Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2016

Home

August 10, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 15 Zoning Bulletin In so holding,the court acknowledged that,as an abutter to the Locus, �. Picard was presumed to be a "person aggrieved," and thus entitled to standing to challenge the zoning determination.However,the court also found that 3333,Inc. could,and did,rebut that presumption by showing that Picard's claims of aggrievement that the proposed construction would interfere with his private easement rights to access the pond were not within the interests protected by the applicable zoning scheme." Picard had not claimed that Nonuandin's construction of the residence on the Locus would have deleterious effects to the neighborhood such as with regard to density, traffic,parking availability, or noise. Nor had Picard claimed aggrievement based on any injury related to the merits of his zoning challenge (i.e., the Locus' status as a grandfathered nonconforming lot). Picard had only claimed injury with regard to interference with his access to the pond, and the court found that such claims of injury were "speculative and unsubstantiated."Accordingly, the court concluded that Picard failed to show that he would suffer "more than minimal or slightly appreciable harm." As such, the court concluded that Picard lacked standing to bring the zoning challenge. See also: 81 Spooner Road, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brookline, 461 Mass. 692, 964 N.E.2d 318 (2012). i++ Standing Organizations Challenge City's Grant of Permit k to Convert Billboard Format Parties dispute whether organizations have legal standing to challenge the zoning action Citation: Scenic Philadelphia v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Philadelphia, 2016 WL 3127363 (Pa. Conn iv. Ct. 2016) PENNSYLVANIA (06/03/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether various organizational entities had standing to challenge the is- suance of a permit for a billboard. it The Background/Facts: Clean Channel Outdoor, Inc. ("CCO") owned a rooftop billboard in the City of Philadelphia (the "City"). The billboard was a lawful use. In February 2013, CCO asked the City for a permit to convert the billboard from a static to a digital format. The City's Department of Licenses and Inspections ("L & I") detennined that the digital conversions were permitted as of right under the City's Zoning and Planning Code (the "Zoning Code"), and issued CCO the permit. i Thereafter, the following organizations appealed the grant of the r; : 6 2016 Thomson Reuters E I