Streck v. Lower Macungie Township Board of Commissioners
58 A.3d 865
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- Jaindl and Township amended the zoning ordinance in 2010 following a non-litigation MoU restricting quarrying in Jaindl’s land; amendments created new zoning districts and altered definitions and requirements.
- Public notice for Ordinance 2010-06 was given by newspapers (June 9 and 16, 2010) and direct notices to affected property owners, plus on-site signs around the 700 acres.
- Ordinance 2010-06 rezoned roughly 700 acres from agricultural to commercial/industrial uses, and also amended several provisions beyond zoning districts.
- Post-enactment notices on July 7 and July 14, 2010 stated a 30-day challenge deadline from the second publication, creating potential deadlines different from the initial effective date.
- Objectors challenged the ordinance on procedural grounds and filed an appeal on August 13, 2010; the trial court found deficiencies in the notice under MPC Section 610 but Jaindl and the Township appealed; the appellate court held the Section 108 notices did not create a new deadline but allowed nunc pro tunc timeliness.
- The court ultimately reversed the trial court, holding the notices and procedures, including potential contract zoning concerns, did not void the ordinance and that the appeal could be timely under nunc pro tunc principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Objectors’ appeal | Jaindl argues Objectors’ appeal was time-barred (beyond 30 days of July 2, 2010). | Objectors contend timely filing under the second post-enactment notice deadline (July 14, 2010). | Nunc pro tunc timeliness applied; appeal timely despite initial deadline. |
| Effect of MPC Section 108 notices on deadlines | Section 108 notices purported to reaffirm validity and reset deadlines. | 108 notices do not abrogate the 30-day deadline set in 5571.1; any extension requires exemption under 5571.1(e). | 108 notices did not extend the deadline; nunc pro tunc timeliness available due to process breakdown. |
| Sufficiency of pre-enactment notice under Section 610 | Summary lacked “reasonable detail” required by 53 P.S. § 10610(a). | Summary provided salient details and directing readers to full text; lack of table of contents not fatal. | Notice satisfied the “reasonable detail” requirement; full text not required in the notice. |
| Contract zoning challenge to Ordinance 2010-06 | MoU constitutes improper contract zoning. | Even if true, remedy would be to void the contract, not invalidate the ordinance; motives immaterial. | Contract zoning claim lacked merit; ordinance valid for general public application. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawk v. Eldred Township Bd. of Supervisors, 983 A.2d 216 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (context of procedural validity and notice requirements (nonvoid ab initio concerns))
- Messina v. East Penn Twp., 995 A.2d 517 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (addressing notice and summary adequacy under MPC 610)
- Lower Gwynedd Twp. v. Gwynedd Properties, Inc., 527 Pa. 324, 591 A.2d 285 (1991) (objective notice adequacy and access to full text; not controlling here)
- Valianatos v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Richmond Twp., 766 A.2d 903 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (distinguishable on summary-detail sufficiency)
- Carlino v. Whitpain Investors, 499 Pa. 498, 453 A.2d 1385 (1982) (contract zoning initially condemned; cautions about private agreements in zoning)