P. Kesarkar v. Birmingham Twp. ~ Appeal of: P. Kesarkar

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pratap Kesarkar, Elizabeth Kesarkar, :

Lucille Brown, John Brown, Mark :

Dulik, Mary Dulik, Jean B. Russell, :

David Russell, Caldon Driscoll, :

Bernadette Driscoll, Christina R. :

Condelles, James Condelles, Lian Hu, :

Chi Li, Zhen Ye, Jia Liu, Jeffrey Smith, :

Kathryn Smith, Gabriel Tribuiani, :

Douglas P. Marshall, Catherine R. :

Marshall, Mary Werner Denadai, Sherry :

Kerstetter, Lincoln Kerstetter, John R. :

Simpson, Donna H. Simpson, Gary :

Wardius, Joyce Wardius, Kyle W. Brun, :

Julie R. Brun, George C. Murphy, Anita :

L. Murphy, Shun Ying, Jenny Ying, :

Jakob Speksnijder, Yookyin :

Speksnijder, Thalia Speksnijder, Martin :

Leff, Andrea Leff, Alexander Leff, :

Daniel Saxman, Kim Saxman, Elizabeth :

Hiver McKnight, Brent S. McKnight, :

Jason Kaplan, Stephanie Kaplan, Tao :

Zhao, Yi Fang, Maureen Capuzzi Tibbs, :

and Franklin Tibbs :

:

v. : No. 428 C.D. 2020

:

Birmingham Township and Constantine :

Anastasiadis and Eleni Anastasiadis :

Appeal of: Pratap Kesarkar, Elizabeth :

Kesarkar, Lucille Brown and John :

Brown :

Pratap Kesarkar, Elizabeth Kesarkar, :

Lucille Brown, John Brown, Mark :

Dulik, Mary Dulik, Jean B. Russell, :

David Russell, Caldon Driscoll, :

Bernadette Driscoll, Christina R. :

Condelles, James Condelles, Lian Hu, :

Chi Li, Zhen Ye, Jia Liu, Jeffrey Smith, :

Kathryn Smith, Gabriel Tribuiani, :

Douglas P. Marshall, Catherine R. :

Marshall, Mary Werner Denadai, Sherry :

Kerstetter, Lincoln Kerstetter, John R. :

Simpson, Donna H. Simpson, Gary :

Wardius, Joyce Wardius, Kyle W. Brun, :

Julie R. Brun, George C. Murphy, Anita :

L. Murphy, Shun Ying, Jenny Ying, :

Jakob Speksnijder, Yookyin :

Speksnijder, Thalia Speksnijder, Martin :

Leff, Andrea Leff, Alexander Leff, :

Daniel Saxman, Kim Saxman, Elizabeth :

Hiver McKnight, Brent S. McKnight, :

Jason Kaplan, Stephanie Kaplan, Tao :

Zhao, Yi Fang, Maureen Capuzzi Tibbs, :

and Franklin Tibbs :

:

v. : No. 642 C.D. 2020

:

Birmingham Township and Constantine :

Anastasiadis :

:

Appeal of: Pratap Kesarkar and :

Elizabeth Kesarkar : SUBMITTED: March 15, 2021

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY JUDGE CEISLER FILED: April 6, 2021

In these consolidated appeals, Appellants Pratap and Elizabeth Kesarkar

(Kesarkars) challenge two orders issued by the Court of Common Pleas of Chester

County (Common Pleas). The first, issued on March 6, 2020, granted Constantine

and Eleni Anastasiadis’ (Anastasiadises) motion to dismiss a number of land use

appeals pertaining to a property they own, located at 1360 Old Wilmington Pike in

West Chester, Pennsylvania (Property). The second, issued on May 28, 2020,

granted the Anastasiadises’ petition to require the Kesarkars, John Brown, and

Lucille Brown to post a bond in the amount of $500,000 to pursue an appeal before

our Court regarding Common Pleas’ March 6, 2020 order.1 The Anastasiadises have

also filed an application for relief with our Court, through which they request that

we quash the Kesarkars’ appeals due to their failure to post this bond with Common

Pleas. After thorough consideration, we affirm Common Pleas’ March 6, 2020 order

and dismiss as moot both the Kesarkars’ challenge to Common Pleas’ May 28, 2020

order and the Anastasiadises’ related application for relief.

