Greaton Properties v. LOWER MERION TP.
| Decision Date | 23 April 2002 |
| Citation | 796 A.2d 1038 |
| Parties | GREATON PROPERTIES, INC. v. LOWER MERION TOWNSHIP. Appeal of Mark Friedman, Celia Reisman, Viktoria M. Possoff, MD, Abraham Possoff, DDS, Max Mendel III, Stuart J. Cohen, Jacquelyn Cohen, Barbara D. Schraeder, Paul L. Schraeder, D. Jeffery Hartzell, M.D., Ann S. Hartzell, Frank Fox, Anne Fox, Meru Thakur, Anita Thakur, MD, Kathy C. Mandelbaum, David G. Mandelbaum, Anthony P. Green, Mary Coyne, Jerome L. Kolker, Irene S. Kolker, Jeanne Murray Walker, E. Daniel Larkin, Carol H. Lavoritano, Joseph E. Lavoritano, Arthur A. De Costa, Charlotte B. De Costa, Deborah G. Stinnett, Frederick Schwartz, Leona Schwartz, John R. Wagner, Renee Keating Wagner, John R. Senior, MD, Sarah Spedden Senior, Jerry Alan Jacobs, Sharon Jacobs, Ernest A. Allen, Lavida R. Allen, Gary Michael Flaxenburg, MD, Judith Flaxenburg, Adele Kaehler, Victor Kaehler, Norman A. Felsenthal, Helen M. Felsenthal, Richard S. Kennedy, Ella D. Kennedy. