Holding the cards

The Pennsylvania legislature has quietly passed, and Gov. Rendell signed, a bill that impacts community groups throughout Philadelphia. An 11th-hour amendment added to House Bill 1954 last month effectively eliminates the ability of community advocacy groups to challenge zoning decisions in court.

Under the new law, only residents living within 500 feet of a proposed project will have the legal right to appeal decisions of the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment. This means that advocacy groups such as the Chestnut Hill Community Association, West Mount Airy Neighbors and the anti-billboard group the Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight (SCRUB) cannot sue on behalf of residents if the ZBA, say, approves putting a billboard at the corner of Germantown Avenue and Allens Lane, or allows for expansion into local parkland similar to that planned by the Fox Chase Cancer Center. In addition, many of the neighbors who were intimately involved in recent negotiations over construction at Springside School or the Woodmere Art Museum would find themselves with no standing were these matters to enter the courts.

The change brings Philadelphia's zoning appeals law into line with the rest of the state, but was not done in the interest of consistency. The provision was inserted at the behest of the billboard lobby, who was tired of losing court cases brought by SCRUB on behalf of residents. As a result, the state has nullified a provision of the city's charter that allows any taxpayer to go to court over a zoning matter.

As dire as this may sound, it's important to keep this legislation in perspective. The Chestnut Hill Community Association has never appealed a Philadelphia Zoning Board decision in court, choosing to exert its influence before rulings are made via the existing ZBA process. West Mount Airy Neighbors has also never mounted a legal appeal -- and has won every zoning fight it has waged in recent years, from Cecilian Academy to the Germantown Avenue Acme. West Mount Airy Neighbors president Marc Stier chalks that success up in part to the integrity of ZBA chairman David Auspitz, who he characterizes as "someone concerned about the communities and the neighborhoods in the city."

"But," Stier adds, "who's going to come after him?" The amount of power invested in the ZBA, which is not legally obligated to grant the demands of community groups and allows zoning appeals only as a "courtesy," is what worries some community activists. The loss of the court appeal option takes away an important "card" held by community groups like the CHCA and WMAN, because knowledge that an appeal could be filed in the courts can influence whether the ZBA decides to grant a variance that it knows will be unpopular with many residents.

Granted, in Chestnut Hill it would not be hard to find a sufficient number of people living within 500 feet of any project that could be rallied to appeal an egregious zoning decision. In other words, its unlikely that billboards will be going up in front of Border's, or local parkland swallowed up by a space-starved institution. It remains to be seen, however, if the loss of this "card" in the hands of the CHCA will embolden the ZBA to grant more variances (or withhold them) in opposition to the desires of the community at-large.

James Sturdivant