Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/2014

Home

Zoning Law Bulletin December 25, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 24 court also rejected this argument, finding a distinction between the two situations. The court noted that TANK had contracted for advertising space on its bus shelters with other third parties, whereas, in contrast, TANK had no contractual relationship with BBC and received no revenue from BBC for the placement of BBC's benches at TANK bus stops. BBC benches had been placed at TANK bus stops without TANK's involve- ment or consent. The court also found that BBC's alternative argument failed under the "law of the case doctrine." The evidentiary issues related to BBC's premise that TANK had "allowed" it to place its benches at TANK bus stops had already been argued and addressed at earlier stages of the litigation and could not now be readdressed. In earlier stages of the litigation, the court had found that evidence had shown that TANK could not au- thorize or "allow" placement of privately owned benches at TANK bus stops. Therefore, since there was no evidence that TANK placed BBC's benches at TANK bus stops or allowed BBC to place its benches at TANK bus stops, BBC's alternative argu- ment was irrelevant, concluded the court. Standing —After party appellant to zoning ordinance challenge withdraws, parties to the hearing continue challenge Parties to the hearing argue participation in the challenge confers on them the right to continue the challenge Citation: Stuckley v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Newtown Tp., 2013 WL 5825059 (Pa. 2013) PENNSYLVANIA (10/30/13)—This case addressed the issue of whether participation in a challenge as parties to a hearing confers on those parties the right to continue the challenge after the party appellant withdraws. The Background/Facts: In October 2006, Upper Makefield, Wrightstown, and Newtown Townships amended their jointly enacted Joint Municipal Zon- ing Ordinance No.1983. Leo Holt ("Holt"), a property owner affected by this amendment, properly appealed to the Zoning Hearing Board of Newtown Township (the "Board"). Holt alleged substantive and procedural defects in the enactment. As a result, Holt became a "party appellant" pursuant to Pennsylvania's Municipal Planning Code ("MPC")-53 P.S. § 10913.3. At the first hearing on Holt's appeal, some neighboring property owners (the "Neighbors") appeared and were designated "parties to the hearing" pur- suant to the MPC-53 P.S. § 10908(3). The Neighbors participated in the hearing proceedings. In June 2007, before final action on the appeal was taken, Holt withdrew his challenge. Holt being the only party who had filed an appeal, the Board © 2013 Thomson Reuters 9