# Brown v. Borough Council

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · August 7, 1985 · 91 Pa. Commw. 10

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6371167

## Case

- **Full name:** John F. Brown v. Borough Council of the Borough of Emmaus, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 7, 1985
- **Citations:** 91 Pa. Commw. 10; 496 A.2d 873; 1985 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1136
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kalish
- **Judges:** Colins, Kalish, MacPhail
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6371167

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Senior Judge Kalish:
I respectfully dissent. The record shows that the condition that the appellant should build and maintain the sidewalk was set forth in an understanding between the appellant and Borough Council. Thus, the appellant was fully aware of this condition when Council memorialized it in its minutes. No new conditions were created or memorialized.
Section 508(2) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. §10508(2), providing that rejection of the terms of a land development plan must specify the defects and the statutory authority or ordinance relied on, otherwise it shall be deemed accepted, has application only where the plan had been disapproved. The reason for the rule is that the applicant b.e made aware of the reasons, statutorily or otherwise, for such disapproval. Where, as here, the applicant had already agreed, the reason for the rule does not apply.
Furthermore, Section 508(4) of the MPC also provides that plans may be approved subject to condi *16 tions acceptable to the applicant. An applicant may not agree to conditions and then later complain that they were too vague or that the reasons for the condition were not articulated.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6371167. Public record. Not legal advice.