Pheasant Run Civic Organization v. Board of Commissioners

430 A.2d 1231, 60 Pa. Commw. 216, 1981 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1592
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJune 25, 1981
DocketAppeal, No. 1063 C.D. 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 430 A.2d 1231 (Pheasant Run Civic Organization v. Board of Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pheasant Run Civic Organization v. Board of Commissioners, 430 A.2d 1231, 60 Pa. Commw. 216, 1981 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1592 (Pa. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Craig,

Pheasant Bun Civic Organization and several individuals (objectors) appeal an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County which affirmed a decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of Penn Township (board) which the objectors have opposed.

[218]*218In early 1979, appellee Leybold-Heraeus Vacuum Products, Inc. (landowner) filed a zoning amendment petition, requesting the rezoning of a 25.07 acre tract of land it owned from M-l (Light Industrial) to M-2 (Heavy Industrial). The request did not specify any proposed use for the property, but only proposed use of tbe tract for “permitted uses under tbe M-2 zoning classification. ’ ’

After several bearings, tbe Penn Township Board of Commissioners (commissioners) adopted tbe requested zoning ordinance amendment on March 12, 1979. Tbe objectors filed an appeal to tbe board on April 10, alleging that tbe amendment was substantively1 invalid; no attack upon tbe enactment procedure was raised. In a letter attached to tbe appeal, tbe objectors ’ counsel specified that tbe appeal was taken pursuant to Section 1005 of tbe Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), 53 P.S. §11005,2 and requested a bearing.

Section 1005, titled “Validity of ordinance; substantive questions; appeals by person aggrieved” states in part:

[219]*219Persons aggrieved by a nse or development permitted on the land of another by an ordinance or map or any provision thereof who desire to challenge its validity on substantive grounds shall first submit their challenge to the zoning hearing board for a report thereon under Section 910. . . .

The board upheld the commissioners’ adoption of the ordinance in its decision of August 1,1979.

The objectors’ appeal to common pleas court, also taken under Section 1005, followed. After careful consideration of all the objectors’ challenges, the court based its decision to dismiss the appeal on its conclusion that the board had not committed an abuse of discretion or an error of law in affirming the commissioners ’ action.

The current appeal rests on the same grounds as those advanced below. However, because we conclude that the procedure followed by the objectors was jurisdictionally infirm, we must dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits.

When the board of commissioners, as a governing body, acted upon the rezoning application, it was acting in its legislative capacity. McCandless Township v. Beho Development Corp., 16 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 448, 452, 332 A.2d 848, 851 (1975). Thus, because courts have no power, to interfere with that strictly legislative process, Greensburg Planning Commission v. Cabin Hill, Inc., 19 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 324, 339 A.2d 594 (1975), the commissioners’ determination to grant or deny the application is not subject to direct judicial review. See Ryan, Pennsylvania Zoning Law and Practice §9.6.1 (1979).

A necessary precondition to the substantive challenge of an ordinance is the existence of a specific use to which the property is sought to be developed; an objector may not bring a substantive validity chai[220]*220lenge against an ordinance amendment -where the landowner has not applied for a specific nse and the zoning officer has not issued a use or occupancy permit for the property. Northampton Residents Association v. Northampton Township Board of Supervisors, 14 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 515, 322 A.2d 787 (1974); Gerstley v. Cheltenham Township Commissioners, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 409, 299 A.2d 657 (1973).

The terms of Section 1005 of the MPC support the conclusion stated; the “person” attempting the challenge must be “aggrieved by a use or development permitted on the land of another....”

Where, as here, there is no application for a specific use and no use or occupancy permits are issued under the amendment before the date of the objectors ’ appeal, the appeal from the commissioners’ action granting the rezoning application is ineffective.3 Neither the board, the court below nor this court have jurisdiction because there is no case or controversy ripe for judicial intervention. Gerstley, supra.

Accordingly, the appeal is quashed.4

Order

And Now, June 25,1981, the appeal is quashed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

X.F. Lin v. The Board of Revision of Taxes of The City of Philadelphia
137 A.3d 637 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2016)
Stuckley v. Zoning Hearing Board
79 A.3d 510 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2013)
Rendell v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission
983 A.2d 708 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2009)
Ludders v. Board of Supervisors
83 Pa. D. & C.4th 137 (Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, 2007)
Vanderlin v. City Council of Williamsport
821 A.2d 1287 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2003)
Estate of Merriam v. Philadelphia Historical Commission
777 A.2d 1212 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2001)
East Lampeter Township v. County of Lancaster
744 A.2d 359 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2000)
Bahor v. City of Pittsburgh
631 A.2d 731 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1993)
Sharp v. Zoning Hearing Board
628 A.2d 1223 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1993)
Teamsters Local 115 v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
619 A.2d 382 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1992)
Association of Concerned Citizens v. Butler Township Board of Supervisors
580 A.2d 470 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1990)
City of Johnstown v. Varnish
567 A.2d 1115 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1989)
First Seneca Bank v. Greenville Distributing Co.
533 A.2d 157 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)
In re Appeal from Fayette County Ordinance No. 83-2
509 A.2d 1342 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1986)
Utility Constructors, Inc. v. Sadsbury Township Supervisors
32 Pa. D. & C.3d 151 (Crawford County Court of Common Pleas, 1984)
State v. Williams
459 A.2d 641 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
430 A.2d 1231, 60 Pa. Commw. 216, 1981 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pheasant-run-civic-organization-v-board-of-commissioners-pacommwct-1981.