I. Facts and Procedural History

On July 10, 2018, the Anastasiadises submitted a preliminary/final minor

subdivision plan application (Subdivision Plan) to Birmingham Township, through

which they sought the Township’s permission to subdivide the Property into three

lots, each of which would be zoned for single-family residential development.

Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 60a-67a. Under the Township’s Subdivision and Land

Development Ordinance (SALDO),2 the Anastasiadises had to “send a written notice

[detailing the particulars of the Subdivision Plan] to the last known address of all

property owners within a five-hundred-foot radius of the [P]roperty.” SALDO § 103-

8(D). This notice needed to be provided via both first-class and certified mail at least

two weeks before the Township’s Planning Commission was scheduled to consider

1

Despite the multitude of individuals, including the Browns, listed along with the

Kesarkars in the consolidated caption of these appeals, only the Kesarkars remain as appellants in

these matters. See Notice of No Interest in the Outcome of Appeal Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 908 at

2-4.

2

Birmingham Township SALDO, Chester County, Pa., as amended (1979), available at

https://ecode360.com/9022967 (last accessed April 5, 2021).

2

the Subdivision Plan. Id. Without proof of the Anastasiadises’ compliance with this

notice requirement, the Township’s Planning Commission could not consider the

Subdivision Plan. Id.

On August 27, 2018, the Anastasiadises sent notice via certified mail to the

owners of 57 nearby properties, including the Kesarkars. See id. at 78a-87a. The

Kesarkars reside at 1370 Old Wilmington Pike, which has been classified by the

Township under its Zoning Code3 as a Class II Historical Resource. Id. at 582a.4 The

United States Postal Service unsuccessfully attempted to deliver the certified mailing

to the Kesarkars, subsequently marked it as unclaimed, and then returned it to the

Anastasiadises in late September 2018. Id. at 597a-98a. There is no evidence

establishing that the Anastasiadises ever sent notice to the Kesarkars via first-class

mail.

Meanwhile, the Subdivision Plan continued through the governmental review

process. The Planning Commission considered the Plan at public meetings held on

September 11, 2018, and October 9, 2018, voting during the course of the second

meeting to recommend that the Township’s Board of Supervisors approve the

Subdivision Plan. Id. at 94a-95a, 244a-46a. The Board agreed with the Planning

Commission’s recommendation and unanimously approved the Subdivision Plan on

November 5, 2018. Id. at 268a.

3

Birmingham Township Zoning Code, Chester County, Pa., as amended (1978), available

at https://ecode360.com/9023978 (last accessed April 5, 2021).

4

Per the Township’s Zoning Code, a “Class II Historical Resource” is defined in relevant

part as follows: “Buildings, outbuildings, sites, structures, roadways, objects and districts not

meeting National Register criteria, but determined to be of historical significance to [the]

Township and thus listed and included on the [Township’s] Cultural Resources Map and

corresponding Cultural Resources Map Inventory which were adopted as part of the [Township’s]

Comprehensive Plan.” Zoning Code § 122-6.

3

It was not until the following year that the Kesarkars discovered that this had

occurred and took action. On March 21, 2019, Pratap Kesarkar emailed the

Township’s zoning officer regarding fencing that was being constructed by the

Anastasiadises along the property line they shared with the Kesarkars. Id. at 455a,

660a-61a. Mr. Kesarkar then met with the zoning officer that same day and learned,

for the first time, that the Subdivision Plan existed, had been submitted to the

Township, and had been approved. Id. at 660a-61a. On March 26, 2019, Mr.

