Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin December 10, 20101 Volume 41 No. 23 sidered at one meeting of the Township Board of Supervisors (the "Board "). The Board approved the application in 2008. Within 30 days of the Board's approval, several adjacent landown- ers (the "Neighbors ") filed a land use appeal with the court of com- mon pleas. The Township asked the court to dismiss the matter. It ar- gued that the Neighbors did not have standing (i.e., the legal right) to bring the appeal. It said this was because the Neighbors had not ap- peared in any of the proceedings below. There was no evidence that the Neighbors received notice of or attended the Township Planning Commission meetings or the Board meeting. The court agreed with the Township. It held that the Neighbors lacked standing because they had not appeared before the Board or the Planning Commission. The Neighbors appealed. They maintained they did have standing to bring their appeal. The Court's Decision: Judgment of court of common pleas reversed and remanded. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that parties ap- pealing from subdivision and land development decisions are not required to first appear before the Board of Supervisors in order to have standing to bring the appeal. Thus, here, the court concluded that the Neighbors did have standing to appeal the Board's approval of MDG's preliminary subdivision and land development application. In so holding, the court explained that there were two concepts of standing: (1) substantive standing; and (2) procedural standing. To have substantive standing, a party has to show he /she was "aggrieved" by the decision sought to be reviewed. Procedural standing requires a party to show he /she has asserted his right to participate sufficiently early. The court acknowledged that appeals from zoning decisions of a Zoning Hearing Board ( "ZHB ") require both types of standing. "[O]ne who does not appear or object on the record before a ZHB does not have standing to appeal the ZHB's decision ...." However, the court held that appeals from subdivision and land development decisions of a Board of Supervisors requires only substantive stand- ing —not procedural standing. The court said this was because: while Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code ( "MPC ") pre- scribed rules and procedures for ZHB hearings, including require- ments of notice and appearance, the MPC "places virtually no pro- cedural requirements on a Board of Supervisors considering subdi- visions and land development proposals. In fact, the statute makes clear that public hearings themselves are not required." With ZHB decisions, where procedural rules require notice, hearings, and for- mal appearances, requiring procedural standing "serves both judi- cial economy and is fair to all interested parties," said the court. In © 2010 Thomson Reuters 5