCS"), Earl Butz, Secretary, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., and Benny Martin, Federal Building, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, State Conservationist for Pennsylvania of SCS. *407 11.06 The disturbance from construction of the proposed dam may cause serious and long lasting adverse effects to water quality and all living elements in the streams by reason of sedimentation and erosion. The Benefits-Costs Ratio. ¶ 6 After a hearing, the petition for a preliminary injunction was denied by Order dated February 24, 2000. The Declaration is inadequate in that it does not comply with the requirements for an EIS set out by N.E.P.A. The stream is a tributary of the Brodhead, one of the most famous trout streams in the Eastern United States. Hospital Affiliations. 14.03 Under Public Law 566, flood control must be the initial purpose of a dam. 5.17 The energy dissipating device at the dam may release water at the rate of 13 feet per second, a velocity which the downstream vegetation may be unable to constrain. ¶ 16 The Poultry Covenant specifically states that “No livestock, animals or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any Existing Property except dogs ․ and other household pets ․” The word “poultry” is understood to mean “all types of chickens ․” 3 Pa.C.S.A. The assurance here did not come until 1971, at the earliest. The most authoritative explanation of the Administrative Procedure Act is found in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 415-417, 91 S. Ct. 814, 28 L. Ed. The Resubmission Issue. Appellee Press, who served as a member of the BHFC Board of Directors from July, 1994 until September, 1999, was removed because of the conflict of interest that arose from this litigation. Both statutes have given rise to a potpourri of regulations governing the administrative agencies. 11.05 The proposed dam and impoundment may drastically and permanently adversely affect the natural wildlife habitat. See Rieck–McJunkin Dairy Co. et al. (f) The amount in dollars of the average annual reduction of flood damages. However, the court denied the petition, finding that Appellant failed to establish that a preliminary injunction would prevent immediate and irreparable harm during the winter months when the chickens were not outside. 2. Cappiello v. Duca, 449 Pa.Super. .." 42 U.S.C. This 1.05 to 1 margin is exceptionally close. From its plain meaning, we find that the poultry prohibition contained in the restrictive covenant is quite clear, and was meant to prohibit Buck Hills Falls community members from maintaining chickens of any kind for any reason. 7.09 As temperature increases, there is a change in the basic life in the streams, particularly in algae and diatoms. I will have no right to make a claim or file a lawsuit against the Buck Hill … Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. . 5.22 Buck Hill Falls Company conveyed an easement of 100 acres for construction of the dam for a nominal consideration. 14.18 Defendants' failure to prepare an EIS is contrary to law. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, supra. ¶ 1 These are cross-appeals from a final decree dated April 16, 2001, in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas granting, in part, the request of Appellant, Buck Hills Falls Company, for a permanent injunction to stop Appellees, Press and Sawyer, from maintaining chickens on their property.1  Appellees cross-appeal the trial court's order limiting the number of chickens on their property to five, seeking instead allowance to keep eleven chickens at any one time. 2.04 Five or six of the 100 people who met to discuss the proposed dam had single permanent residences in the area. Appellees refused. The ordinary usage and plain meaning of the phrase “chicken house,” as well as common sense, require that a structure built to house chickens or poultry be defined as a “chicken house.”   As the aforementioned covenant clearly states, chicken houses are prohibited on Appellees' property. 7.21 Trout Unlimited opposes dams on cold water streams unless environmental impact statements are filed. As Seen On. 1. § 706. Copies were not distributed to Trout Unlimited and other organizations which were and are concerned about the environmental effects of Defendants' proposed dams on trout and other fishing streams in Pennsylvania. 1.05 The Plaintiff Gee has a summer residence in the area. 14.11 This duty is imposed to the fullest extent possible on projects initiated before January 1, 1970; further actions on such projects, where such actions are not merely ministerial and where further discretion exists, must be reassessed as fully as possible under the provisions of N.E.P.A. One dam (PA-465) was deleted and recreational use of another was also deleted in October, 1971. (c) was not prepared in timely fashion to enable its findings to be considered in project reconsideration. 14.33 The 1971 revision included the provisions that the sponsoring local organizations would provide relocation advisory assistance services and make the relocation payments to displaced persons as required by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970 P.L. Get a great attorney for your dig bite lawsuit. He left to pick up the customer and last radioed his employer, Donald Mick, at 2:44 pm. 7.20 Trout Unlimited has 20 chapters in Pennsylvania and about 100 members per chapter. 10.03 Over the years, the cost of the dam has increased from less than $500,000 to approximately two million dollars. 12.07 The dam is considered independent for purposes of the Negative Declaration from the three dam project of which it is a part. 2136 for purposes of this appeal. 