First Avenue Partners, a PA limited partnership v. The City of Pittsburgh Planning Commission
151 A.3d 715
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Forza sought Planning Commission approval in 2009 for a seven‑story hotel on property in Pittsburgh; the Commission orally approved the 2009 Project Development Plan at a public meeting but issued no written decision.
- Forza submitted a revised 2013 Project Development Plan; the Commission approved it orally in 2014, again with no written decision.
- The trial court found procedural defects with the 2013 approval, remanded for an evidentiary hearing and written findings, and thereafter Forza withdrew the 2013 application and asked the City to re‑issue a zoning voucher relying on the 2009 approval.
- The City’s Planning Department issued a zoning voucher for the 2009 application in June 2015; objecting neighbors (Objectors) appealed to the trial court in July 2015.
- The trial court quashed the appeal as untimely, reasoning the 30‑day appeal period began with the Planning Commission’s oral 2011 approval. Objectors appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an oral Planning Commission approval (without a written adjudication) starts the 30‑day appeal period under the Local Agency Law/Zoning Code | Objectors: No written adjudication was issued, so no order was "entered" and the 30‑day appeal period never began; therefore their 2015 appeal is timely | City/Forza: Oral approval and formal vote at the 2011 meeting commenced the 30‑day appeal period (relying on Peterson) | Court reversed trial court: under Narberth, a written adjudication (mailed/served) is the triggering event; absent a written decision, the appeal period did not commence, so Objectors’ appeal was not untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Vitti v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 710 A.2d 653 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (distinguishes City governance under Zoning Code rather than MPC)
- Peterson v. Amity Township Board of Supervisors, 804 A.2d 723 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (held oral municipal approval can trigger appeal period where no written decision is issued)
- Narberth Borough v. Lower Merion Township, 915 A.2d 626 (Pa. 2007) (controls: 30‑day appeal period runs from mailing/serving of written decision; oral approvals alone are not final)
- William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1975) (defines "aggrieved" party standard for land‑use appeals)
- Relosky v. Sacco, 523 A.2d 1112 (Pa. 1987) (confirms requirement that final orders of zoning bodies be reduced to writing)