Laserfiche WebLink
August 10, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 15 Zoning Bulletin <br /> properties. Scenic had asserted standing through its organizational k <br /> purpose of"promot[ing] quality in commercial development in the <br /> area," as well as under a private attorney general theory. <br /> The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania found that none of the <br /> Opponents had standing. The court found that School lacked standing <br /> because, although it was present at the ZBA hearings, it failed to chal- <br /> lenge or object to the permit at the hearings. The court found that <br /> Tacony and Wissonoming lacked standing because they had failed to <br /> set forth specific facts showing any harm in interest to their individual <br /> members;they had merely stated that their boards opposed the billboard <br /> format conversion.The court found that Scenic lacked standing because <br /> "[a]s laudable as[its organizational purpose]may be, [that]interest was <br /> no different than `the abstract interest that all citizens have' in ensuring <br /> obedience to zoning laws."Moreover, Scenic could not establish stand- <br /> ing under a private attorney general theory because taxpayer appeals <br /> form ZBA decisions are precluded, said the court. <br /> In summary, the court concluded that although an organization may <br /> have standing"as a representative of its members who are suffering im- <br /> mediate or imminent injury because of the disputed action," here Sce- <br /> nic,Wissonoming, and Tacony failed to allege a significant investment <br /> in the area near the billboard or present any evidence of injury to their <br /> members. They could not, said the court, establish standing based <br /> merely on their organizational purpose. And, again, School lacked <br /> standing because it failed to state any objection to the billboard's format <br /> change. <br /> G,. <br /> In any case, concluded the court,the CCO did not, as the Opponents <br /> had claimed, require a variance for the format change. The permit was <br /> properly issued to CCO for the format change, concluded the court. ` <br /> See also: 4rinstead v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Philadel- j <br /> phia, 115 A.3d 390 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015), appeal denied, 129,4.3d <br /> 1244 (Pa. 2015) (en banc). j <br /> i <br /> I <br /> 8 @ 2016 Thomson Reuters <br />