|

Mandatory Submission of Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Municipal
and County Planning Agencies.
Muhlenberg College v. Zoning Hearing Board of the City of
Allentown, 760 A2d 443 (2000)
Note: Appeal Denied Cross Reference: MPC Section 609 (c) and (e)
This case highlights the mandatory provisions of MPC 609 (c)
and (e) requiring the submission of zoning ordinance amendments
to municipal and county planning agencies at least thirty(30)
days prior to the public hearing at which the amendment is to
be acted upon. The only exception is where an amendment is initiated
by the planning agency. The requirement applies equally to any
proposed amendment which undergoes any substantial change during
the adoption process.
The court recognized that the comments of the planning agencies
may in fact be ignored, but those agencies MUST be given the proper
opportunity to comment. In this case a proposed amendment was
submitted to the city and county planning agencies only thirteen
(13) days prior to enactment. The City argued that the amendment
was virtually identical to one previously considered and reviewed
by the planning agencies, obviating the necessity for a new review.
The most substantial difference in the amendments were the effective
dates of the proposed amendments.
The court recognized that MPC 609 (d) requires a new public hearing
only when a proposed amendment has been substantially changed
or revised to include land not previously affected. The argument
could therefore be made that since the proposed amendments were
so similar, no second hearing was necessary and therefore the
submission of the second proposal to the planning agencies was
not even necessary. Following this line of reasoning the City
argued that since no submission was necessary, the thirteen (13)
day advance submission was not fatal.
The court disagreed, citing the provisions of MPC 609(c) requires
"each" amendment to be submitted to the planning agencies
and therefore the mere similarities of the proposed amendments
does not obviate the necessity of complying with the thirty (30)
day submission requirements. Municipalities must recognize a clear
distinction between a proposed amendment which may or may not
have been substantially changed or revised during its consideration
by the governing body, and a new amendment, even if substantially
the same as a previously proposed and reviewed amendment.
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
|