Objectors cannot be ignored when securing permits and approvals in Pennsylvania and their involvement in the approval process requires applicants to pay attention to the details.

In Sterrett v. Borough of Churchill and Churchill Creek Project, the landowner filed conditional use and land development applications to redevelop an existing industrial facility into an e‑commerce distribution and logistics facility. After several hearings, the borough approved the applications subject to a number of conditions. An objector filed a land use appeal.

About five months after the appeal was filed, the landowner notified the borough in writing that it formally withdrew its applications. Despite this withdrawal, the objector refused to sign a consent order to withdraw the appeal. As a result, the landowner filed a motion to deem the objector’s appeal as moot.

The trial court granted the motion and objector appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing that:

• The trial court erred in dismissing the statutory appeal without considering any of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine.
• The borough’s approval of the applications were impermissible under the MPC and could be cited as precedent by future parties.
• The borough did not recognize its obligation under the Environmental Rights Amendment to the Pennsylvania constitution.

Generally, in Pennsylvania, a case will be dismissed as moot if there exists no actual case or controversy. An exception to mootness will be found under several factors.

After reviewing these factors, the Commonwealth Court determined that none of them exist and that this land use appeal should be dismissed as moot.

If you should have any questions concerning land use appeals, or how to handle objectors at hearings or filings/intervening into land use appeals, please contact Rob Gundlach at 215.918.3636 or RGundlach@FoxRothschild.com.