Court Opinion

ID: 9728609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:12:29.632532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:50.151868
License: Public Domain

BARRY, Senior Judge,
concurring.
This member of the Court agrees that Ordinance No. 3-90 is not a zoning ordinance and further that Ordinance No. 4-90, which establishes an impact fee, is a nullity, since counties do not have the power to pass such an ordinance. However, the majority opinion is incorrect when it states in dicta that,
The questionable content of Ordinance 4-90 — relating impact fee income to revenue purposes broader than the capital transportation cost purpose approved by the MPC — does not negate the point that it remains an impact fee ordinance. Because Pennsylvania law no where contains any other authorization of impact fee ordinances, the MPC governs Ordinance 4-90.
*306It is respectfully suggested that this discussion is unnecessary to a resolution of the problem in this case. The majority opinion is incorrect when it states that, since there is no other authorization to enact impact fee ordinances, the MPC must govern Ordinance No. 4-90. The mere fact that the MPC talks about impact fee ordinances in connection with only capital transportation improvements, does not widen its scope to include any impact fee ordinance. Therefore, if comment were appropriate on this aspect of the ordinance the Court should conclude that there is no power unless it is specifically given by the Legislature to enact an impact fee ordinance other than for capital transportation improvements.