|

"Successive Weeks" for Purpose of Publication of
Public Hearing Notice Means "Calendar Weeks" Based Upon
a Week Running from Sunday Through Saturday
Stassi v Ranson Township Zoning Hearing Board, 54 Pa.
D.& C. 4th 303 Lackawanna, (September 24, 2001)
Cross Reference - MPC Sections 107 (a), 608; Pennsylvania's Statutory
Construction Act
The township published notice of public hearing on the adoption
of a new zoning ordinance in the local newspaper twice within
the same calendar week. The trial court reviewed the Statutory
Construction Act, Section 608's public notice requirements and
Section 107(a)'s definition of "public notice" and found
that notice was flawed. Failure to strictly follow procedures
for the enactment of an ordinance renders the ordinance null and
void.
Section 608 of the MPC requires a governing body to hold a public
hearing "pursuant to public notice". Section 107 of
the MPC defines public notice as "notice published once each
week for two successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation
in the municipality." Although the MPC does not expressly
define the term "successive week", Section 1909 of the
Statutory Construction Act provides:
"Time: Publication for successive weeks:
"Whenever in any statute providing for the publishing
of notices, the phrase 'successive weeks' is used, weeks shall
be construed as calendar weeks. The publication upon any day
of such week shall be sufficient publication for that week,
but at least five days shall elapse between each publication.
At least the number of weeks specified in 'successive weeks'
shall elapse between the first publication and the day for the
happening of the event for which publication shall be made."
1 Pa.C.S. §1909.
Thus, the phrase "successive weeks" as used in the
MPC must be interpreted as referring to "calendar weeks."
The court noted that a "calendar week" has long been
interpreted to mean a seven day period running from Sunday through
Saturday. The township violated the notice requirements with publication
twice in one calendar week.
The ordinance was deemed null and void. The court held that
the procedures established by the legislature for the enactment
of ordinances must be strictly followed for an ordinance to be
valid. Statutory publication requirements are mandatory and ordinances
adopted without strict compliance are void.
DISCLAIMER:
This site is designed to provide summary review of selected Pennsylvania
and Federal Court decisions related to land use and land use controls.
The information contained herein, although produced by professionals,
is not intended to render any legal service. Nor should the materials
herein be utilized as a substitute for professional services.
If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the service
of an attorney or other professional should be sought. DCED makes
no representations, warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy,
completeness or suitability of the information provided herein.
Back to Top
|