Messina v. East Penn Township
619 Pa. 326
| Pa. | 2012Background
- Messina spouses own 114.4 acres in East Penn Township, with a single-family residence; Lehigh Asphalt Paving uses part of the property as a quarry and is the equitable owner via option.
- Township adopted East Penn Township Zoning Ordinance No. 1996-94 on July 22, 1996, placing the property in Rural and Rural Residential districts; Lehigh Asphalt’s use is nonconforming but allowed due to preexistence.
- The Ordinance has been amended in 2000, 2001, and 2005; changes to the zoning map were alleged to have occurred on the night of adoption.
- On August 11, 2008, the Messinas filed suit in the Carbon County Court of Common Pleas alleging the ordinance was void ab initio for failing to strictly follow MPC § 10610(b) procedural requirements, including inadequate public notice of map changes.
- Intervenors Blaha and Pekurny joined; the trial court found vagueness in the record and determined the claim time-barred because the procedural defects were not proven.
- Commonwealth Court en banc affirmed, applying § 5571.1 and its amendments, and ultimately held the appeal untimely and not proven to lack substantial compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 5571.1(e)(2) place the burden on post-30-day challenges to prove substantial noncompliance? | Messina challenges rely on void ab initio despite two-year presumption; burden not met. | East Penn contends after two years, challengers must prove substantial noncompliance and lack of notice/due process. | Burden not met; time-bar upheld. |
| Do presumptions of reliance under § 5571.1(d)(2) and (e)(2)(iii) preclude procedural challenges after two years? | Messina argues presumptions cannot preclude a validity challenge. | Township argues presumptions support validity given long-standing ordinance. | Presumptions unrebutted; challenge barred. |
| Was there a substantial pre-adoption change to the zoning map requiring re-advertisement, making the ordinance void ab initio? | Changes on the night of adoption were substantial, necessitating re-advertisement. | Record insufficient to prove substantiality; substantial compliance nonetheless shown. | Record inadequate to prove substantial change; not void ab initio for this reason. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cranberry Park Associates v. Cranberry Township Zoning Hearing Board, 561 Pa. 456, 751 A.2d 165 (Pa. 2000) (improper recording voids ordinance; strict procedural steps required)
- Schadler v. Zoning Hearing Board of Weisenberg Township, 578 Pa. 177, 850 A.2d 619 (Pa. 2004) (void ab initio due to procedural defects; notice/due process critical)
- Lower Gwynedd Township v. Gwynedd Properties, Inc., 527 Pa. 324, 591 A.2d 285 (Pa. 1991) (mandatory nature of enactment steps; non-waivable)
- Glen-Gery Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Dover Township, 589 Pa. 135, 907 A.2d 1033 (Pa. 2006) (notice/due process concerns can negate time-bar where due process implicated)
- Luke v. Cataldi, 593 Pa. 461, 932 A.2d 45 (Pa. 2007) (due process in land use decisions; non-application of 30-day limit to protect rights)
- Appeal of Hawcrest Association, 399 Pa. 84, 160 A.2d 240 (Pa. 1960) (substantial change analysis for notice requirements)