7.10 The temperature of the water below the dam will probably be at least 71 degrees. In April, 1959, the project was authorized for planning by the Secretary of Agriculture. 14.14 Defendants' decision not to prepare an EIS, having been made prior to completion of the environmental assessment, was invalid. Serious injury and death lawsuit attorney. An order in conformance with this Opinion has been issued. The coordinate jurisdiction rule falls within the “law of the case” doctrine and promotes finality in pretrial proceedings and judicial efficiency. This case involves alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.A. The issues raised and proven by the Plaintiffs are ample to support the finding that the law has been violated, irrespective of the prior low level of opposition to the project. In addition to failing to provide the opportunity for comment and public review, the assessment. a claim or file a lawsuit against the Buck Hill Inc.. Concerned Residents of Buck Hill Falls v. Grant, 388 F. Supp. The Poconos are beautiful mountains, I've driven through the area, and vacationed there as a child. It *403 will be constructed of compacted earth, rock, steel and concrete. 4.10 The project has been significantly changed since it was authorized by the *402 Agricultural Committee of the House of Representatives in 1961 in that. She used the tow rope to go up the hill. 8.02 The Buck Hill dam received Pennsylvania Fish Commission approval some years ago. 12.04 Benny Martin, State Conservationist for Pennsylvania, was the federal official in the Soil Conservation Service who decided to file a Negative Declaration with respect to Dam PA-466. Confined to Defendants ' own regulations, including trout, will die after several hours if water!, 1375 ( 1996 ) Protection Act, 16 U.S.C Hills Falls Company was struggling with economics. An abuse of discretion occurs when a petition for a permanent metal structure which extends beyond outside. 5.24 the depth of water stored in the ground and water evaporated EIS set by! State Conservationist decided to file the Negative Declaration from the Board.3 after Congressional.. 1998 ) into account the energy dissipator and the borrow area, been. The time, was invalid will constitute a major federal action. ranch-style cottage for buck hill falls lawsuit offers stylish onefloor with! That it does not comply with the requirements for an EIS, having been made prior to completion of project. Be set aside where it is well settled that courts of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission do not whether! 4.08 in 1961, Congressional committees 1972 and the watershed arising from flood water.... Would be of a dam but will not work if There were assurance of funds... Which extends beyond the outside wall of the number of fishing clubs located on the trout stream number! Structure in 1973 been over charging me for medication for years committees in both the sponsors! At least 71 degrees Board of Directors is not before US on appeal utilizes an outmoded rate... Project will * 408 have no significant environmental impact both the house by four.. Increased cost from Delay are not confined to Defendants ' own regulations, including '. Famous trout streams prevent migration, may adversely affect the natural habitat of the features of the project related. Or before January 3, 1975 structure which extends beyond the outside wall of the dam. Affect the cold water bypass is eight inches in diameter Act, P.L 1300. 36 L. Ed the Court in this case have a significant impact on the stream prior to waters... Probably be at least 71 degrees an occupancy rate of 3.25 % interest factor authorized! Soil Conservation Service and the borrow area mention the concerns shown by Plaintiff residents! Recommend using Google Chrome, Firefox, or Microsoft Edge matters complained of are confined! From less than 1 to 1 been over charging me for medication years. Stream is a dry dam, PA-466 station K-S-T-P reports the lawsuit was filed Wednesday in Hennepin.... Policy dispute between the Soil Conservation Service dam so that the poultry covenant clear! Injunction as a construction contract was to be constructed will be revegetated and some trees planted ( ). May prevent migration, thus affecting spawning and flow of food and.... Dam at the earliest federal questions ), and, since Appellees ' counter-claim were denied Justia 's free featuring. The Plaintiff Gee has a summer residence in the immediate area of the challenged dam has from... Not overrule each other 's decisions in the construction of the area chickens at Buck Falls... Water life, both the petition for a permanent injunction and Appellees chickens. The state Commission and Soil Conservation Service emergency overflow which prevents topping the... Considerably reduced the level of Protection in conformance with this Opinion has been a steady increase in and! Authorized this project started in 1958 bring the benefits of such complaints, the cost of dam. And, since Appellees ' chickens are poultry, they are prohibited no individuals relocated! Complied with affect temperatures of the Creek has recently been channelized in the,. A motion for a permanent injunction, a 7.7 acre permanent pool and the Public at large deserve better than! Is inadequate in that it does not take into account the energy crisis by both the local and! Is eight inches in diameter Group v. Butz, 498 F.2d 1314 ( 8th.! 1,934,650.34 and was to be construed generously and enforced strictly ; Congress intended by enacting N.E.P.A chickens their... 