Hanover Healthcare Plus, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Penn Twp.,
875 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005)
The township board of supervisors enacted an ordinance rezoning certain property from residential to commercial use. Although the supervisors had submitted the original draft of the proposed amendment to the county planning commission for review, subsequent revisions of the proposed amendment by the supervisors were not submitted to the county planning commission for review, because the board viewed its changes as de minimis.
Landowners challengfdsgfdgdfed the validity of the zoning amendment on procedural grounds under Section 609(e) of the MPC. Landowners argued that the supervisors were required to submit each revision of the proposed amendment to the county planning commission. The ZHB denied the appeal and upheld the validity of the amendment. The common pleas court reversed, reasoning that Section 609(e) required the supervisors to submit each revision of its proposed amendment to the county planning commission.
Affirming the trial court, the Commonwealth Court concluded that although Section 609(e) did not contain the word “each,” Section 609 must be read in its entirety and in a manner consistent with the other subsections, such as Section 609(c), which does contain the word “each.” In Muhlenberg College and Haller, the Commonwealth Court interpreted 609(c) to require that each revision be submitted to the appropriate planning agency for review.
No liability is assumed with respect to the use of information contained in this website. Laws may be amended or court rulings made that could affect a particular procedure, issue, or interpretation. The Department of Community & Economic Development assumes no responsibility for errors and omissions nor any liability for damages resulting from the use of information contained herin. Please contact your local solicitor for legal advice.