Appeal of Gilden

• Decision Date: 13 March 1962
• Citation: 406 Pa. 484,178 A.2d 562
• Parties: Appeal of Dr. Charles T. GILDEN, Jr., and Agnes W. Gilden, his wife, and Main Line Remedial Education Center from the Order of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Tredyffrin, Chester County, Pennsylvania. Appeal of Julio C. DAVILA, June L. Davila and the Great Valley Association.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 562

178 A.2d 562

406 Pa. 484

Appeal of Dr. Charles T. GILDEN, Jr., and Agnes W. Gilden,

his wife, and Main Line Remedial Education Center from the

Order of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of

Tredyffrin, Chester County, Pennsylvania.

Appeal of Julio C. DAVILA, June L. Davila and the Great

Valley Association.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 13, 1962.

Reilly, Fogwell & Lentz, Robert W. Lentz, West Chester, Lester J. Schaffer, Philadelphia, for appellants.

J. Barton Rettew, Jr., Paoli, Edward Rocap, Media, John B. H. Carter, Philadelphia, Rocap & Rocap, Media, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Holbrook M. Bunting, Jr., Edward W. Madeira, Jr., Philadelphia, of counsel, for appellees.

Before BELL, C. J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, and O'BRIEN, JJ.

MUSMANNO, Justice.

The Main Line Remedial Education Center, which at present operates a school for 'handicapped and exceptional children' in Williston Township, Chester County, has planned to re-situate in Tredyffrin Township, Chester County, where it will have more opportunities and greater facilities for the operation of its establishment. It accordingly has entered into a contract with Dr. and Mrs. Charles T. Gilden to purchase in Tredyffrin Township a tract of land of 4.167 acres on which there stands a large building excellently suited for its purposes, it having been originally built as a school. It is sturdily constructed of stone with walls two feet thick and is screened from the general neighborhood by foliage which imparts to it isolation and attractiveness.

Since the property lies in an area zoned as R-1/2 Residence it comes within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Ordinance of the Township which reads, inter alia:

'Section 251. USE REGULATIONS. A building may be erected, altered or used, and a lot may be used or occupied for any of the following purposes, and for no other:

* * *

* * *

'3. When authorized as a special exception by the Board of Adjustment, Education (including dormitory of an educational institution), religious or philanthropic use, however, a hospital, sanitarium, correctional or penal institution shall not be permitted.'

The owners and the purchasers of the land applied for a special exception under this ordinance. The Board of Adjustment, after a hearing, denied the application and filed the following cursory Opinion in explanation of its decision:

'After due consideration of all of the testimony in Appeal No. 110, the Board is of the opinion that the applicant is not an educational institution within the meaning of the Zoning Ordinance; rather, it is more akin a to a hospital sanitarium or correctional institution, which uses are expressly prohibited by Section 251(3) of the Tredyffrin Township Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, it is the decision of the Board of Adjustment on the 13th day of June, 1960, that the application for a special exception be denied.'

The Gildens and the Main Line Educational Center (hereinafter referred to as the Center) appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, which, after a review of the proceedings before the Board, including the testimony and the exhibits, reversed the Board, stating:

'The findings and conclusions made by the Board of Adjustment of Tredyffrin Township that Main Line Remedial Education Center is not an educational institution, and is 'more akin to,' or is, a hospital, sanitarium, or correctional institution, are not supported by the evidence which was before the Board and such findings and conclusions were, therefore, arbitrary. Van Sciver v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 396 Pa. 64 [646, 152 A.2d 717]. Being arbitrary, the refusal to grant the special exception sought by Charles J. Gilden, Jr., Agnes W. Gilden, and Main Line Remedial Center was a manifest abuse of discretion by the Board of Adjustment.'

A number of property owners in the immediate vicinity of the property (who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellants) have brought the matter before us on a writ of certiorari to resolve the correctness of the lower Court's action.

The appellants contend that the Court of Common Pleas exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its judgment for that of the Board which saw and heard the witnesses, whereas the Court only studied the printed record before it. We held in Lindquist Appeal, 364 Pa. 561, 73 A.2d 378, that 'if the board's determination is shown to be arbitrary and contrary to the weight of the evidence, the court is authorized and should make its own ruling.'

The appellants argue in their brief that 'an analysis of the testimony before the Board establishes that it was justified in concluding that the institution in question was a 'sanitarium' within the meaning of the township ordinance.' But the Board did not declare the Center to be a sanitarium. The furthest the Board would go in this matter was to declare that the Center was 'akin to a hospital sanitarium or correctional institution.' Kinship is a rather relevant term. A brother is closer to a certain person than a 42nd cousin, yet they are both kin. Even so, the Board's concept of genealogical proximity or distance leaves much to be desired. To say that the Center is 'akin' to a 'correctional institution' is to use language loosely because there is nothing in the Center which is even remotely associated with a disciplinary institution.

The Center is devoted to the education of children from five to twelve years of age. ¹ These children are physically and mentally normal but, somehow, just miss being sufficiently alert to carry on progressively as normal children should. They cannot communicate their ideas with the facility and celerity associated with children of their age, but they are not to be classified as mentally deficient and certainly in no way to be regarded as lacking in proper moral fiber and behavior.

The appellants do not seek to build their case on the Board's unfortunate use of the phrase 'correctional institution.' They take a less ambitious view of the undesirableness (from their point of view) of the Center, and concentrate their attack on the Board's use of the word 'sanitarium.' Here they outstrip the Board. The Board said the Center was 'akin' to a sanitarium. The appellants discard all relativity and say outrightly the Center is a sanitarium.

They fail, however, to point to any evidence to substantiate the proper employment of this term. In Walker v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 380 Pa. 228, 232, 110 A.2d 414, this Court said:

'A 'sanitarium' is defined in Webster's International Dictionary as 'a health station or retreat; an institution for the recuperation and treatment of persons suffering from physical or mental disorders.''

Also, that:

'Miss Walker's institution is not a sanitarium since it is not designed to give, nor does it give, treatment to its students for their physical disorders; it seeks to educate their minds, which are normal, not to cure their physical disabilities. It is a school the same as any other private school except that its students are physically handicapped.'

and pointed out...