Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin December 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 23 <br />plication of zoning laws. The court disagreed. The court found that the existing <br />tower and proposed tower were not similarly situated where the existing tower site <br />was located next to a 29 -acre commercial property and had no historical sites within <br />1.3 miles, and the proposed site was in a wooded -residential area with several <br />historic sites nearby. <br />Right of Review/Standing—Objector <br />Appeals Philadelphia Zoning <br />Board's Grant of Variance to <br />Developer <br />Developer challenges objector's standing to <br />appeal, but objector argues developer waived <br />that challenge by not raising it before zoning <br />board <br />Citation: Scott v. City of Philadelphia, 2015 WL 6675465 (Pa. 2015) <br />PENNSYLVANIA (10/29/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether, <br />in the City of Philadelphia, a developer's first opportunity to challenge the <br />standing of an objector is before the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjust- <br />ment or before the trial court. <br />The Background/Facts: FT Holdings, L.P. ("FT") was in the process of <br />developing a condominium complex in the City of Philadelphia (the "City"). <br />As part of that development, in March 2012, FT submitted an application for <br />a zoning/use permit to the Philadelphia Depaitment of Licenses and Inspec- <br />tions (the "Department") concerning three adjacent properties that it owned <br />which were to become part of an expansion of the condominium complex. <br />When the Department denied the application, FT appealed the denial to the <br />City's Zoning Board of Adjustment (the "Board") and requested the ap- <br />propriate variances. <br />The Board held a hearing on FT's appeal. At that hearing, legal counsel <br />for John Scott ("Objector") appeared and presented Objector's concerns <br />about the development. FT did not object to Objector's counsel's participa- <br />tion before the Board. The Board granted the variances to FT on May 17, <br />2012. <br />Objector later appealed the Board's decision to the trial court. <br />FT then intervened in Objector's appeal and challenged Objector's stand- <br />ing (i.e., legal right to bring the appeal). FT moved to quash the appeal, <br />arguing that Objector lacked standing because he was not aggrieved by the <br />Board's decision, as required by Section 17.1 of the Philadelphia Home <br />Rule Charter, 351 Pa.Code §§ 1.1-100-12.12-503, adopted pursuant to the <br />© 2015 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />