Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2009

Home

December 10, 20081 Volume 2 I No. 23 ' () Zoning Amendment (Procedure)-Residents argue township's procedural failures in adopting zon,ing ordinance amendments rendered them invalid '''''' ( ) \"-~ They cite a lack of proof that amendments were mailed in accordance with the law Citation: Appeal of Rural Route Neighbors, 2008 WL 4643357 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008) PENNSYLVANIA (10/22/08)-On November 7, 2005, the town- ship adopted two ordinances (the "Amendments"). The Amendments amended the township's zoning ordinance (the "Ordinance") and re- zoned property owned by Craigarni LP from Low Density Residential to Highway Co=ercial. " Subsequently, township residents (the "Residents") filed an appeal with the Zoning Hearing Board (the "ZHB"). They argued that the township failed to comply with state statutory procedural requirements when adopting the Amendments. Section 609(g) of the Pennsylvania Mu~ nicipalities Planning Code ("MPC") provided that: "[w]ithin 30 days af- ter enactment, a copy ofthe amendment to the zoning ordinance [must] be forwarded to the counting planning agency...," The Residents assert- ed that the township had failed, to forward a copy of the Amendments , within the statutorily-required 30 days. In response, the township offered the testimony of its solicitor, Peter L. Matson. Matson testified that he forwarded copies of, the Amend- ments to the county planning department (the "Department") on De- cember 5,2005. Specifically, Matson testified that: he had a copy of a December 5 cover letter to the Department in his file; and to the best of his knowledge, in accordance with customary office procedures (i.e., a secretary took correspondence from his office, typed letters, mailed them, and placed a copy in his file), copies, of the ~endments were sent to the Department with the cover letter on December 5, 2005. Matson fur- ther t,istified that the Department had no record of receiving the Amend- ment$. prior to December 20, 200S-when he hand delivered, copies of the .Arrlendments to the Department. He further noted that the envelope allegedly mailed to the Department's address was not returned to his of- fice' as undelivered. ,-' . ~ ,Tpe ZHB dismissed the Residents' procedural challenge. It conclud- ed that because Matson had forwarded copies of the Amendments to the Department, the township had complied with ~ 609(g)'s procedur- al requirements: ' @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West 7 51'