Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2009

Home

Zonin'g Bulletin June 10, 20091 Volume 3\ No, 11 (=<-\ , i tained that unless and until the township attempted to enforce the Ordi- nance in a manner inconsistent with state law, the AG could not bring an action to challenge it. The Commonwealth Court agreed with the township. It held that the AG could only challenge an ordinance, that existed prior to the effective date of Chapter three if it alleged that the municipality sought to enforce the ordinance. The court reasoned this was because: (1) although S 315 authorized the AG to bring an action challenging an unauthorized local ordinance; (2) S 313(b) specified that, as to ordinances thai: existed prior to its effective date, Chapter three applied only to their enforcement. The AG appealed. DECISION: Reversed and remanded. I I 1 I 1 1 I I ! i L I /"""-. ./ \ \. ) On appeal, the Supreme Court of :pennsylvania held that, although the township had pot attempted. to enforce the Ordinance, the AG could challenge it under Chapter 3 of ACRE. In reaching that conclusion, the court relied on the "plain language" of Chapter three. It found that the "distinction" in ~313(b) between preex- isting and subsequently enacted -ordinances was "simply a common sense recognition that local townships c[ould not] be prevented from enacting ex- isting ordinances, as th[at] conduct ha[d] already occurred, and it would be futile to prohibit the enactment of ordinances which in fact ha[ d] already been enacted." Thus, the court found that Chapter three regulated: "the fu- ture conduct of local townships by preventing them from enforcing already enacted ordinances becausethe statute [could not] reach back in time to prevent local governments from enacting such ordinances." The court found further support in its interpretation in the fact that the definition of "unauthorized local ordinance" included both ordi- ,nances that were "enacted" and those that were "enforced." Moreover S 315 authorized AG action without requiring the AG wait until an or- dinance was enforced. j I i I 1 ! 1 1 1 , , i I I I j I I \ L_.__.____ .._.' See also: Arsenal Coal Co. v. Com., Dept. of Environmental Resources, SDS Pa. 198,477 A.2d 1333, 14 Envtl. L. Rep. 20550 (1984). () ~/ Case Note: The court's decision abolished a prior case, Com., Office of Attorney General ex reI. Corbett v. Lower Oxford Tp., 915 A.2d 685 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006), order aftd, 594 Pa. 24, 934 A.2d 699 (2007) and (abrogated by, Com., Office of Atty. Gen. ex rel. Corbett v. Locust Tp., 968 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2009))-which had held that ACRE only permitted the AG to bring an action when a mu- nicipality sought to enforce an unauthorized local ordinance. 9 @2009 Thomson Reuters !' 61