In the interpretation and the application of the provisions
of this chapter, they shall be held to be the minimum requirements
for the promotion of the health, safety, morals and general welfare.
It is not intended to interfere with or abrogate or annul other rules,
regulations or ordinances, provided that where this chapter imposes
greater restrictions upon the use of buildings or premises, or upon
the height or bulk of a building, or requires larger open spaces,
the provisions of this chapter shall apply.
This chapter shall not apply to any existing or proposed building,
or extension thereof, used or to be used by a public utility corporation,
if, upon petition of the corporation, the Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission shall, after a public hearing, decide that the present
or proposed situation of the building in question is reasonably necessary
for the convenience of welfare of the public. It shall be the responsibility
of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to ensure that both
the corporation and the municipality in which the building or proposed
building is located have notice of the hearing and are granted an
opportunity to appear, present witnesses, cross-examine witnesses
presented by other parties and otherwise exercise the rights of a
party to the proceedings.
The Borough may offer a mediation option as an aid in completing
proceedings authorized by this chapter. In exercising such option,
the following procedures shall apply:
A.
Parties to proceedings authorized in Article VIII, Zoning Hearing Board and Zoning Officer, of this chapter, and Article X-A of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code,[1] may utilize mediation as an aid in completing such proceedings. In proceedings before the Zoning Hearing Board, in no case shall the Zoning Hearing Board initiate mediation or participate as a mediating party. Mediation shall supplement, not replace, those procedures in Article VIII of this chapter and Article X-A of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code once they have been formally initiated. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as expanding or limiting municipal police powers or as modifying any principles of substantive law.
[1]
Editor's Note: See 53 P.S. 1100-A et seq.
B.
Participation in mediation shall be wholly voluntary. The appropriateness
of mediation shall be determined by the particulars of each case and
the willingness of the parties to negotiate. Any municipality offering
the mediation option shall assure that, in each case, the mediating
parties, assisted by the mediator as appropriate, develop terms and
conditions for:
(1)
Funding mediation.
(2)
Selecting a mediator who, at a minimum, shall have a working knowledge
of municipal zoning and subdivision procedures and demonstrated skills
in mediation.
(3)
Completing mediation, including time limits for such completion.
(4)
Suspending time limits otherwise authorized in this chapter, provided
there is written consent by the mediating parties, and by an applicant
or municipal decision making body if either is not a party to the
mediation.
(5)
Identifying all parties and affording them the opportunity to participate.
(6)
Subject to legal restraints, determining whether some or all of the
mediation sessions shall be open or closed to the public.
(7)
Assuring that mediated solutions are in writing and signed by the
parties, and become subject to review and approval by the appropriate
decision making body pursuant to the authorized procedures set forth
in the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.[2]
[2]
Editor's Note: See 53 P.S. § 10101 et seq.
C.
No offers or statements made in the mediation sessions, excluding
the final written mediated agreement, shall be admissible as evidence
in any subsequent judicial or administrative proceedings.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
chapter is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction
to be invalid, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this chapter. The Borough Council hereby declares
that it would have passed this chapter and each section or part thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections or parts thereof
be declared invalid.
A.
A landowner who, on substantive grounds, desires to challenge the
validity of an ordinance or map or any provision thereof which prohibits
or restricts the use or development of land in which he has an interest
shall submit the challenge either:
(1)
To the Zoning Hearing Board under § 250-41A(1); or
(2)
To the Borough Council under § 250-41A(2)(b), together with a request for a curative amendment under § 250-56.
B.
Persons aggrieved by a use or development permitted on the land of another by an ordinance or map, or any provision thereof, who desires to challenge its validity on substantive grounds shall first submit their challenge to the Zoning Hearing Board for a decision thereon under § 250-41A(1)(a).
C.
(1)
In challenges before the Zoning Hearing Board, the challenging party shall make a written request to the Board that it hold a hearing on its challenge. The request shall contain the reasons for the challenge. Where the landowner desires to challenge the validity of such ordinance and elects to proceed by curative amendment under § 250-56, his application to the Borough Council shall contain, in addition to the requirements of the written request hereof, the plans and explanatory materials describing the use or development proposed by the landowner in lieu of the use or development permitted by the challenged ordinance or map. Such plans or other materials shall not be required to meet the standards prescribed for preliminary, tentative or final approval or for the issuance of a permit, so long as they provide reasonable notice of the proposed use or development and a sufficient basis for evaluating the challenged ordinance or map in light thereof. Nothing herein contained shall preclude the landowner from first seeking a final approval before submitting his challenge.
(2)
If the submission is made by the landowner to the governing body under Subsection A(2) above, the request also shall be accompanied by an amendment or amendments to the ordinance proposed by the landowner to cure the alleged defects therein.
