This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania

Tag: standing

Variance to Redevelop Mostly Vacant, Dilapidated Warehouse Affirmed Despite Property Owner Failing to Offer Evidence of Equitable Ownership at Hearing

In this variance case out of Philadelphia, an objecting neighbor appealed the grant of a use variance by the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment (“ZBA”) to redevelop a partially vacant and underutilized former industrial building into a mixed use multi-family residential building.  Following an affirmance by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Objector appealed to Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court condensed the issues raised on appeal down to whether the applicant, Hightop Brown, LLC, had standing, and whether there was sufficient evidence to grant the requested variance.  The Commonwealth Court affirmed ZBA’s decision.

Continue reading

Philadelphia City Councilman Lacked Standing to Individually Challenge Grant of Variance

This appeal required the Commonwealth Court to determine if a Philadelphia City Council member had standing to challenge the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment’s (the Board) grant of a variance to create a private driveway.  More specifically, the court had to decide whether or not the First Class City Home Rule Act (the HRA), the Philadelphia Zoning Code (the Code), or the challenger’s status as a council member granted him standing.  The court held that the plain language of the HRA and the Code grants standing to the city council only as a single government body, and it further held that there was no “legislative standing” because the city council’s authority to regulate public streets was not impaired by the granting of this particular variance.

Continue reading

Board of Supervisors Can Appeal Reversal of Conditional Use Denial to Commonwealth Court

This case required the Commonwealth Court to determine whether the Charlestown Township Board of Supervisors (the Board) had standing to appeal a trial court’s order that reversed the Board’s decision to deny a conditional use application.  In holding that the Board did have standing to appeal, the court relied on important differences between boards of supervisors and zoning hearing boards.

Continue reading

Procedural Challenges to Zoning Ordinances do Not Require Showing of Prejudice to Bring Challenge

MetroDev V, LP (“Landowner”) owns property (the “Property”) in an area where the boundary lines of the Township of Exeter (the “Township”), and two surrounding municipalities meet. Prior to July 25, 2005, the Property was zoned low density residential; however, on July 25, 2005 the Township rezoned the Property to suburban residential. The changed classification reduced the number of permitted residential lots from 30 to 7. In August 2005, Landowner filed a validity challenge of the new ordinance with the Township’s Zoning Hearing Board (“ZHB”) alleging procedural irregularities in its adoption. In September 2005, Landowners filed a preliminary subdivision plan for a residential development comprising 34 residential lots, 26 of which were located in the Township. The plan was based on a sketch plan that had previously been submitted under the old ordinance. Certain waivers were sought from the Township’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (“SALDO”). On September 26, 2005, the Township and Landowner entered into a settlement agreement whereby Landowner withdrew its procedural validity challenge in exchange for the Township agreeing to review and potentially approve the land development plan under the terms of the old zoning ordinance. In July 2008, the Township approved Landowner’s plan, subject to certain conditions. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Township had reviewed the plan under the old ordinance. Adjacent property owners (“Objectors”) filed a land use appeal with the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, which was dismissed for lack of standing because Objectors had not appeared in the earlier proceedings.

Continue reading

City Has Standing to Bring FHA Suit Based on Discriminatory Lending Practices by Banks, Remands on Proximate Cause Issue

In this Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) claim out of Florida, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a municipality has standing to bring a claim under the FHA, and whether there is a sufficient causal link between predatory lending practices within minority communities and the negative effects on municipalities that result in those communities due to high foreclosure rates. The Court held that municipalities do have standing to bring FHA claims, but remanded to the lower courts to decide the issue of proximate cause.

Continue reading

Third Circuit Holds Economic Harm to Shopping Center Development Insufficient to Trigger NEPA Protection

This dispute involves a challenge to plans by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) to improve State Route 222. The Third Circuit was asked to determine whether an economic injury alone falls within the “zone of interests” protected by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling and dismissed the case, holding that economic injury alone does not support standing under NEPA. The court also affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny these plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint because the allegations they sought to add still failed to establish standing.

Continue reading

Standing Does Not Expire With Term

The Commonwealth Court concluded this week that standing to challenge an audit of records created during a treasurer’s time in office does not expire with his or her term.  The court reversed an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County, which held a former treasurer lacked standing to appeal the Township’s annual audit/financial report, and concluded that an officer whose performance and records are reviewed by an auditor has standing under § 909 of the Second Class Township Code.

Continue reading