Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/04/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin December 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 24 the bill." The court said that amendments are also substantial "where they add or delete a permitted use, change a district boundary or classification, or significantly alter a regulation." In addition, the court noted that amendments are substantial where they "affect other landowners in a different way or have an adverse impact on adjoiners," or "include{ ] land that was previously unaf- fected by the proposed amendment." Here, the court found that while the change in hours of illumination ap- peared to be "minor in comparison to the grand scheme of the Ordinance," that change clearly had an adverse impact on the Diefenderfers. The court further found that the change in hours of illumination reflected a "significant disruption of the continuity" of the Ordinance "to the extent that it substan- tially increased the negative impact of the Ordinance on landowners living close to digital billboards." Moreover, found the court, "the change to the Ordinance was substantial because it significantly altered the Township's regulation of nighttime billboard use." Thus, because the change to the Ordinance resulted in a deprivation of the Diefenderfers' right to the use and enjoyment of their property, the court concluded that the change was a "substantial amendment" under § 610(b) of the MPC and that the Township was required to advertise the change—in strict compliance with the notice requirements of the statute—prior to enactment of the Ordinance. The court found that the Township failed to do so. See also: Lamar Advantage GP Co., LLC v. City of Pittsburgh, 67 A.3d 156 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013), appeal denied, 622 Pa. 772, 81 A.3d 79 (2013). See also: Save Our Local Environment II v. Foster Tp. Bd. of Sup'rs, 137 Pa. Comrnw. 505, 587 A.2d 30 (1991). See also: Appeal of Hawcrest Ass 'n, 399 Pa. 84, 160 A.2d 240 (1960). Case Note: Because the Diefenderfers' appeal was filed more than 30 days after adoption of the Ordinance, in order declare the Ordinance void, the court needed to find both a dep- rivation of the Diefenderfers' constitutional rights and that -the Diefenderfers met their burden of proof under ,§S 5571(e) demonstrating that the Township: (1) failed to strictly comply with statutory procedures, and (2) failed to substantially comply with statutory procedure such that "the public [did] not have knowledge of" impending changes to the ordinance, which 'prevented [the public] from commenting on those." The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania found both an impermissible deprivation of the Diefenderfers' substantive due process rights (in that their use of their property was disturbed by the light from the digital billboard), and that, because the Diefenderfers were able to demonstrate that the Township had violated SS 610 of the MPC, the Diefenderfers had met their burden of proof under 5S 5571.1(e) of the Judicial Code. Having concluded that the Diefenderfers met their burden of proof the court declared the Ordinance "void from inception." © 2015 Thomson Reuters . 11