On or about June 9, 2003, the West Vincent Township Board of Supervisors voted to enact the "West Vincent Township Zoning Ordinance of 2003" ("Ordinance"), which Ordinance is invalid, void ab initio and never took effect because the Township failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for enactment as set forth in the Municipalities Planning Code ("MPC"). Therefore, Petitioners respectfully request the Zoning Hearing Board of West Vincent Township to hold a hearing and declare the Ordinance void, invalid and of no effect. In support thereof, Petitioners state:

1. The following Petitioners as property owners within the Township are directly and substantially affected and aggrieved by the Ordinance and by the manner in which the Board of Supervisors attempted to adopt it:
1. Henry C., III and Mary S. Osborn, 124 Nantmeal Road, Glenmoore, PA 19343.
2. Rob and Angela Lakatos, 1 Red Fox Land, Glenmoore, PA 19343.
3. Michael and Melissa Bertolami, 45 Nantmeal Road, Glenmoore, PA 19343.
4. Steve Puccino, 30 Red Fox Lane, Glenmoore, PA 19343.
5. Dave and Colleen Greene, 21 Red Fox Lane, Glenmoore, PA 19343.
6. Robert W. and Lois Frye, 26 Red Fox Lane, Glenmoore, PA 19343.
7. Jason Phillips, 547 Black Horse Road, Chester Springs, PA 19425.
2. Citizens for Sensible Development ("CSD") is an unincorporated association and member of Residents for Smart Development ("RSD"), which is an incorporated nonprofit citizens group with a business address at P.O. Box 121, Chester Springs, Pennsylvania, 19425. CSD and RSD represent citizens within West Vincent Township and seek to promote responsible development and land use.
3. CSD and RSD have been authorized by their members to act as their agents in this matter. CSD and RSD members own property that was affected by the Ordinance.
4. All petitioners live within the Township and are affected or aggrieved by the Ordinance.

JURISDICTION

5. The Zoning Hearing Board has jurisdiction to hear this challenge and render final adjudications pursuant to Section 909.1 (a) (1), (2) of the MPC, Act of 1968, P.L. 805, No. 247, 53 P.S. § 10909.1 (a) (1), (2), along with any other provision that may be applicable.

PROCEDURAL CHALLENGE

6. The MPC and Township Zoning Ordinance set forth specific requirements that must be followed as a precondition to the enactment, validity and effectiveness of any zoning ordinance and / or amendment. See 53 P.S. §§ 10607, 10608, 10610.
7. During the Board of Supervisors regularly scheduled meeting on June 9, 2003, the Board attempted to enact the Ordinance by voting to adopt the Ordinance.
8. Pursuant to section 610 (a) of the MPC, "Proposed zoning ordinances and amendments shall not be enacted unless notice of proposed enactment is given in the manner set forth in this section, and shall include the time and place of the meeting at which passage will be considered, a reference to a place within the municipality where copies of the proposed ordinance or amendment may be examined without charge or obtained for a charge not greater than the cost thereof. . .." (emphasis added). The notice of proposed enactment must either include the full text of the ordinance or a summary of the ordinance prepared by the municipal solicitor. Id.
9. The notice for the June 9, 2003 Board of Supervisors meeting did not state that the Board would be taking action to enact the Ordinance nor did it include any of the information required by the notice provisions of the MPC (a copy of notice is attached hereto as Exhibit A). The only notices published by the Township (related to the Ordinance) indicated that the Board would hold a public hearing at its May 14, 2003.
10. The notices for the May 14, 2003 public hearing were defective because the summary did not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 610(a), including but not limited to (a) failing to state that the Board would take action on the Ordinance at its June 9, 2003 meeting, (b) failing to properly prepare the summary, (c) failing to properly prepare a meaningful summary of the revisions to the Ordinance that was understandable to the public; and (d) failing to file an attested copy of the proposed ordinance with the county law library.
11. The Township failed to comply with section 607 (a) of the MPC (which requires that the text and map, as well as all necessary studies and surveys, be prepared by the planning agency) because the Ordinance was prepared by a member of the Board and not by the Township’s Planning Commission.
12. The Township’s Planning Commission also failed to present its work to the governing body as required by section 607 (c) of the MPC and the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Ordinance, including the notices and proceedings related thereto also may have failed to satisfy the MPC.
13. The Township also may have failed to timely forward a copy of the Ordinance to the Chester County Planning Commission as required by section 607 (e) of the MPC.
14. It is believed and therefore averred that the Township failed to comply with other provisions of the MPC and / or Township Zoning Ordinance and Petitioners reserve the right to assert any violation of the MPC or zoning ordinance that may be applicable and to amend this challenge as may be necessary.
15. It is well established that strict compliance with the procedural and notice requirements of the MPC is an absolute prerequisite to the validity and enactment of a zoning ordinance amendment. Valiantos v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Richmond Tp., 766 A.2d 903 (Pa. Cmwth., Jan. 30, 2001); Tinicum Tp. v. Tinicum Tp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 154 Pa. Cmwlth. 476, 624 A.2d 232 (1993); Lower Gwynedd Tp. v. Gwynedd Properties, Inc., 527 Pa. 324, 591 A.2d 285 (Pa. 1991).
16. The governing body’s failure to comply with the statutory requirements renders the Ordinance void ab initio and therefore, the Ordinance never became effective and is a nullity. Valiantos v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Richmond Tp., 766 A.2d 903 (Pa. Cmwth., Jan. 30, 2001); Cranberry Park Associates v. Cranberry Tp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 561 Pa. 456, 751 A.2d 165 (2000).

Wherefore, Petitioners respectfully request the West Vincent Township Zoning Hearing Board to hold a hearing on this challenge after which it should declare West Vincent Township Ordinance of 2003 void ab initio, invalid, null and void and to notify West Vincent Township Board of Supervisors that it is to immediately suspend and discontinue any and all official action related to land development under the Ordinance during the pendency of this challenge.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this 8th day of July, 2003, had the foregoing document served upon the persons and in the manner indicated below.

Service by hand delivery, addressed as follows:

West Vincent Township

2200 Flowing Springs Road

Birchrunville, PA 19421