In a recent zoning case, captioned as Pascal and Gates v. City of Pittsburgh Zoning Board of Adjustment (“ZBA”), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the decision of the ZBA to grant variances from setback and height requirements to the Applicant relating to an existing fence and gate around an area in which the Applicant has an easement interest. The Objectors, Pascal and Gates, reside approximately two blocks from the subject property and attended the ZBA hearing in opposition to the requested relief. Notwithstanding this neighbor opposition, and in part because the Objectors could not identify any legitimate reasons for their objections, the ZBA granted the zoning relief and the trial court affirmed the decision. On appeal, the Applicant argued that the Objectors lacked standing to appeal the ZBA’s decision as there was no evidence of them being “aggrieved” by the granting of the variance. In reviewing the argument, the Commonwealth Court noted the following:

• The “aggrieved party standing” standard for appealing local agency adjudications requires (1) the party aggrieved to have a direct interest in such adjudication, and that such interest be substantial, and (2) a showing of harm to that direct substantial interest by the local agencies’ decision.
• A substantial interest is one in which there is some discernable adverse effect to some interest other than the abstract interest of all citizens in having to comply with the law.
• To be a direct interest, the party must show that the matter complained of caused harm to the party’s interest.

In reviewing these requirements, the Commonwealth Court noted that “while the proximity between a party’s property interest and the property at issue may be sufficient to establish an adverse impact, owning property within a long one and a half blocks to three blocks is insufficient to provide standing where there is no assertion of particular harm.”

In summary, the Commonwealth Court noted that there was nothing in the record to support a finding that the location of the Objectors’ properties is sufficient to confer standing and that the Objectors’ did not establish that they will suffer a particular harm as a result of the ZBA’s decision. Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court’s decision because there is no evidence that Objectors’ were “affected or aggrieved” by the grant of the variance, and, therefore, they lacked standing to appeal the ZBA’s decision.

A lesson from this case is to take exception at a zoning hearing if the objectors are not truly “affected” by the decision and are there to be “obstructionists” to an applicant’s request for zoning relief. These type of objections occur more and more with competitors attending zoning hearings, either directly or through third parties, to oppose zoning relief in attempt to prevent competition.

For further information on this case, or the ability to obtain zoning and land use approvals, please contact Rob Gundlach at 215.918.3636 or rgundlach@Foxrothschild.com.