The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has cleared the way for a subsidiary of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), to proceed with its medical center development despite some zoning ordinance violations.

In AUUE Inc. v. Borough of Jefferson Hills, the justices clarified the authority of zoning officers to issue use permits and the scope of review by the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB).

Background

AUUE, a nonprofit subsidiary of UPMC, sought zoning approval for a medical center on property located within the Borough of Jefferson Hills. The zoning officer issued a “use” permit, confirming that AUUE’s intended medical center use was allowed by right within the Office Park District (O-P District). Although the zoning application did not fully comply with all aspects of the zoning ordinance, the zoning officer’s review was limited to whether the proposed use was permitted by right in the district.

Residents of Jefferson Hills contested the permit, arguing that the zoning officer exceeded his authority and that the ZHB had the right to review all aspects of the application. The ZHB initially overturned the officer’s decision, citing several zoning violations. However, the Commonwealth Court reversed this decision, concluding that the ZHB had overstepped its bounds by delving into broader compliance issues that were outside the scope of the zoning officer’s authority.

Key Findings

The Supreme Court has now upheld the Commonwealth Court's interpretation, emphasizing that zoning officers have the authority to issue use permits even if the zoning application does not fully comply with all provisions of the ordinance. The court ruled that the ZHB was limited to reviewing whether the use was permitted by right, not whether the application met all other zoning requirements.

The decision reinforced the principle that zoning officers are empowered to issue permits for uses that conform to the zoning ordinance but are not responsible for ensuring full compliance with the entire development process at the permit stage. Any unresolved zoning issues, such as land development or subdivision compliance, must be addressed through other permitting processes.

Implications

This ruling clarifies that zoning officers’ decisions regarding the permissibility of land uses are separate from broader compliance issues, which may be addressed at later stages.

Developers are still required to follow all provisions of the zoning ordinance during the land development phase, but the decision underscores the procedural importance of distinguishing between use permits and construction or land development permits.

* Jack Auteri was a 2024 Summer Law Clerk at Fox Rothschild and is a JD/MBA Candidate at Temple University Beasley School of Law.