holding that, “where a challenge is made within 30 days, nothing less than strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the MPC will allow the ordinance to stand”
How later courts described this case
- holding that, “where a challenge is made within 30 days, nothing less than strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the MPC will allow the ordinance to stand”
- observing that issue of whether an ordinance was invalid based upon failure to readvertise after changes were made to a zoning map presented mixed questions of law and fact
- property owners failed to satisfy their burden of rebutting applicable presumption of reliance, on challenge to township zoning ordinance based upon claim of failure of public notice brought 12 years after enactment of challenged ordinance
- “[I]f there was a violation of neighboring landowners’ due process rights because of a failure to give public notice or hold a public hearing, the governing body’s action would be void ab initio, and no valid decision was made. Further, while most appeals under the MPC must be filed within 30 days after entry of a decision, where no valid decision is made, there is no date of entry from which the appeal period can commence.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice TODD,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that the void ab initio doctrine remains viable despite the amendments to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5571.1. I also agree that, because of the deficiencies in the record before us, we cannot assess the substantiality of the last-minute change to the ordinance at issue and, thus, we cannot determine whether the void ab initio doctrine is presently implicated. Cf. Appeal of Hawcrest Ass’n, 399 Pa. 84 , 160 A.2d 240 (1960) (insubstantial change to proposed zoning ordinance did not trigger new notice requirements). However, as, in my view, that doctrine was the sole basis of Appellant’s challenge to Section 5571.1 — and that challenge fails for want of a sufficient record — I would not further opine on the validity or operation of Section 5571.1, as does the majority. Accordingly, I concur in the result.