Legal Opinion · Dissent

Crystal Forest Associates, LP v. Buckingham Township Supervisors

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 16, 2005Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge LEAVITT.

With all due respect, I dissent. I believe that the trial court properly excluded the testimony of the Township’s proffered expert witness, Robert H. Edelstein, Ph. D., who was hastily prepared and not familiar with' key aspects of this case. As such, Dr. Edelstein was incompetent to offer expert testimony. I also disagree with my colleagues’ conclusion that the challenged provisions of the Ordinance are not unduly restrictive. Today the majority has endorsed illusory zoning as a means of *219regulating land use and development. I am deeply troubled by that…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Surrick v. ZHB OF U. PROVIDENCE TP.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. Cleaver v. Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  3. Laubach v. HaighSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
  4. Montgomery Crossing Associates v. Township of Lower GwyneddCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  5. Kirk v. ZONING BD. OF HONEY BROOK TOWNSHIPCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998

6 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