6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1980–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Baker v. Zoning Hearing Boardgreen2 sentences2021Baker, 367 A.2d at 821 (“The distinction with which we are here concerned is that between ‘persons aggrieved’ and a ‘party aggrieved[.]’ While any person aggrieved by a decision regarding a use of another’s land may appeal to a zoning hearing board, it is necessary, for an appeal to be brought in our courts, that the appellant had been a party before the zoning hearing board.”). 2015In both Larsen and Thompson , the courts relied on Baker v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of West Goshen Twp., 27 Pa.Cmwlth. 602 , 367 A.2d 819 (1976), in which the Commonwealth Court explained that “[w]hile any Person aggrieved by a decision regarding a use of another’s land may appeal to a zoning hearing board, it is necessary, for an appeal to be brought in our courts, that the appellant had been a party before the zoning hearing board,” and held that where a resident appeared as a party before the zoning hearing board to oppose a building permit without objection by the landowner, she had a right to | 3 | 5 |
Scott v. City of Philadelphia, Zoning Board of Adjustmentgreen1 sentence2021In both [In re] Larsen and Thompson, the courts relied on Baker . . . , in which the Commonwealth Court explained that “[w]hile any [p]erson aggrieved by a decision regarding a use of another’s land may appeal to a zoning hearing board, it is necessary, for an appeal to be brought in our courts, that the appellant had been a party before the zoning hearing board,” and held that where a resident appeared as a party before the zoning hearing board to oppose a building permit without objection by the landowner, she had a right to appeal to the trial court. 8 53 P.S. §§ 10101-11202. 9 In Scott, th | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lower Paxton Township v. Fieseler Neon Signs
green
2 sentences2020Stated another way, “the municipality has been expressly designated [as] a party before the zoning hearing board and . . . its being a party is not conditioned upon its entering an appearance before a zoning hearing board.” Lower Paxton Twp. v. Fieseler Neon Signs, 391 A.2d 720 , 723 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978). 2020Therefore, for purposes of standing under the MPC it would be inconsequential that a representative of the municipality failed to appear at hearing because “to impose the burden of requiring a municipality to participate in every hearing for a variance lest it waive its right to challenge the zoning board’s action would be unreasonable.” Id. at 723 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
South of South Street Neighborhood Ass'n v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment
green
1 sentence2015Objector additionally relied on South of South Street Neighborhood Ass’n v. Philadelphia Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 54 A.3d 115 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012). 7 In South of South Street, a Philadelphia case, the Commonwealth Court extended Thompson and Baker beyond their MPC context, without analysis of the distinction between the MPC and the Home Rule Charter of Philadelphia in terms of standing, to hold that because a *524 neighborhood association participated as a party before the Board without objection from the landowner, the association had standing to appeal the Board’s decision. | 1 | 2015–2015 |