# Messina v. East Penn Township

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 17, 2012 · 619 Pa. 326

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4966860

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles N. MESSINA, Agnes Messina, Lehigh Asphalt Paving and Construction Co. v. EAST PENN TOWNSHIP, Nancy Blaha and Christopher Pekurny, Intervenors
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 17, 2012
- **Citations:** 619 Pa. 326; 62 A.3d 363; 2012 Pa. LEXIS 2905; 2012 WL 6569913
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Todd
- **Judges:** Baer, Castille, Eakin, Files, McCaffery, Melvin, Saylor, Todd
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4966860

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4966860. Public record. Not legal advice.