Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hines Nurseries, Inc. v. Plumstead Township Board of Supervisors

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 20, 2004Published

1Dissent

Dissenting OPINION BY

Judge FRIEDMAN.

I respectfully dissent. Unlike the majority, I believe the decision of the Plum-stead Township (Township) Board of Supervisors (Board) fails to comport with section 508(2) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC).1 Therefore, I agree with Ari Van Wingerden’s (Van Wingerden) argument that the Subdivision and Land Development Application (Application) filed by Hines Nurseries, Inc., t/a Hines Color (Hines) should be deemed approved without conditions. On this basis, I would reverse the trial court’s order.

Compliance with section 508(2) of the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Gaudenzia, Inc. v. Zoning Board of AdjustmentCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  2. Advantage Development, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Jackson TownshipCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. Gulla v. North Strabane TownshipCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  4. Whiteland Manor Homes, Inc. v. Borough of DowningtownCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  5. Board of Commissioners v. HaslettCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1982

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API