IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Borough of California :

:

v. : No. 622 C.D. 2015

: Argued: April 12, 2016

Zoning Hearing Board of :

California Borough and :

Jeffrey Maund and Eric Pagac :

:

Appeal of: Jeffrey Maund and :

Eric Pagac :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY JUDGE BROBSON FILED: June 14, 2016 

Appellants Jeffrey Maund and Eric Pagac (the landowners) appeal 

from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County (trial court), 

sustaining a land use appeal filed by the Borough of California (Borough). 

Through the land use appeal, the Borough challenges the landowners’ claim that a 

deemed approval of a purported variance application had occurred. In Maund v. 

Zoning Hearing Board of California Borough (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 206 C.D. 2015, 

filed June 8, 2016) (Maund), a companion case to this matter, we affirmed an order 

of the trial court sustaining preliminary objections to a complaint in mandamus

filed by the same landowners (Jeffrey Maund and Eric Pagac) against the Zoning 

Hearing Board of the Borough of California (ZHB). In the mandamus complaint, 

the landowners sought relief based on the same claimed deemed approval of a 
2

purported variance application that is the subject of the matter now before this

Court. In Maund, we held that the trial court did not err in sustaining preliminary 

objections to the landowners’ complaint in mandamus, because no deemed 

approval had occurred with regard to the purported variance application. Our

decision in Maund, therefore, renders moot the Borough’s land use appeal now 

before the Court, because, as a result of that decision, no deemed approval remains

to be challenged. Thus, we will dismiss the appeal as moot.

1

 

 P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

 

1

In Maund, the landowners contended that they filed a variance application with the 

Borough’s Zoning Officer (ZO), seeking a hearing before the ZHB, and that the ZHB’s failure to 

conduct a hearing resulted in a deemed approval under Section 908 of the Municipalities 

Planning Code (MPC), Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. § 10908. Section 

908(9) of the MPC provides, in pertinent part:

[W]here the [zoning hearing] board fails to commence, conduct or complete the 

required hearing as provided in subsection (1.2), the decision shall be deemed to 

have been rendered in favor of the applicant unless the applicant has agreed in 

writing or on the record to an extension of time. When a decision has been rendered 

in favor of the applicant because of the failure of the board to meet . . . as 

hereinabove provided, the board shall give public notice of said decision within ten 

days from the last day it could have met to render a decision . . . . If the board shall 

fail to provide such notice, the applicant may do so. Nothing in this subsection shall 

prejudice the right of any party opposing the application to appeal the decision to a 

court of competent jurisdiction. 
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Borough of California :

:

v. : No. 622 C.D. 2015

:

Zoning Hearing Board of :

California Borough and :

Jeffrey Maund and Eric Pagac :

:

Appeal of: Jeffrey Maund and :

Eric Pagac :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 14th day of June, 2016, the appeal of Jeffrey Maund 

and Eric Pagac is DISMISSED as MOOT.

 

 P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge