Robertses Enter CVS Development Fray
Father/Son Challenge Rosemeier/Poorman
LOCK HAVEN—A second action has been filed in Clinton County Court in a dispute over development of a rundown tract of land along Bellefonte Avenue in the city.
The most recent court filing came last week from Jason and Lee Roberts, seeking an injunction to require that the owner of land adjacent to the Roberts’ holding be required to proceed with the pending sale of the two plots to a Camp Hill developer.
Jason Roberts owns the former Lock Haven Laundry site at 309 Bellefonte Avenue; Lee Roberts is Jason’s father and a local attorney who holds power of attorney for his son who now resides in California.
They accuse Robert Rosemeier, owner (with his wife LorrieAnn) of the adjacent former Drive Plus property at 311-315 Bellefonte Avenue and Rosemeier’s financial consultant Stephen P. Poorman of reneging on a property sale to a developer seeking to locate a CVS drugstore on the site.
The Roberts have asked the court to grant a preliminary injunction to prevent Poorman “from taking any action or funds” on behalf of Rosemeier. They also seek to have the court direct that Rosemeier sign final documents and proceed to a closing.
Rosemeier, according to information circulated in related documents and the media, had agreed to sell his property for $900,000 and Roberts had agreed to a $600,000 sale price for the old laundry site.
But Poorman, according to a suit filed earlier by J.C. Bar Development, raised the purchase price to $1.1 million for his client. Poorman, in a recent opinion piece in The Lock Have Express, said Rosemeier should be getting the additional $200,000 because the developer stands to save $500,000 in cleanup costs associated with contaminated ground at the laundry site (the state Department of Environmental Protection has announced the state will cover the $500,000 in those costs).
The Roberts action claims Poorman is “intentionally interfering with the contractual relations” of the Roberts by “failing to proceed” with the sales agreement signed by Rosemeier and his wife.
The Roberts claim they have lost $600,000 because of the uncompleted sales agreement and more than $100,000 in attorney’s fees, demanding judgment for more than $700,000 from Rosemeier and Poorman.
Judge Michael Salisbury is handling the Roberts case. He on Monday of this week chose not to take immediate action on the Roberts injunction request but ordered a hearing, scheduled for Tuesday, Feb. 3 at 8:30 a.m.
Salisbury directed that the Roberts file a memorandum in support of their petition two business days prior to the hearing.
Earlier this month the Bar development group had gone into Clinton County Court, claiming Rosemeier and Poorman failed to abide by the signed sales agreement. The civil action charged both with breach of contract; additionally Poorman is charged with “intentional interference with contract.”
The Bar suit allegations against Poorman say the local musician/entrepreneur encouraged Rosemeier to “repudiate” the contract with Bar.
The filing from the Harrisburg firm of McNees, Wallace and Nurick seeks a civil trial and asks the court to award damages “expected to exceed $50,000.”
The court documents also said Poorman, by letter dated Dec. 19, said he would purchase the property from Rosemeier.
These court developments follow word at a county commissioners meeting earlier this month that a closing for the sale had been scheduled.
The Bar firm has been pursuing development of the site for better than two years. Two years ago almost to the day City Council had discussed eminent domain as the sale of the property had not been consummated at that time.
Mayor Rick Vilello had said at the time the old Drive Plus site had sat vacant for too long.
At that December 2012 meeting, Vilello said the Drive Plus plot with its ramshackle buildings was assessed at $600,000 and there were “offers on the table” for significantly more.
Poorman last week told The Record he would defend himself in court, stating he was a paid advisor to Rosemeier and “my advice was ‘this is a bad deal.’”
He also said he had been involved in behind-the-scenes talks with CVS relative to Department of Environmental Protection clean-up costs associated with the site and said that allocation of those costs had been a factor that “changed the deal.”
