In an unreported case regarding zoning permits, the applicant wanted the City Solicitor disqualified because of an alleged conflict of interest due to the fact that he represented the City before the Zoning Board of Adjustment and then represented the same Board on appeal to the court of common pleas. The applicant argued that this justified reversal, but the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that a motion to disqualify counsel was properly denied because the counsel did not make an argument that “skewed the proceedings unfavorably against Applicant.” The Applicant had rented a building that had a permit as a meeting hall or clubhouse with the intention to operate a sex club, or “swingers” club, and did not obtain a permit for a sex club. The city then issued a cease and desist order pending an updated permit. The applicant applied for a new permit on two different occasions, having been denied for not disclosing the nature of the activity that would occur at the property. After negotiations, he was issued a permit for the operation of a private club for meetings and “lawful” activities “as permitted under the Philadelphia code.” The applicant filed an appeal to clarify the meaning of the permit and to disqualify the solicitor, but the court refused to issue an advisory opinion and dismissed the motion to disqualify. The court dismissed this motion in part because the board’s participation was technically unnecessary because the Department of Licenses and Inspection was a party to the appeal, and because the attorney simply presented the same information in both cases.
Northeast Entm’t, Inc. v. City of Phila. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 2011 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 252 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011).
