Armstead v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
2015 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 178
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Franklin Institute sought a variance to convert an existing double‑sided accessory sign (approx. 6x10 ft per face) on its 20th/Winter Street property from vinyl to a digital display; no change to sign size, height, orientation, or structure was proposed.
- Philadelphia Department of Licenses & Inspections (L&I) denied the permit, finding the conversion would create a flashing/intermittent illuminated sign under Benjamin Franklin Parkway special controls; Franklin Institute appealed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA).
- At the ZBA hearing the Institute argued a hardship (historic building constraints and mission to educate) and offered operational restrictions (brightness limits, auto‑dimming, ≥20s message duration, ≤0.25s change time, no in‑message movement). Experts testified conversion posed no safety or adverse effects; neighborhood witnesses opposed the sign but most could not see it from their homes.
- The ZBA granted the variance (4–1), concluding an unnecessary hardship was shown and public health/safety/welfare would not be adversely affected.
- Objectors (nine individuals and Scenic Philadelphia) appealed to the Court of Common Pleas; the trial court quashed the appeal for lack of standing. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, deciding standing dispositive and not reaching the variance merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Objectors) | Defendant's Argument (Franklin Institute / L&I) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do individual neighbors have standing to appeal the ZBA decision? | Residents live within ~1–3 blocks, use the park nearby and would be affected by illumination; some can view the sign area. | Objectors are not adjoining or in immediate vicinity and have only generalized/street‑use complaints; no particularized injury shown. | No — under William Penn/Spahn/SCRUB standards, the individuals failed to show a substantial, direct, immediate interest (no particularized harm or sufficient proximity). |
| Does Scenic Philadelphia (an organization) have organizational standing? | Organization’s mission and members’ proximity (1–3 blocks) give it standing; it represents members concerned with visual blight and illegal billboards. | Organizational purpose alone is insufficient; representative standing requires at least one aggrieved member. | No — organization’s mission is no greater than the public interest; its members did not establish individual standing, so organizational standing fails. |
| Can Objectors invoke taxpayer / private‑attorney‑general standing to appeal under Sprague/Rizzo? | Taxpayers have an interest in legality of government action; without taxpayer standing enforcement gaps will leave these signs unchallenged. | Section 17.1 of the Home Rule Act expressly excludes city taxpayers (not detrimentally harmed) from being ‘‘aggrieved’’; Spahn upheld that provision. | No — taxpayer exception is foreclosed by §17.1 (Home Rule Act) and Spahn; Sprague/Rizzo are distinguishable. |
| Was the ZBA’s variance grant reviewed on the merits? | Objectors contended the variance was improper and L&I erred in requiring a variance. | Institute argued conversion should be permitted as‑of‑right; ZBA found hardship and imposed restrictions. | Not reached — because Objectors lack standing the court affirmed dismissal without deciding whether the ZBA abused its discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spahn v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 977 A.2d 1132 (Pa. 2009) (clarifies aggrieved‑person standing in zoning appeals and upholds §17.1 Home Rule Act exclusion of taxpayers)
- William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1975) (announces substantial, direct, immediate test for standing in zoning matters)
- Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adjustment of City of Philadelphia, 951 A.2d 398 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (proximity/particular harm required for individual standing; organizational standing limits)
- Society Hill Civic Ass'n v. Philadelphia Bd. of License & Inspection Review, 905 A.2d 579 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (organizational standing where organization had active, concrete involvement and dues‑paying members affected)
- Pittsburgh Trust for Cultural Resources v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 604 A.2d 298 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (organization had standing based on close geographic and financial ties to affected area)
- Sprague v. Casey, 550 A.2d 184 (Pa. 1988) (taxpayer/private‑attorney‑general standing exception in distinct contexts)
- Rizzo v. City of Philadelphia, 582 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (taxpayer standing recognized in limited circumstances)