Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin December 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 i Issue 24 <br />See also: Associated Horne Builders etc., Inc. v. City ofLivermore, 18 Cal. <br />3d 582, 135 Cal. Rptr. 41, 557 P.2d 473, 7 Envtl. L. Rep. 20155, 92 A.L.R.3d <br />1038 (1976). <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the courtf trther explained that, even if it were to assume the Govern- <br />ment Code required Proposition D to be submitted to the planning commission, the <br />failure of such a submission did not invalidate it because there was no `prejudicial <br />error" or suffering of any "substantial injury" from any such error. This, said the <br />court, was the case here because Proposition D had been a `product of the back -and - <br />forth process between the planning commission, the City Council, and the City At- <br />torney, " where a previous draft of the underlying ordinance mas referred to the plan- <br />ning commission, which. held hearings on the draft ordinance. <br />Procedure/Validity of Zoning <br />Ordinance—Town board authorizes <br />amendments to proposed zoning <br />ordinance, then readvertises hearing <br />on ordinance <br />Citizens contend readvertisement failed to meet <br />statutory notice requirements for "substantial" <br />amendments to proposed ordinances <br />Citation: Diefenderfer v. Palmer Township Bd. of Sup'rs, 2015 WL <br />6919451 (Pa. Comm. Ct. 2015) <br />PENNSYLVANIA (11/10/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />a proposed change to a proposed ordinance was a substantial amendment <br />such that the township was required to readvertise the change, in accordance <br />with certain statutory notice requirements, prior to enactment of the ordinance. <br />The Background/Facts: Iri September 2011,. Palmer Township (the <br />"Township") proposed a new zoning ordinance regulating digital billboards <br />(the "Ordinance"). The Ordinance would amend the Township's zoning code <br />in order to allow digital advertising signs and billboards in the Township. <br />The Township Planning Commission (the "Commission") recommended ap- <br />proval of the Ordinance "provided it was amended to reduce the frequency of <br />inspections from quarterly to annually, and to change the hours . . . digital <br />sign[s] would be illuminated from seventeen (17) to twenty-four (24)." <br />The Township advertised on two dates in November 2011 a notice regard- <br />ing a scheduled Township Board of Supervisors (the "Board") public hearing <br />and consideration for adoption of:. <br />©2015 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />