Legal Opinion · Dissent

Tinicum Township v. Nowicki

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 9, 2014Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge LEAVITT.

Respectfully, I dissent. The trial court held that the mulching operation of Landowners 1 was manufacturing and, as such, belonged only in the Township’s Manufacturing District. Because Landowners’ mulching operation was being conducted on property located on the site of a quarry in the Extraction District of Tinicum Township, the trial court upheld the Township’s zoning violation. I would reverse. Landowners are not engaged in manufacturing. Our Supreme Court has held, definitively, that the production of mulch is an agricultural operation and not…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gaspari v. Muhlenberg Township Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  2. Stoltzfus v. Zoning Hearing Board of Eden TownshipCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  3. Clout, Inc. v. Clinton County Zoning Hearing BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. Header v. Schuylkill County Zoning Hearing BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  5. Wellington Farms, Inc. v. Township of Silver SpringCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API