Kesarkar attended a public meeting held by the Township’s Historical Commission,

during the course of which he informed the Historical Commission that the

Anastasiadises had neither given him timely or adequate notice, nor adhered to the

historic preservation requirements contained in the Township’s Zoning Code. Id. at

299a.5 On April 1, 2019, Mr. Kesarkar appeared at the Board’s public meeting and

5

Section 122-36.8 of the Zoning Code, which Mr. Kesarkar specifically referenced at this

meeting, sets forth the following historic preservation-related requirements:

Historic resource impact study.

A. Applicability. An historic resource impact study

(“HRIS”) shall be submitted to the Township, unless waived

or modified by the Board . . . , in the following situations:

(1) As part of a preliminary plan submission for any

subdivision or land development application which

proposes new construction of buildings, structures,

roads, driveways, parking areas, or other land

disturbance within 500 feet of the property line of a

property upon which is situated a Class I, Class II or

Class III historic resource.

(2) As part of a preliminary plan submission for any

subdivision or land development application which

proposes adaptive reuse or demolition, alteration or

modification of a Class I, Class II or Class III historic

resource.

B. Contents. The HRIS shall be prepared by a qualified

professional in historic preservation, historical architecture,

4

planning, or related disciplines and shall contain the

following information, unless waived or modified by the

Board . . . :

(1) Background information.

(a) If not otherwise provided by the applicant,

a general description of the site subject to the

application, including topography,

watercourses, vegetation, landscaping,

existing drives, etc.

(b) General description and classification of

all historic resources located within 500 feet

of any proposed land development or land

disturbance.

(c) Physical description of all historic

resources.

(d) Narrative description of the historical

significance of each historic resource,

relative to both the Township and to the

region in general.

(e) Sufficient number of black and white or

color eight-inch-by-ten-inch photographs to

show each historic resource in its setting.

(2) Assessment of potential impacts to historic

resources.

(a) Description of potential impact(s) to each

historic resource with regard to architectural

integrity, historic setting, and future use.

(3) Mitigation measures.

(a) Suggested approaches to mitigate

potentially negative impacts to Historic

Resources, including design alternatives,

buffering, landscaping, conservation of

existing vegetation, and any other

appropriate measures permitted under the

terms of this chapter and other Township

ordinances.

5

expressed the same concerns he had raised at the Historical Commission’s meeting

six days prior. Id. at 303a-04a.

The Board then directed the Anastasiadises to submit an HRIS and a

landscaping plan to the Historical Commission, in order to remedy the Historical

Commission’s previous failure to consider how the Subdivision Plan would affect

the Kesarkars’ property. Id. at 304a. The Anastasiadises complied with this directive

by presenting an HRIS and a landscaping plan at the Historical Commission’s April

23, 2019 meeting. Id. at 306a-08a. The Historical Commission reviewed these

materials and voted to recommend that the Board approve the landscaping plan,

contingent upon a handful of modifications proposed by the Historical Commission.

Id. at 308a-11a.

On May 6, 2019, the Board convened a public meeting, at which it considered

both the HRIS and the landscaping plan. Id. at 315a-17a. It does not appear from the

meeting minutes that the Board voted upon the HRIS; however, during the course of

this meeting, the Township’s solicitor stated that the HRIS was “not approved.” Id.

at 317a. As for the landscaping plan, the Board voted to approve it, contingent upon

the Anastasiadises submitting an amended landscaping plan that incorporated the

Historical Commission’s proposed modifications, as well as a number of revisions

C. The HRIS will be reviewed by the Historical

Commission. Prior to the issuance of preliminary plan

approval for a subdivision or land development, the

Historical Commission shall set forth its evaluation and

recommendations concerning the impact of the proposed

development or subdivision upon the historic resource in a

written report to the Board . . . . The Board . . . shall consider

such report in its decision approving or denying the land

development or subdivision.

Zoning Code § 122-36.8.

6

called for by the Township’s engineer and the Board itself. Id. This decision was

memorialized in a letter sent by the Township’s solicitor on May 9, 2019. Kesarkars’

Br., App. B.

