Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin- January 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 1 Planning Code (the "MPC") (the source of the Township's enactment of its SALDO) to determine which the legislature intended to have preemi- nent powers. If priority could not be ascertained from the applicable stat- ute, the court would then turn to the statutory construction rule that legisla- tive intent may be deteiiuined by a consideration of the consequences of a particular interpretation. In support of its position that the County Road Law should prevail over the SALDO, the County had pointed to § 103 of the MPC, which makes the provisions of the County Road Law part of the MPC, requiring courts to "give effect to all provisions" of the County Road Law. The County argued that if county roads must be built to the specifications of a SALDO, then "all provisions of other acts" (i.e., the County Road Law) would not be given effect. Stated otherwise, the County believed that § 103 of the MPC proved the legislature's intention that the County Road Law be preeminent over local ordinances also adopted pursuant to the MPC. The court rejected that construction of the County Road Law and the MPC. It noted that while § 103 stated that the Court must give effect to all provisions of the County Road Law, it did not state that a county may open county roads that are an integral part of a subdivision plan without complying with a SALDO, where one exists. In short, the court found that neither the County Road Law nor the MPC established preeminence. Next, the court examined the consequences of having the SALDO prevail here. Because there were no specific design standards in the County Road Law, the court found that there was no conflict with the SALDO. The court found that the County could comply with both the SALDO and the County Road Law. Giving effect to the Township's SALDO would not mean that the County's power to construct roads in the Township would be frustrated, only that it would be regulated, concluded the court. The court concluded that the Township's SALDO applied to the County's proposed roads in the proposed business park and did not conflict with the County Road Law. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the petition to lay out and open county roads using specifica- tions inconsistent with the SALDO. See also: Com., Dept. of General Services v. Ogontz Area Neighbors Ass 'n, 505 Pa. 614, 483 A.2d 448 (1984). Case Note: The County suggested that the court's holding would lead to a lack of uniformity in county roads because counties would have to abide by different road require- ments in each municipality where they wished to locate a county road. However, the court emphasized that its holding was limited to county roads proposed as part of a subdivision and land development plan. It said that if counties seek to ©2014 Thomson Reuters 9