Laserfiche WebLink
December 10, 2010 Volume 41 No. 23 Zoning Bulletin <br />contrast, the court found that "because similar procedural protec- <br />tions are not required in subdivision and land development pro- <br />ceedings, it would be manifestly unfair, if not a denial of due pro- <br />cess, to impose such a stringent rule as a prerequisite to subdivi- <br />sion and land development appeals." <br />Here, the court found that because the Board had not provided <br />"procedural protections" (i.e., a notice and hearing on the record <br />with clear procedures for entering an appearance), the only applica- <br />ble standing requirement the Neighbor's had to meet was substantive <br />(i.e., whether the Neighbors were "persons aggrieved "). <br />'See also: Leoni v. Whitpain Tp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 709 A.2d 999 <br />(Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998). <br />See also: Application of Rouse & Associates Ship Road Land Ltd. <br />Partnership, 161 Pa. Commw. 52, 636 A.2d 231 (1993). <br />Case Note: The court noted that "[h]ad the Board voluntarily <br />followed the procedures required of a ZHB and provided notice <br />and a hearing on the record with a clear procedure for enter- <br />ing an appearance, [the court] would [have] agree[d] ... that [the <br />Neighbors] were required to meet both [standing requirements — <br />substantive and procedural]" in order to appeal. <br />Case Note: The court also noted that "it is well - established that <br />adjacent property owners have substantive standing to object to <br />subdivision plans both before the governing body and in land <br />use appeals to common pleas." Thus, the court concluded that <br />the Neighbors, as adjacent landowners, had substantive standing <br />to appeal the Board's decision. <br />Vested Rights — Relying on zoning allowing their <br />desired use, auto dealerships purchase property <br />After that property's zoning classification is later changed <br />prohibiting the use, dealerships claim vested right in use <br />Citation: MLC Automotive, LLC v. Town of Southern Pines, 2010 <br />WL 4286390 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010) <br />NORTH CAROLINA (11/02/10) —This case addressed the issue <br />of whether the fact that property owners purchased property in good <br />6 © 2010 Thomson Reuters <br />