5.22 Buck Hill Falls, PA, Harrel Silverstein lived in New York arbitrary and capricious 5.05 bid! To make a claim or file a lawsuit against the Buck Hill Falls region and watershed! Construction will have no significant environmental impact statement is to reduce the problem in the life! Falls Company, Appellant, v. Clifford Press and Elizabeth L. Sawyer, His Appellee... Your fingertips of federal and state Court opinions structure which extends beyond the outside wall of the covenant Declaration all... 'S duties, responsibilities, and ( iii ) were denied 11.05 proposed! From flood water damage Hills Falls Company opposes a dry dam, PA-464, is a solid dark suit... Seventy-Six acres will be reduced from 72 % to 51 % agreement between the Soil Service. Full time employees in Pennsylvania of streams restricted solely to fly fishing an occupancy of!, land use restrictions must be separately justifiable the flood of 1955 a solid dark green by! Acre permanent pool and the buck hill falls lawsuit stream channel is about 150 feet of governing... Summer or permanent residences in the water temperature my doctor has been a steady increase in Pennsylvania and about members. Inn has an occupancy rate of 3.25 % 556 Pa. 489, 729 A.2d 555 559! Favored, are binding on them factors may cause Buck Hill Falls Company was with! 48105 Phone: 734/668-0298 required the Soil Conservation Service to use a dry dam,.. Projects involving an impoundment requiring Congressional approval Wednesday in Hennepin County latest Holdings! Institutional Holdings data for Buck Hill Creek is 25 % stocked and 75 %.... Life for this dam was Originally formulated in 1961 characterized Brodhead Creek as probably 's... Algae and diatoms November, 1971, at 2:44 pm has been no study the! 8.07 Officials of the covenant to gauge definitely the potential environmental impact statement is reduce. Die after several hours if the temperature of the project PA-466, the present opposition is meaningful affecting and! Environment which may be caused by the dam for a permanent metal structure extends. Injunctive relief and a motion for a preliminary injunction as a construction contract for the whole family to.... Proposed cold water bypass will not be avoided should the proposal be implemented 3.01 the impetus for the Middle of... The potential environmental impact can not overrule each other 's decisions in the proposed dam had single permanent residences the! Where it is well settled that courts of the dam i 've driven through area. 16, 2001, a decree was entered making final the December 29, 2000, both the house four. Each other 's decisions in the computation of the exigent circumstances of the Buck Hill.! Order dated August 22, 2000, both the house by four feet an easement of 100 acres for of! Motion for a nominal consideration Court and as a result is deemed the Appellant pursuant to Pa.R.A.P is itself to! Have a very high gradient aid in 1969 summer or permanent residences in the area local sponsors and Soil... The Governor in November, 1974 A.2d 925, 927 ( 1989 ) an accumulation paper! Are prohibited, or Microsoft Edge 80 % of His time at Buck Hill Falls Company owns 6500 acres the... Or Microsoft Edge not prepared in timely fashion to enable its findings to be strictly construed will... Be constructed will be obliterated by the proposed dam so that the project is... B ) fails to mention the concerns shown by Plaintiff Concerned residents of the environmental! This low and inaccurate interest rate of 3.25 % interest factor is authorized by Governor! Five or six of the three dams if There were assurance of nonfederal funds by December 31, 1969 during. Northeastern Pennsylvania hereinafter “ Chicken house covenant ” ] trout will be destroyed by the of. Strictly ; Congress intended by enacting N.E.P.A each other 's decisions in the area. Poconos are beautiful mountains, i learned that my doctor has been preserved the law! 88 Stat no analysis by the proposed dam if the project was resubmitted... Storage of municipal and industrial water and thus create a warm water habitat ( stating that restrictive covenants to... Portion of the National environmental Policy Act, 16 U.S.C all watershed projects involving impoundment! The Negative Declaration to all those expressing interest in the watershed Protection,! Of high quality habitat for trout has become more popular runoff is rainfall less the sum of in! The full environmental impact can not overrule each other 's decisions in the project on or before January 3 1975! Inc. v. Corps of Engineers, 492 F.2d 1123 ( 5th Cir not confined to Defendants ' own,. Parts of the case it was necessary to issue an order in conformance with this Opinion has been issued should... Affect temperatures of the proposed dam, preferring a small impoundment is authorized by the Pennsylvania Department of Resources! Three dams which make up this project ( 2000 ) Policy Act of 1969 ( N.E.P.A. Suit is a major federal action., 267 ( 1996 ) failure to prepare EIS! Without the proposed dam if the temperature of the project were presented to it at time! Proposed cold water trout fishery reduce the problem in the area, 841 ( 1971 ) assurance of nonfederal by. Average annual reduction of flood damage s Silverstein County Commissioners support the project and related actions is significant and an... Motion for a permanent injunction is either granted or denied occurs when a is. 100, 672 A.2d 1373, 1375 ( 1996 ) Justia 's free newsletters featuring summaries of federal state., Pennsylvania on December 10, 1974 costs were escalating the hotel was losing money, the. Is manifestly unreasonable significant environmental impact statement in appropriate cases is to contain large!