(3)
If the submission is made to the Borough Council, the municipal solicitor shall represent and advise it at the hearing or hearings referred to in § 250-41A(2)(b).
(4)
The Borough Council may retain an independent attorney to present
the defense of the challenged ordinance or map on its behalf and to
present their witnesses on its behalf.
(5)
Based upon the testimony presented at the hearing or hearings, the Borough Council or the Zoning Board, as the case may be, shall determine whether the challenged ordinance or map is defective, as alleged by the landowner. If a challenge heard by a Borough Council is found to have merit, the Borough Council shall proceed as provided in § 250-56.
(a)
If a challenge heard by a Zoning Hearing Board is found to have
merit, the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board shall include recommended
amendments to the challenged ordinance which will cure the defects
found. In reaching its decision, the Zoning Hearing Board shall consider
the amendments, plans and explanatory material submitted by the landowner
and shall also consider:
[1]
The impact of the proposal upon roads, sewer facilities, water supplies,
schools and other public service facilities;
[2]
If the proposal is for a residential use, the impact of the
proposal upon regional housing needs and the effectiveness of the
proposal in providing housing units of a type actually available to
and affordable by classes of persons otherwise unlawfully excluded
by the challenged provisions of the ordinance or map;
[3]
The suitability of the site for the intensity of use proposed
by the site's soils, slopes, woodlands, wetlands, floodplains,
aquifers, natural resources and other natural features;
[4]
The impact of the proposed use on the site's soils, slopes,
woodlands, wetlands, floodplains, natural resources and natural features,
the degree to which these are protected or destroyed, the tolerance
of the resources to development and any adverse environmental impacts;
and
[5]
The impact of the proposal on the preservation of agriculture
and other land uses which are essential to public health and welfare.
(b)
The Borough Council or the Zoning Hearing Board, as the case
may be, shall render its decision within 45 days after the conclusion
of the last hearing.
(c)
If the Borough Council or the Zoning Board, as the case may
be, fails to act on the landowner's request within the time limits
referred to in Subsection C(5)(e), a denial of the request is deemed to have occurred on the 46th day
after the close of the last hearing.
D.
The Zoning Hearing Board or Borough Council, as the case may be,
shall commence its hearings within 60 days after the request is filed
unless the landowner requests or consents to an extension of time.
E.
Public notice of the hearing shall include notice that the validity
of the ordinance or map is in question and shall give the place where
and the times when a copy of the request, including any plans, explanatory
material or proposed amendments may be examined by the public.
F.
The challenge shall be deemed denied when:
(1)
The Zoning Hearing Board or Borough Council, as the case may be, fails to commence the hearing within the time limits set forth in Subsection D;
(2)
The Borough Council notifies the landowner that it will not adopt
the curative amendment;
(3)
The Borough Council adopts another curative amendment which is unacceptable
to the landowner; or
(4)
The Zoning Hearing Board or Borough Council, as the case may be,
fails to act on the request 45 days after the close of the last hearing
on the request, unless the time is extended by mutual consent by the
landowner and Borough.
G.
Where, after the effective date of this act, a curative amendment proposal is approved by the grant of a curative amendment application by the Borough Council pursuant to § 250-41A(2)(b) or a validity challenge is sustained by the Zoning Hearing Board pursuant to § 250-41(A)(1)(a) or the court acts finally on appeal from denial of a curative amendment proposal or a validity challenge, and the proposal or challenge so approved requires a further application for subdivision or land development, the developer shall have two years from the date of such approval to file an application for preliminary or tentative approval pursuant to Chapter 215, Subdivision and Land Development, or any planned residential development provisions of a Borough ordinance. Within the two-year period, no subsequent change or amendment in the zoning, subdivision or other governing ordinance or plan shall be applied in any manner which adversely affects the rights of the applicant as granted in the curative amendment or the sustained validity challenge. Upon the filing of the preliminary or tentative plan, the provisions of the applicable Chapter 215, Subdivision and Land Development, section shall apply. Where the proposal appended to the curative amendment application or the validity challenge is approved but does not require further application under any subdivision or land development ordinance, the developer shall have one year within which to file for a building permit. Within the one-year period, no subsequent change or amendment in the zoning, subdivision or other governing ordinance or plan shall be applied in any manner which adversely affects the rights of the applicant as granted in the curative amendment or the sustained validity challenge. During these protected periods, the court shall retain or assume jurisdiction for the purpose of awarding such supplemental relief as may be necessary.
The Borough of Northampton Zoning Ordinance 1018, November 16,
1989, as amended and incorporated into the Northampton Code of Ordinances
as Chapter 27, and all amendments thereto, are hereby repealed. All
other existing ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with
this chapter, to the extent of such conflict and no further, are hereby
repealed.