Mr. Kesarkar then appealed the Board’s May 6, 2019 decision pro se to

Common Pleas on June 6, 2019. R.R. at 327a-29a. This was followed on June 10,

2019, by a substantially similar appeal, in which the Kesarkars and six other

individuals were named as pro se appellants. Id. at 351a-54a. Two more appeals

were filed on June 24, 2019, and July 3, 2019, which primarily served to enlarge the

number of appellants to 50 pro se individuals, including the Kesarkars. Id. at 1a-2a;

Trial Ct. Op., 8/28/20, at 2 n.4. Over the course of the ensuing months, the

Anastasiadises intervened in those appeals, while the appellants unsuccessfully

sought to compel the Township to supplement the record certified to Common Pleas

with additional documents and to disqualify the Anastasiadises’ attorney. R.R. at 2a-

4a, 367a-523a, 525a-621a, 710a; Kesarkars’ Br., Apps. C, D.

On October 29, 2019, the Anastasiadises filed a motion with Common Pleas,

through which they sought dismissal of those appeals (Motion to Dismiss). Therein,

the Anastasiadises offered two reasons why Common Pleas should grant their

Motion to Dismiss. First, the appeals were untimely, as the appeal window for

challenging the Board’s approval of the Subdivision Plan had closed on December

5, 2018, i.e., 30 days after this approval had been issued. R.R. at 626a-29a. Second,

per Chester County Rule of Civil Procedure 5002(f), the appellants had been

required to submit a brief in support of their appeals within 31 days of filing their

notices of appeal. Id. at 629a. The appellants had failed to comply with this

requirement and, as such, Chester County Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5002(g)

enabled the Anastasiadises to move for dismissal of the appeals. Id. at 629a-30a.

7

Common Pleas subsequently heard oral argument regarding the Motion to

Dismiss on January 3, 2020, and then granted it on March 6, 2020. Kesarkars’ Br.,

Apps. E, F. In a lengthy footnote included in its March 6, 2020 order, Common Pleas

explained its reasoning in detail. With regard to the Kesarkars, Common Pleas

agreed with the Anastasiadises that the time period for challenging the Board’s

approval of the Subdivision Plan had ended on December 5, 2018, and that the

Kesarkars’ appeals were nothing more than untimely and/or collateral attacks upon

the Board’s decision. Trial Ct. Order, 3/6/20, at 4-5 n.5. Furthermore, Common Pleas

concluded that dismissal of Mr. Kesarkar’s appeal was also warranted under Chester

County Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5002(g), due to his failure to file the required

appellate brief. Id. at 5-6 n.5. Notably, neither the Kesarkars nor any of the other

appellants ever filed a brief with Common Pleas in support of their appeals, despite

the requirements set forth in the Chester County Local Rules of Civil Procedure and

the roughly four months that elapsed between filing the Motion to Dismiss and the

Common Pleas’ ruling thereon. On April 6, 2020, the Browns and Kesarkars

appealed Common Pleas’ ruling in a pro se manner to our Court.6

On May 5, 2020, the Anastasiadises filed a petition with Common Pleas

(Bond Petition), through which they requested that Common Pleas schedule a

hearing thereon, in order to determine whether the Browns and Kesarkars should

post a bond as a condition for pursuing their appeal of Common Pleas’ March 6,

2020 order. R.R. at 688a-97a. Instead of scheduling a hearing, however, Common

Pleas granted the Bond Petition on May 28, 2020, thereby ordering the Browns and

Kesarkars to post a bond in the amount of $500,000 within 30 days. Kesarkars’ Br.,

6

While the caption for this notice of appeal, which was filed under docket number 428

C.D. 2020, lists 50 individual appellants, only the Browns and Kesarkars signed the notice. See

Notice of Appeal, 4/6/20, at 7.

