Whitehall Manor, Inc. v. Planning Commission
79 A.3d 720
Pa. Commw. Ct.2013Background
- Applicant proposed a large downtown development including an arena, hotel, offices and parking on 5.34 acres in Allentown.
- Whitehall Manor and Linden 515 (Objectors), affiliated entities, claimed standing due to leasehold and proximity interests.
- The City Planning Commission granted conditional approval of preliminary and final land development plans; trial court initially dismissed for lack of standing.
- Objectors argued lack of procedural safeguards, rushed review, and waivers that bypassed standard SALDO procedures.
- The trial court held Objectors lacked standing and that the Commission’s conditional approval contained no reversible error.
- On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court split: it reversed on standing, but affirmed the Commission’s conditional approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Objectors have standing to appeal? | Objectors are aggrieved due to leaseholds and proximity, and Harte's representation sufficed. | Standing requires procedural appearance; lack of explicit aggrievement record before the Commission undermines standing. | Objectors have standing to appeal. |
| Was the Commission’s simultaneous approval of preliminary and final plans proper? | SALDO requires bifurcated review; waivers to allow combined approval bypassed proper process. | SALDO permits waivers; concurrent approval is permissible if supported by record and law. | The court affirmed the Commission’s conditional approval despite recognizing waiver debate; no reversible error found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miravich v. Township of Exeter, 6 A.3d 1078 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (distinguishes standing in subdivision/land development appeals vs zoning appeals; procedural protections differ)
- Active Amusement Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 484 A.2d 697 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (objector interest may arise from non-fee simple ownership such as leases)
- William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1975) (standing requires a substantial, direct and immediate interest)
- Laughman v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Newberry Twp., 964 A.2d 19 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (proximity rule for standing in zoning matters)
- Spahn v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 602 Pa. 83 (Pa. 2009) (standing and aggrievement considerations in zoning contexts)
- Miravich, 6 A.3d 1078, 6 A.3d 1078 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (two aspects of standing: substantive (aggrievement) and procedural)
- Valenti v. Washington Twp., 737 A.2d 346 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (waivers and bifurcation considerations in SALDO contexts)
- Tioga Pres. Grp. v. Tioga Cnty. Planning Comm’n, 970 A.2d 1200 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (waivers where unique conditions justify flexibility)
- Broussard v. ZBOA of City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494 (Pa. 2006) (considerations for conditional approvals and timing)
- Morris v. S. Coventry Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 836 A.2d 1015 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (SALDO waivers and public interest considerations)