Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin December 10, 2015 1 Volume 0 I Issue 23 Thus, explained the court, "[o]nce an appeal is properly brought before the Board, as it was by FT as appellant from the decision of the Department . . . , no other person who appears at the zoning hearing is required to have standing." Rather, "anyone is free to attend and address the Board at its hearings." Thus, "[i]n stark contrast to the MPC, attending and participating at the hearing does not confer standing to appeal to the trial court or render an individual `necessarily aggrieved' to appeal an adverse decision." Instead, said the court, the Home Rule Act defines who may appeal from the Board to the trial court. Specifically, section 17.1 of the Home Rule Act, 53 P.S. § 13131.1, provides standing in appeals from zoning matters in Philadelphia, as a city of the first class, to "any aggrieved person"—which the court had understood and defined as a person who could "show an interest that is substantial, direct, and immediate." Thus, here, the court concluded that to appeal from the City's Board to the trial court, an appellant must demonstrate in the trial court, if challenged, that he or she is an "aggrieved person." The court remanded the. matter to the Commonwealth Court to consider the substantive issue of whether Objector had standing as "an aggrieved person" as required under section 17.1 of the Home Rule Act, which governed zoning appeals in the City. (Al- though the trial court had held that Objector was not aggrieved, the Com- monwealth Court had not considered that conclusion based on its finding of waiver. Finding no waiver, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania remanded the matter to the CommonWealth Court for resolution of Objector's appeal from the trial court's determination that he was not aggrieved.) See also: Spahn v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 602 Pa, 83, 977 A.2d 1132 (2009). See also: Wm. Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 464 Pa. 168, 346 A.2d 269 (1975). Case Note: In deciding the matter, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania disapproved of South of South Street Neighborhood Ass 'n v. Philadelphia Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 54 A.3d 115 (Pa. Comm. Ct. 2012), appeal granted in part, 621 Pa. 20, 73 A.3d 525 (2013) and appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 626 Pa. 432, 97 A.3d 1200 (2014). The court in South of South Street had held that challenges to standing are waived unless presented to the Board. That holding, noted the court here, was premised upon a case that was decided under the MPC, which, as noted, is not applicable in the City of Philadelphia. © 2015 Thomson Reuters 11