8

App. G. The Browns and Kesarkars then appealed this ruling to our Court pro se on

June 26, 2020. Thereafter, the Anastasiadises submitted an application for relief to

our Court on July 16, 2020, through which they sought quashal of the Browns’ and

Kesarkars’ appeal of Common Pleas’ March 6, 2020 order, due to their failure to

post this bond. Application for Relief at 2-5.7

II. Discussion

The Kesarkars raise a number of arguments8 for our consideration in their

appellate brief.9 However, we need only address one issue in order to effectively

dispose of their appeals: did Common Pleas improperly grant the Anastasiadises’

Motion to Dismiss due to their failure to file a brief?10

We granted the Kesarkars’ request to consolidate these appeals on August 6, 2020.

7

Commonwealth Ct. Order, 8/6/20, at 2-3.

8

“Our standard of review, where [a court of common pleas] takes no additional evidence,

is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, [whether] an error of law was

committed[,] or whether necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence of

record.” SSEN, Inc. v. Borough Council of Borough of Eddystone, 810 A.2d 200, 208 n.11 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2002).

9

To briefly summarize, the Kesarkars argue: 1. the lack of proper, SALDO-compliant

notice regarding the Subdivision Plan relieved them of the responsibility to appeal to Common

Pleas within 30 days of the Board’s approval; 2. they did not have to appeal within 30 days of

receiving actual notice of that approval, because the Board directed the Anastasiadises in April

2019 to submit an HRIS and landscaping plan to the Historical Commission, so that it could

conduct legally required review steps that had been neglected during the first go-around; 3. Both

of them timely appealed to Common Pleas, as the appeal window pertaining to the Board’s May

6, 2019 decision did not begin to run until May 9, 2019, when the Township’s solicitor formalized

that decision via letter; 4. Common Pleas’ dismissal of their appeals pursuant to the Chester County

Rules of Civil Procedure due to their failure to file a brief violated the Pennsylvania Rules of

Judicial Administration; and 5. Common Pleas erred by granting the Bond Petition because the

Kesarkars’ appeals were not frivolous and because Common Pleas did so without first holding the

statutorily mandated hearing thereon. Kesarkars’ Br. at 25-46.

10

Common Pleas did not specifically express that dismissal of Ms. Kesarkar’s appeal was

warranted by her failure to file a timely brief; however, Common Pleas did state in relevant part

9

There is no dispute that both the Anastasiadises and Common Pleas followed

the procedural requirements set forth in the Chester County Local Rules of Civil

Procedure regarding dismissal of the Kesarkars’ appeals. Broadly, Chester County

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5002 governs “Zoning and Local Agency Appeals.”

C.C. R.C.P. 5002. Of particular importance to this matter are two subsections of that

rule, 5002(f) and 5002(g). The former states:

Within thirty-one (31) days of the filing of the returned

record, the appellant shall file a supporting [b]rief and a

[p]raecipe for [d]etermination. Appellee and any

intervenors shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of

the appellant’s [b]rief to file a reply [b]rief. The assigned

[j]udge, in [their] discretion, may extend the time for filing

of [b]riefs.

Id., 5002(f). Should the appellant fail to file their brief in a timely manner, the latter

sets forth a roadmap for dismissing their appeal:

If the appellant fails to file [their b]rief within the time

prescribed by these rules, or within the time as extended,

the appellee or intervenor may move for dismissal of the

matter. Such motion shall be served in accordance with

these rules upon the appellant, who may file and [a]nswer

thereto, and the motion shall be thereafter determined by

the Court as it deems just and proper. If an appellee or

intervenor fails to file [their] brief within the time

prescribed by these rules, or within the time as extended,

the Court may consider such appellee or intervenor to have

abandoned [their] position, and will proceed to dispose of

the appeal on the merits.

Id., 5002(g). Here, the Kesarkars never filed a brief with Common Pleas in support

of their appeals, prompting the Anastasiadises to move for dismissal on October 29,

that “[a]ll Plaintiffs/Appellants were required to file their supporting [b]rief and [p]raecipe for

[d]etermination by August 3, 2019. To date, none of the Plaintiffs/Appellants have done so.” Trial

Ct. Order, 3/6/20, at 6 n.5. Furthermore, “[we] may uphold an order of a lower court for any valid

reason appearing from the record.” Ario v. Ingram Micro, Inc., 965 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2009).

