Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 10, 2016 Volume 10 Issue 15 permit to CCO: Scenic Philadelphia ("Scenic"), Tacony Academy Charter School a/k/a Frankford Valley Foundation for Literacy ("School"), Tacony Civic Association ("Tacony"), and Wissonorning Civic Association ("Wissonoming") (together, "Opponents"). The Op- ponents argued that the issuance of the permit to CCO was in error because the billboard did not meet spacing requirements that prohibited outdoor advertising signs within a certain distance of other structures. They argued that CCO was required to obtain a dimensional variance for the billboard. The City's Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") concluded that the Opponents all lacked standing (i.e., the legal right) to challenge the is- suance of the permit to CCO.The ZBA also concluded that the billboard was authorized and that the permit sought by CCO should be issued as of right. The Opponents appealed. The trial court agreed that the Opponents lacked standing to bring the zoning challenge. More specifically,the trial court determined that: (1) School, although it may have been directly affected by the billboard, only offered factual testimony and did not express an objection to the permit; (2) Wissonoming and Tacony failed to demonstrate, with specific facts,that they were aggrieved by the billboard conversion; and (3) Scenic failed to show that any of its members lived in an area that was directly affected by the billboard or proved the necessary require- ments for standing under a private attorney general theory (i.e., lawsuit brought by a private attorney to benefit the public interest, not just the j plaintiff). The trial court further determined that the ZBA did not err in approving the billboard format change. The Opponents again appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania also concluded that the Opponents lacked standing to challenge the issuance of the permit to CCO, and that, in any case,the permit was properly issued. The court explained that "a zoning decision in Philadelphia may be appealed by the governing body and`any aggrieved person.' "Since the (( Opponents were not a governing body, they had to be "aggrieved" in 11 order to appeal the issuance of the permit to CCO. To be "aggrieved," (( they had to show that they had "a substantial, direct and immediate tl interest in the claim sought to be litigated."In other words, they had to show that the issuance of the permit would harm an interest they had that was discernable from the "abstract interest all citizens have in the outcome of the proceedings." School had claimed that it had standing based on the proximity of its property to the billboard. Tacony and Wissonoming had claimed stand- ing based on the proximity to the geographic boundaries of their L 2016 Thomson Reuters 7 h l