Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Pine Township Citizens' Association, Edmund Valentine, Trustee Ad Litem, and David E. Graf, Edmund Valentine, Ruth Ward, Individuals v. Pine Township Board of Supervisors, No. S.A. No. 175 of 1975.
Marvin A. Fein, for appellants.
David W. Craig, with him Sandra Beck Levine; Baskin, Boreman, Wilner, Sachs, Gondelman & Craig ; and Richard L. Rosenzweig, for appellees.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Rogers.
[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 534]
This is the appeal of the Pine Township Citizens' Association, an unincorporated association, and three persons who own real property in Pine Township, from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County sustaining a landowner's preliminary objections to some of the appellants' grounds for a zoning appeal filed below pursuant to Section 1003 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. § 11003, which reads as follows:
Questions of an alleged defect in the process of enactment or adoption of any ordinance or map shall be raised by an appeal taken directly from the action of the governing body to the court filed not later than thirty days from the effective date of the ordinance or map.
[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 535]
The appellants' appeal is directed to Pine Township Ordinance No. 90 adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 19, 1976. Ordinance No. 90 changed the zoning use regulations with respect to approximately 500 acres of land owned by the appellee, Oxford Development Company, with the effect that appellee was permitted to construct a shopping mall and other commercial buildings, as well as dwelling units, on its land.
The appellants' appeal raised nine objections, to all of which the appellee filed preliminary objections, contending that all described substantive, not procedural, defects. The court below dismissed the appellee's preliminary objections to three of the complaints and sustained the preliminary objections to six. The appellants do not complain of the court's action sustaining the preliminary objections as to three, and say now only that the court erred in sustaining the preliminary objections to the following three alleged defects "in the process of the enactment or adoption" of Ordinance No. 90:
(a) It [Ordinance 90] was enacted prior to the adoption of a comprehensive plan for Pine Township in violation of Sections 301, 302 and 303 of the MPC, 53 P.S. § 10301 et seq.;
(b) It was enacted without consideration of the prescribed mandates under Article I, Section 27 of the ...