10

2019. Common Pleas then held oral argument regarding the Anastasiadises’ Motion

to Dismiss on January 3, 2020, and granted it on March 6, 2020. In short, the

Kesarkars failed to comply with Rule 5002(f), which kick-started the process, as

authorized by Rule 5002(g), and ended with the dismissal of their appeals.

The Kesarkars’ only rejoinder to this is their claim that dismissal of their

appeals pursuant to Rule 5002(g) violated Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial

Administration 103(d)(8). Kesarkars’ Br. at 37-38. This Rule reads as follows:

No pleading or other legal paper shall be refused for filing

based upon a requirement of a local rule. No case shall be

dismissed nor request for relief granted or denied because

of failure to initially comply with a local rule. In any case

of noncompliance with a local rule, the court shall alert the

party to the specific provision at issue and provide a

reasonable time for the party to comply with the local rule.

Pa. R.J.A. No. 103(d)(8). The Kesarkars maintain that, as Common Pleas did not

affirmatively notify them that they had failed to file the required brief and give them

a reasonable amount of time to comply, Common Pleas therefore violated Rule

103(d)(8) when it granted the Motion to Dismiss. Kesarkars’ Br. at 37-38.

The Kesarkars’ argument, however, is defective for several reasons, on both

procedural and substantive grounds. First, the Kesarkars failed to raise it before

Common Pleas and did not mention it in their concise statement of errors complained

of on appeal. Therefore, they have failed to preserve this argument, rendering it

waived. Pa. R.A.P. 302(a), 1925(b)(4)(vii); Lamar Advert. Co. v. Zoning Hearing

Bd. of Municipality of Monroeville, 939 A.2d 994, 1001 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).

Second, even if they had preserved this argument, Common Pleas’ decision

to grant the Motion to Dismiss did not contravene Rule 103(d)(8). Common Pleas’

November 20, 2019 order, which scheduled argument on the Motion to Dismiss,

explicitly stated in relevant part “the parties shall be prepared to argue . . . [w]hether

11

Appellants have timely complied with [Rule] 5002(f).” Common Pleas Order,

11/20/19, at 1 n.1; Kesarkars’ Br., App. E. This, coupled with the substance of the

Motion to Dismiss itself and the length of time between this order’s issuance and the

oral argument it scheduled, undoubtedly put the Kesarkars on notice that they had

not abided by Rule 5002(f) and gave them a sufficient period in which they could

have corrected their mistake.

Third, Rule 5002(g) clearly tracks the discretionary authority that courts of

common pleas possess in this type of situation. When sitting in an appellate capacity

under the Local Agency Law,11 a court of common pleas “may look to the

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure for guidance” and, upon motion, may

dismiss a statutory appeal in the event the appellant fails to file a brief. King v. City

of Philadelphia, 102 A.3d 1073, 1076-77 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014); see Cook v. City of

Philadelphia Civil Serv. Comm’n, 201 A.3d 922, 928 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (a court

of common pleas does not have power to sua sponte dismiss a statutory appeal in

the event an appellant fails to file a brief, but may only order dismissal if an opposing

party has sought such relief); see also Civil Serv. Comm’n of City of Philadelphia v.

Wenitsky, 521 A.2d 80, 82 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (an appellant has the “affirmative

duty to prosecute the[ir] appeal[,]” which includes an obligation to file a brief).

“[L]ocal courts are entitled to impose sanctions for noncompliance with procedural

rules and such determinations will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”

Muth v. Ridgway Twp. Mun. Auth., 8 A.3d 1022, 1027 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (quoting

Haney v. Sabia, 428 A.2d 1041, 1042 n. 2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981)). Given the sequence

of events in this matter, Common Pleas did not err or abuse its discretion by

dismissing the Kesarkars’ appeals.

