Mr. Peter L. Arvant

Peter L. Arvant | Peter L Arvant
...
Peter L. Arvant | Peter L Arvant
...
Peter L Arvant
...
PETER L. ARVANT was born and raised in Detroit, attending high school at the University of Detroit Jesuit High School. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1990. Mr. Arvant received his Juris Doctor from the Detroit College of Law in 1994. While attending law school, Mr. Arvant earned a scholarship as Director of Competitions for the Detroit College of Law's Moot Court program.

Mr. Arvant devotes his practice to complex commercial litigation with particular emphasis on contract disputes, shareholder disputes, health care law, insurance coverage disputes, probate litigation, and manufacturer/sales representative matters. In addition to extensive experience in state and federal trial courts, he has represented clients before the Michigan Supreme Court, Michigan Court of Appeals and the Federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Arvant is a member of the State Bar of Michigan and participates in the Commercial Litigation, Health Care Law, Business Law, and Computer Law sections of the Bar. Mr. Arvant is also admitted to practice in the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has been admitted to practice pro hac vice in the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Southern District of Indiana.

Mr. Arvant is a member and past-President of the Hellenic (Greek) Bar Association and member of the Oakland Court and Macomb Court Bar Associations.

Peter L. ArvantAttorney Peter Arvant, Stark Reagan, P.C., Troy, Michigan
...
Peter L Arvant
...
PETER L. ARVANT was born and raised in Detroit, attending high school at the University of Detroit Jesuit High School.He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1990.Mr. Arvant received his Juris Doctor from the Detroit College of Law in 1994.While attending law school, Mr. Arvant earned a scholarship as Director of Competitions for the Detroit College of Law's Moot Court program.

Mr. Arvant devotes his practice to complex commercial litigation with particular emphasis on contract disputes, shareholder disputes, manufacturer/sales representative matters, health care law, and insurance coverage disputes.In addition to extensive experience in state and federal trial courts, he has represented clients before the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Arvant is a member of the State Bar of Michigan and participates in the Commercial Litigation, Health Care Law, Business Law, and Computer Law sections of the Bar.Mr. Arvant is also admitted to practice in the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.He has been admitted to practice pro hac vice in the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Southern District of Indiana.

Mr. Arvant is a member and past-President of the Hellenic (Greek) Bar Association and member of the Oakland Court and Macomb Court Bar Associations.

Peter L Arvant

Peter L. Arvant

Mr. Peter Arvant, attorney, was present with Mr. Joseph Ahern, attornery, for John and Donna Bergmann, at 7357 Greenwich.
...
Mr. Arvant indicated that Mr. Beckerleg has generally described the reasoning why we are here and felt it was relatively accurate with one exception.
...
Mr. Arvant's interpretation of the Court's order was not for a complete re-hearing of this case but it is for specific answers to be given by the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to the questions posed by Circuit Court regarding the variance requested in August 12, 2003 for the installation of a play pod.

Mr. Beckerleg commented to Mr. Arvant that the Board has had hearings on this item and has facts pertaining to this case.
...
Mr. Arvant questioned how did the Board come to it analyze and determine whether the play pod is a permitted accessory structure or use. What were the Board's factors to determine the permitted accessory structure or use. Mr. Arvant indicated that he does not have anything to add or change from the request except for the fact that he understood since the time the initial request was made on August 12, 2003, that anything over a 4-foot fence, is not acceptable. Mr. Arvant indicated that it should be reflected that it was amended at the time of the August 12, 2003 meeting that a 4-foot fence or no fence would be acceptable to the owners. To further clarify, Mr. Arvant indicated that he had been in contact with the Township's attorney and has often requested some guidance of what would be acceptable or something more palatable from the Township's perspective since the August 12, 2003 meeting. Mr. Arvant reiterated that he wants to comply with the court order and if the Board has determined that it is an accessory use and structure than the Board fulfill the court order to give the factors on why it would be. Mr. Arvant's interpretation of the Ordinance is that, the structure falls within the definition of Section 201 of the general definition section that a play pod or recreational playscape as proposed falls directly within the definition of what is a permitted accessory use and structure, that being swimming pools, tennis courts or similar recreational courts or facilities.
...
Mr. Arvant reiterated that the second request from the court was a determination of what the Boards finding was relative to the number of other play pods or tennis courts in the area.
...
Mr. Arvant indicated an objection for the record that it was not Judge Nichols or the Oakland County Circuit Courts Order that again we re-open or re-address these issues with understandings that this was done.
...
Mr. Arvant made mention that he was not sure if the Board wanted him to address the drainage issue at this time or later. Mr. Arvant wanted to reiterate that the judge's order did not ask for the determination of the drainage.