Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2009

Home

Zoning Bulletin The Residents appealed. The trial court ruled in favqr of the Residents. The court found there was a lack of evidence that the Amendments were actually mailed by Matson on December 5, 2005. Accordingly, it held that the evidence . on the record did not support the ZHB's findings. It concluded that the township's failure to comply with .~ 609(g) rendered the Amendments procedurally invalid. Craigarm, which had intervened in the action, appealed. DECISION: Reversed and remanded. The court concluded that the ZHB had drawn a reasonable inference, supported by Mat~on's testimony, that it was more likely than not that Matson forwarded copies of the Amendments to the Department on De- cember 5, 2005. The Residents had argued that Matson's testimony related to his of- fice's . customary mailing procedures'-which the ZHB had relied on upon in reaching its conclusion-was insufficient to prove the Amend- ments were timely mailed. The Residents asserted that under the "mail- box rule," evidence of customary mailing procedures was insufficient to prove that documents were mailed in a timely fashion. The court reject- ed the Residen~s' argument. Under that common law rule (long recog- nized as the law in Pennsylvania), evidence that a letter had been mailed ordinarily (i.e., deposited in the post office and properly addressed with prepaid postage) was sufficient to permit a fact finder to find that the letter was, in fact, received by the party to whom it was addressed. That presumption of receipt required proof that the letter was put in the mail; it could not be based on a presumption that the letter was prop- erly mailed. The court said the mailbox rule was inapplicable because ~ 609(g) did not require the township to establish that the Department actually "received" copies of the Amendments; it only required the Amendments be "forwarded" to the Department. The court held that evidence concerning the customary procedures for mailing of letters was generally sufficient to establish that a letter was mailed. The ZHB I had wei~hed that evidence and found the letter was mailed. Finding the. ZHB t;:.dther abused its discretion nor c.ommitted an error of law, the court ~pheld the ZHB's findings. See also: Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Whitney; 133;fa': Commw. 437, 575 A.2d 978 (1990). See also: Christie v. Open Pantry Food Marts Inc. of Delaware Valley, 237 Pa. Super. 243,352 A.2d 165 (1975). 8 @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West 52 ...--... \ I ; I '. Ii ! 'i ! ,i ! . !; li !i ;i [I ~ ! I; \1 !! Ii ii ., II II :1 Ii 11 I! Ii Ii .. l! 'I '- I, ) II I' " q !i II jj ;1 II [I II I' 1\ II :1 Ii 1\ i' il d 11 '. 11 " !! \ I' i! !I II I I: / I' -,. il II :1 " !!