Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/2016

Home

November 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 22 Zoning Bulletin As an adjoining property owner, Walters was presumed to be directly and adversely affected by the zoning decision. The court also found that Walters met the first prong of the standing test. The court found that "Walters actively participated in the proceedings before the ZHB in an opposing posture." More particularly, the court found that Walters introduced testimony and photographic evidence that: "directly contradicted or rebutted [the testimony of Pegasus' engineer]; was offered to prove that the monopole ha[d] an adverse effect on neighboring prop- erty; and specifically relate[d] to Pegasus' burden to prove, under the ordinance, that the monopole would] not have a negative impact on or alter the essential character of the neighborhood." In so finding, the court noted that it was "not necessary for Walters to formally request that Pegasus' request for a variance be denied in order to express his opposition to Pegasus' application." "Rather, Walters' introduction of rebuttal evi- dence, testimony, and argument [was] sufficient to apprise all those concerned that he officially contested Pegasus' monopole," found the court. Walters' evidentiary presentation and argument demonstrated his opposi- tion to the monopole, and had the practical effect of requesting that Pegasus' requests for land -use relief be denied, concluded the court. See also: Orie v. Zoning Hearing Bd, of Borough of Beaver, 767 A.2d 623 (Pa. Cornrow. Ct. 2001). See also: Lower Allen Citizens Action Group, Inc. v. Lower Allen Tp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 93 Pa. Cominw. 96, 500 A.2d 1253 (1985). Case Note: The appellate court disagreed with the trial court's finding that the proposed stipu- lation between Walters and Pegasus established that Walters supported Pegasus and the construction of the new monopole. The appellate court instead found that Walters objected to and opposed the monopole, and, in the alternative, had requested that the screening be placed in the event the ZHB approved the monopole. Case Note: The appellate court also disagreed with the trial court's finding that Walters was not a "party." The appellate court found that the ZHB had no procedures for at- taining party status at the zoning hearing, but noted that the ZHB referred to Walters as a party. "Moreover, the appellate court found that Walters acted "in a party capacity during the ZHB proceedings," as he presented rebuttal evidence. 4 © 2015 Thomson Reuters