B.J. O'Neill v. The Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment
169 A.3d 1241
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- Land Endeavor applied (2003) to build multi-unit residential structures at 9838-44 Legion St., Philadelphia; proposal used a shared driveway (not a public street) for access.
- After prior litigation and a 2011 hearing, Land Endeavor presented Revised Plans in 2015 reducing units but keeping the shared driveway; plans had city agency stamps/approvals.
- O’Neill, the city councilman for the district, protested and asked the Board to require street-level construction as if it were a city street; the Board held the record open for information and later granted a variance “per the Revised Plans.”
- O’Neill appealed the Zoning Board decision to the trial court, arguing Zimmerman required a street-creation step before a variance and that Land Endeavor failed to prove hardship; the trial court affirmed the Board.
- On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, Land Endeavor argued O’Neill lacked standing; the Commonwealth Court reviewed statutory text and legislative-standing doctrine and concluded O’Neill lacked standing and quashed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an individual City Council member has standing under the Home Rule Act | O’Neill: Home Rule Act grants standing to City Council and individual members need not be aggrieved | Land Endeavor: Home Rule Act grants standing only to City Council as a body, not individual members | Held: No—statute’s plain language grants standing to City Council (the governing body), not to individual councilmembers |
| Whether the Philadelphia Zoning Code confers individual councilmember standing to appeal | O’Neill: Code §14‑303 incorporates Act and permits City Council to appeal, implying member standing | Land Endeavor: Code, like the Act, contemplates City Council as a body, not individuals | Held: No—Code grants appeal right to City Council as an entity, not to individual councilmembers |
| Whether O’Neill has legislative standing based on alleged usurpation of Council authority over streets | O’Neill: Board’s variance created a private street by end‑run, diminishing his legislative authority | Land Endeavor: Variance authorized a driveway, not a public street; no discernible infringement on legislative powers | Held: No—legislative standing requires a discernible, palpable infringement on legislative authority; none here because no public street was created |
| Whether Zimmerman controls and whether Land Endeavor proved hardship (merits) | O’Neill: Zimmerman requires applying to place a street on the City plan before a variance; Land Endeavor failed to show hardship | Land Endeavor: Zimmerman is factually distinguishable; Board’s variance supported by evidence | Held: Court did not reach merits—the appeal was quashed for lack of standing; trial court had found Zimmerman distinguishable and Board supported by substantial evidence, but appellate review was precluded by standing ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Zimmerman v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Philadelphia, 540 Pa. 13, 654 A.2d 1054 (1995) (addressed street‑frontage and procedural prerequisites involving city streets)
- Fumo v. City of Philadelphia, 601 Pa. 322, 972 A.2d 487 (2009) (describes limits of legislative standing and when legislators may sue)
- Spahn v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 602 Pa. 83, 977 A.2d 1132 (2009) (interpretation that Home Rule Act controls standing where conflict with local code)
- Americans for Fair Treatment, Inc. v. Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, 150 A.3d 528 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (standard of plenary review for standing as a question of law)