11

2 Pa. C.S. §§ 551-555, 751-754.

12

III. Conclusion

In light of the foregoing analysis, we affirm Common Pleas’ March 6, 2020

order granting the Anastasiadises’ Motion to Dismiss. Furthermore, as this resolves

the underlying appeal that gave rise to Common Pleas’ May 28, 2020 order which

granted the Anastasiadises’ Bond Petition, we dismiss as moot both the Kesarkars’

appeal of that order, which was docketed under 642 C.D. 2020, as well as the

Anastasiadises’ application for relief, which was docketed under 428 C.D. 2020.

__________________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

Judge Fizzano Cannon did not participate in the decision of this matter.

13

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pratap Kesarkar, Elizabeth Kesarkar, :

Lucille Brown, John Brown, Mark :

Dulik, Mary Dulik, Jean B. Russell, :

David Russell, Caldon Driscoll, :

Bernadette Driscoll, Christina R. :

Condelles, James Condelles, Lian Hu, :

Chi Li, Zhen Ye, Jia Liu, Jeffrey Smith, :

Kathryn Smith, Gabriel Tribuiani, :

Douglas P. Marshall, Catherine R. :

Marshall, Mary Werner Denadai, Sherry :

Kerstetter, Lincoln Kerstetter, John R. :

Simpson, Donna H. Simpson, Gary :

Wardius, Joyce Wardius, Kyle W. Brun, :

Julie R. Brun, George C. Murphy, Anita :

L. Murphy, Shun Ying, Jenny Ying, :

Jakob Speksnijder, Yookyin :

Speksnijder, Thalia Speksnijder, Martin :

Leff, Andrea Leff, Alexander Leff, :

Daniel Saxman, Kim Saxman, Elizabeth :

Hiver McKnight, Brent S. McKnight, :

Jason Kaplan, Stephanie Kaplan, Tao :

Zhao, Yi Fang, Maureen Capuzzi Tibbs, :

and Franklin Tibbs :

:

v. : No. 428 C.D. 2020

:

Birmingham Township and Constantine :

Anastasiadis and Eleni Anastasiadis :

Appeal of: Pratap Kesarkar, Elizabeth :

Kesarkar, Lucille Brown and John :

Brown :

Pratap Kesarkar, Elizabeth Kesarkar, :

Lucille Brown, John Brown, Mark :

Dulik, Mary Dulik, Jean B. Russell, :

David Russell, Caldon Driscoll, :

Bernadette Driscoll, Christina R. :

Condelles, James Condelles, Lian Hu, :

Chi Li, Zhen Ye, Jia Liu, Jeffrey Smith, :

Kathryn Smith, Gabriel Tribuiani, :

Douglas P. Marshall, Catherine R. :

Marshall, Mary Werner Denadai, Sherry :

Kerstetter, Lincoln Kerstetter, John R. :

Simpson, Donna H. Simpson, Gary :

Wardius, Joyce Wardius, Kyle W. Brun, :

Julie R. Brun, George C. Murphy, Anita :

L. Murphy, Shun Ying, Jenny Ying, :

Jakob Speksnijder, Yookyin :

Speksnijder, Thalia Speksnijder, Martin :

Leff, Andrea Leff, Alexander Leff, :

Daniel Saxman, Kim Saxman, Elizabeth :

Hiver McKnight, Brent S. McKnight, :

Jason Kaplan, Stephanie Kaplan, Tao :

Zhao, Yi Fang, Maureen Capuzzi Tibbs, :

and Franklin Tibbs :

:

v. : No. 642 C.D. 2020

:

Birmingham Township and Constantine :

Anastasiadis :

:

Appeal of: Pratap Kesarkar and :

Elizabeth Kesarkar :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of April, 2021, it is hereby ORDERED that the Court

of Common Pleas of Chester County’s (Common Pleas) March 6, 2020 order is

AFFIRMED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Appellants Pratap Kesarkar and

Elizabeth Kesarkar’s appeal of Common Pleas’ May 28, 2020 order, which was

docketed under 642 C.D. 2020, and Appellees Constantine Anastasiadis and Eleni

Anastasiadis’ application for relief, which was filed on July 16, 2020, and docketed

under 428 C.D. 2020, are DISMISSED AS MOOT.

______________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge