Levitt & Sons, Inc. v. Kane

Summary

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reviewed multiple appeals arising from Montgomery Township zoning amendments that rezoned land owned by Levitt & Sons and an adjacent approximately 500-acre area. The court held that the township supervisor's property ownership did not establish a disqualifying interest, but concluded that the protestants' direct zoning appeal from the Board of Supervisors was not authorized under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. The court dismissed the appeals by Levitt and Supervisor Daikeler and reversed the lower court's order sustaining the protestants' zoning appeal.

Holdings

1. Ownership of land in an area proposed for rezoning is not, standing alone, a disqualifying interest. The private interest must be immediate and direct.
2. Daikeler lacked standing to appeal personally because he had no personal legal interest in the court's order; the supervisors had been named as defendants in their official capacity.
3. The MPC, as then written, did not authorize a direct appeal to court from the township supervisors' action enacting a zoning change. The exclusive ordinary procedure for testing zoning regulations restricting a desired use was to proceed through the zoning hearing board and then to court, subject to expressly authorized exceptions.
4. Levitt could not appeal because it prevailed below and therefore was not an aggrieved party with standing to appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Supervisor Daikeler's ownership of a residence within the area rezoned by the December 1, 1969 ordinance created a disqualifying personal or pecuniary interest that invalidated his vote.
2. Whether Supervisor Daikeler had standing to appeal personally from the order sustaining the legality complaint against the December 1, 1969 ordinance.
3. Whether the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code authorized a direct appeal to the Court of Common Pleas from township supervisors' enactment of a zoning-map amendment.
4. Whether Levitt could appeal the dismissal of the MPC challenge to the July 7, 1969 ordinance despite having prevailed below.

Disposition

other