Don’t Get Quashed

Robert Roby learned the hard way not to miss an appeal deadline in Charles St. John, LLC v. Matamoras Borough Council v. Patel, 1284 CD 2022 (Pa Cmwlth. June 4, 2024). Robert Roby was the sole owner of Charles St. John, LLC that owned an apartment complex next to property that Patel was developing into a convenience store. Borough Council approved the project on January 3, 2022, and issued a written decision on January 11, 2022. Roby filed an appeal on April 6, 2022, well past the 30-day deadline to file an appeal. Both the Borough and Patel filed motions to quash the appeal. The trial court held two hearings that revealed that Roby had served on both the Borough’s Planning Commision and Zoning Hearing Board in the past, and was on the Planning Commission when Patel’s plan was filed. He had resigned from the Planning Commission to oppose the plan as a private citizen. Roby also attended Borough Council meetings to voice his opposition. Roby was in attendance at the meeting when the project was approved. The trial court quashed the appeal as untimely finding that Roby failed to establish any procedural defect to warrant an exception to the 30-day deadline to appeal.

Roby appealed to the Commonwealth Court arguing that the appeal period never began to run because (1) there was no evidence that the applicant or anyone else was served written notice of the decision; and (2) the written decision was invalid because it incorrectly identified the proposed use as a use by right rather than as a conditional use. The Commonwealth Court made it clear that the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code [“MPC”] imposes a 30-day deadline on all land use appeals, except in cases in which an unconstitutional deprivation of due process would result. The appeal period begins to run on the date when the governing body mails the written decision. As for service, there is nothing in Article V of the MPC that covers subdivision and land development that requires a governing body to serve a written decision on an objector. Since Roby was familiar with the land development process, attended meetings and was present when plan approval was voted on, he could not show that the 30-day deadline would result in an unconstitutional deprivation of due process. It is important to note that Roby could have submitted a Right-To-Know request to get a copy of the written decision. Also, keep in mind that the notice procedure is different for zoning hearing board decisions. An objector who attains party status in a zoning hearing is entitled to receive a copy of the written decision, as is anyone who makes a written request to receive a copy of the decision.