Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Law Bulletin December 25, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 24 <br />between the party appellant and the municipality could not be implemented if <br />the parties to the hearing had the ability to prolong the litigation. <br />The court concluded: "Because mere parties to a hearing have no right to <br />continue a challenge where the party appellant has withdrawn its challenge, it <br />[was] not necessary to examine the relevance of the [Ordinance No.2007], <br />passed after Holt withdrew his initial challenge." <br />See also: Frank v. Mobil Oil Corp., 6 Pa. Connnw. 462, 296 A.2d 300 <br />(1972). <br />Case Note: <br />The holding in this case specifically disapproved Weston v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of <br />Bethlehem Tp., 994 A.2d 1185 (Pa. Comnnw. Ct. 2010) (disapproved of by, Stuckley v. <br />Zoning Hearing Bd. of Newtown Tp., 2013 WL 5825059 (Pa. 2013)). <br />Case Note: <br />Toll Brothers had also argued that any appeal was moot because Ordinance No.1983, <br />which had been challenged by Holt, had been repealed, and Ordinance No.2007 had <br />never been specifically challenged. The court rejected this argument. It cited the Statu- <br />tory Construction Act, which provides: "Whenever a statute is repealed and its provi- <br />sions are at the same time reenacted in the sane or substantially the same terms by the <br />repealing statute, the earlier statute shall be construed. as continued in active <br />operation. All rights and liabilities incurred under such earlier statute are preserved <br />and may be enforced." (1 Pa.C.S. 5C 1962.) Thus, the court held that the repeal of an <br />ordinance does not necessarily moot any challenges to that ordinance where it has <br />been reenacted in substantially the same form. It concluded that because the ordinance <br />Holt challenged was reenacted verbatim, the reenactment did not alter the substance <br />of the ordinance, and Holt's rights and privileges regarding his challenge to the initial <br />ordinance continued despite the reenactment. Thus, had Holt wanted to continue his <br />challenge after Ordinance No.1983 was repealed and replaced with Ordinance <br />No.2007, he could have done so. <br />Zoning News from Around the Nation <br />CALIFORNIA <br />California's Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources has released its <br />proposed regulations governing hydraulic fracturing pursuant to Senate Bill 4. <br />Senate Bill 4, which was signed into law in September, will require oil and gas <br />companies to apply for a permit to conduct fracking, publicly disclose the <br />fracking chemicals they use, notify neighbors before drilling, and monitor <br />ground water and air quality, among other requirements. <br />Source: The Berkeley Blog; http: //blogs. berkelev. edu/ <br />©2013 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />