Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/04/2016

Home

December 25, 2015 I Volume 9 I Issue 24 Zoning Bulletin "AN ORDINANCE OF PALMER TOWNSHIP, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING THE PALMER TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 190-161 LIGHT AND GLARE CONTROL, AND ARTICLE XVIII SIGNS TO ALLOW FOR DIGITAL SIGNS AND ELEC- TRONICALLY CHANGING MESSAGE SIGNS." At the Board's hearing, the Board authorized amendment of the Ordinance to delete a section, thus adopting "the Commission's recommendation [ 1 to increase the permitted hours of the digital billboard's illumination from seventeen (17) to twenty-four (24)" hours per day. The Township readvertised a notice for a public hearing and consideration for adoption of the Ordinance, using virtually the same language as the first notice, with a new public hearing date. At the next public hearing, the Board adopted the revised Ordinance. Two years later, Charles and Betsy Diefenderfer (the "Diefenderfers") filed a land use appeal with the trial court. The Diefenderfers lived across the street from a digital billboard, the light from which they claimed interfered with their sleep. They argued that the Ordinance should be declared null and void because the Board had not complied with the notice requirements of § 610 of the Municipal Planning Code ("MPC") (53. P.S. § 10610). Section 610 provides that notice of proposed zoning ordinance and amendments must be given as required, and that "[tin the event substantial amendments are made in the proposed ordinance or amendment . . . the governing body shall . readvertise . a brief summary setting forth all the provision in rea- sonable detail together with a summary of the amendments." The Diefenderfers alleged that the published summary of the Ordinance did not comply with § 610 of the MPC because it did not include a summary of the amendment to the original version of the Ordinance (i.e. the increase in the permitted hours of illumination from 17 to 24 hours per day). Ultimately, the trial court determined that, because the policy of the Ordinance was to allow digital billboard advertising; there was no overall change in policy when the Ordinance was amended to increase the hours of illumination. Thus, the trial court held that the change to the Ordinance was . not substantial, the Township was not required to advertise a summary of the change, and the Township had strictly complied with § 610 of the MPC. The Diefenderfers appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Common Pleas reversed. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania concluded that the change to the Ordinance, increasing the permitted hours of illumination from 17 hours to 24 hours per day, was a substantial amendment to the Ordinance such that the Township was required, under § 610(b) of the MPC; to readvertise the change prior to the enactment of the Ordinance. (As explained in the Case Note below, the court found the Township's failure to readvertise in strict compliance with the statute resulted in the Ordinance being "void from inception.") In so concluding, the court explained that If] or an amendment to be `substantial' . . . there must be a significant disruption of the continuity of the proposed legislation or some appreciable change in the overall policy of 10 © 2015 Thomson Reuters