|
|
A property owner’s concerns about the impact of future development on his land were too remote to establish standing to challenge the validity of a zoning ordinance.
Alexander v. Zoning Hearing Board of Mount Joy Township, (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008).
Objector filed an application for a hearing with the Township’s zoning hearing board challenging the Zoning Ordinance, Township Code and approval of plans for a proposed residential development adjacent to his home. The board concluded that Objector lacked standing because he did not show that there was any current or threatened future harm to his property. The board also rejected all of Objector’s arguments including his argument that the board had not complied with hearing notice provisions. The trial court affirmed the board’s findings.
Objector appealed to the Commonwealth Court arguing that he did, in fact, have standing and that the board failed to review evidence that Objector had offered. Section 916.1 of the MPC sets forth who has standing to bring a challenge to the validity of an ordinance: (a) a landowner who desires to change the validity of an ordinance because it prohibits or restricts the use of the development of land in which he has an interest or (b) persons aggrieved by a use or development permitted on the land of another.
Here, Objector did not have standing under section (a) above because he did not complain about the effect of the ordinance on the use of his land. In order to show that one has standing under section (b), a person must show that “it has a substantial, direct, and immediate interest in the subject of the litigation that is not remote.” The Commonwealth Court concluded that although Objector was concerned with the impact that future development would have on his property, these concerns were too speculative to establish standing.
DISCLAIMER:
This site is designed to provide summary review of selected Pennsylvania and Federal Court decisions related to land use and land use controls. The information contained herein, although produced by professionals, is not intended to render any legal service. Nor should the materials herein be utilized as a substitute for professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the service of an attorney or other professional should be sought. DCED makes no representations, warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information provided herein.
Back to Top |
