and this court should not disturb the board’s decision absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In re Forrester, 773 A.2d 219 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001). Here, the board of view viewed the properties in question and held the appropriate hearings. The board considered both of the plans presented and made findings supported by competent evidence to justify its choice of plan. We see no abuse of discretion by the board of view in accepting the plan of Reber’s engineer, which proposes a uniform width of twenty-five feet for the entire road, over that of the Tschudys’ engineer, which also increases the road’s width but utilizes varying boundaries and, at points, involves using land beyond twenty-five feet. See In re Laying Out and Opening a Private Road, 405 Pa.Super. 298, 592 A.2d 343 (1991) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. Senior
holding that a private right of action exists holding that summary judgment is appropriate when no issue of material fact exists and the court is reviewing administrative record for sufficiency of evidence holding that when a contract is ambiguous and the parties suggest different interpretations summary judgment is inappropriate because an issue of fact exists holding that necessity for a private road exists where a parcel is landlocked notwithstanding objections from affected landowner that a particular route was not necessary and in fact a different route was more appropriate holding that no private right of action exists