# Koller v. Weisenberg Township

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · March 3, 2005 · 871 A.2d 286

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732163

## Case

- **Full name:** Dale R. KOLLER and Carolyn L. Koller v. WEISENBERG TOWNSHIP; Homeowners of Weisenberg, Kimberly Anderson, Thomas Anderson and Robert Vogel v. Weisenberg Township Board of Supervisors Appeal Of: Weisenberg Township and Weisenberg Township Board of Supervisors; Dale R. Koller and Carolyn L. Koller v. Weisenberg Township; Homeowners of Weisenberg, Kimberly Anderson, Thomas Anderson and Robert Vogel v. Weisenberg Township Board of Supervisors Appeal Of: Homeowners of Weisenberg, Kimberly Anderson, Thomas Anderson and Robert Vogel
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 3, 2005
- **Citations:** 871 A.2d 286; 2005 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 75
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Simpson
- **Judges:** Friedman, Simpson, McCloskey
- **Cited by:** 8 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/9732163

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that if applicant objects to conditions in conditional approval, aggrieved party may appeal to trial court for determination of whether objected-to conditions are legal

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge SIMPSON.
I respectfully dissent from part of the thoughtful majority opinion.
*293 As to the developer’s appeal, I agree with the trial court’s legal analysis requiring a municipality to inform a developer in writing of defects in a plan where, as here, a deemed denial occurs by failure of the developer to accept all conditions. The issue has not been squarely addressed in prior cases, and Sections 508(2) and (3) of The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 1 53 P.S. § 10508(2), (3), support this conclusion. As a matter of policy, specification of defects ensures that there is a basis for municipal action of less than full approval.
However, I disagree with the trial court’s conclusion that this was not done. Here, the Board’s decision incorporated by reference an engineer’s letter which recommended approval subject to conditions. The letter details outstanding issues of noise control, traffic and access, storm water management and an erosion and sedimentation control plan. Clearly, the developer was appropriately advised regarding these conditions. See Reproduced Record at 85a-91a. Moreover, there was no abuse of discretion in the Board’s acceptance of advice from its engineer on these conditions.
It is worth noting that many of the contested conditions relate more to land use than to land planning. So, for example, conditions relating to hours of operation and washing of trucks would usually be addressed in zoning or occupancy applications. The trial court’s holding does not prevent application of all relevant regulations during these stages.
As to the appeal filed by the objecting neighbors, I would affirm the trial court. The trial court discussed their issues separately, and no error is evident.
In light of the foregoing, I would affirm the trial court in part and reverse in part. As a result, the Board decision would be affirmed as to the conditions accepted by the developer and as to the conditions recommended by the engineer. No further proceedings would be necessary for the preliminary plan.
. Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. §§ 10101-11202.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732163. Public record. Not legal advice.