Quest Land Dev., Pet v. ZHB of Lower Heidleberg (Summary Disposition)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT QUEST LAND DEVELOPMENT GROUP : LLC, : : v. : : ZONING HEARING BOARD OF LOWER : HEIDELBERG TOWNSHIP : : LOWER HEIDELBERG TOWNSHIP, : INTERVENOR : : GLEN GERY CORPORATION, : INTERVENOR : : : PETITION OF: QUEST LAND : DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLP AND : GLEN GERY CORPORATION : : : : : : : : : : : : Nos. 126 & 127 MAL 2007 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered November 20, 2006, at Nos. 431 & 432 CD 2006 Application for Leave to File under Seal the Application for Relief Seeking a Remand on the Basis of After-Discovered Evidence, or in the Alternative, Application for Leave to Amend Petition for Allowance of Appeal to Request a Remand on the Basis of After-Discovered Evidence Application for Relief Seeking a Remand on the Basis of After-Discovered Evidence, or in the Alternative, Application for Leave to Amend Petition for Allowance of Appeal to Request a Remand on the Basis of After-Discovered Evidence Application for Leave to file Post-Allocatur Submission in the Nature of a PostSubmission Communication and Application to File Supplemental Memorandum of Law ORDER PER CURIAM DECIDED: October 17, 2007 AND NOW, this 17th day of October, 2007, it is hereby ordered that: (1) The Application for Leave to File Under Seal the Application for Relief Seeking a Remand on the Basis of After-Discovered Evidence, or in the Alternative, Application for Leave to Amend Petition for Allowance of Appeal to Request a Remand on the Basis of After-Discovered Evidence is granted; (2) The Alternative Application for Leave to Amend Petition for Allowance of Appeal to Request a Remand on the Basis of After-Discovered Evidence is granted; (3) The Petition for Allowance of Appeal, as amended is granted; (4) This case is remanded to the Commonwealth Court for remand to the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Pennsylvania, with instructions to the Court of Common Pleas to consider whether upon motion of Petitioners, the statutory appeal at No. 05-4461 should be opened on the basis of after-discovered evidence, see Brannagan v. Great Atlantic Pacific & Tea Co., 41 A.2d 869, 870 (Pa. 1945), and if so, whether upon motion of Petitioners, additional evidence should be received under Section 1005-A of the Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. §11005-A; (5) The Application for Relief Seeking a Remand on the Basis of AfterDiscovered Evidence is denied as moot. (6) The original Petition for Allowance of Appeal is denied as moot; and (7) The Application for Leave to File Post-Allocatur Submission in the Nature of a Post-Submission Communication and Application to File Supplemental Memorandum of Law is denied as moot. The Prothonotary is directed to file the above-referenced Applications under seal.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.