Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/03/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue.7 munications tower facility. The Township Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") permitted communications towers in an R-1 zoning district by special exception, as long as the special exception ap- plicant established criteria set forth in the Ordinance. In January 2016, SBA Towers and Pittsburgh SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon")) filed an application for a special exception to construct a 150-foot monopole com- munications tower on the Property. Ultimately, the Township's Zon- ing Hearing Board (the "ZHB") denied the special exception application. SBA Towers appealed the ZHB's decision to the Court of Com- mon Pleas. The Court of Common Pleas reversed the ZHB's deci- sion, concluding that substantial evidence did not support the ZHB's findings on various issues. Thereafter, Dr. Chris and Jill Bellicini, James and Megan McIn- tosh, Edward and Kathy Sobota, and Christopher and Lynn Schmauch (collectively, the "Appellants") appealed the Court of Common Pleas' order. Among other things, the Appellants argued that SBA Towers lacked standing to file the special exception ap- plication with the ZHB. Specifically, the Appellants argued that SBA Towers was not a "landowner," as defined under Section 107 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code ("MPC"), and thus did not have standing to file zoning applications for the Property. Section 107 of the MPC defines "applicant" as "a landowner or developer . . . who has filed an application for development." It defines "landowner" as "the legal or beneficial owner or owners of land including the holder of an option or contract to purchase[,] . . . a lessee if he is authorized under the lease to exercise the rights of the landowner, or other person having a proprietary interest in land." In response, SBA Towers (and Verizon, which had been allowed to intervene in the appeal) argued that SBA Towers was an "ap- plicant" under Section 107 of the MPC that had standing to file the special exception application because it was the holder of an option contract that was authorized to exercise the rights of the landowner (here, Columbus). SBA Towers and Verizon argued further that the Option Agreement in this case "explicitly grant[ed] [SBA Towers] permission to exercise the rights of the landowner" because SBA Towers was authorized to obtain the necessary governmental ap- provals for the construction of the proposed communications tower. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Common Pleas reversed (on other grounds). The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania concluded that SBA © 2018 Thomson Reuters 7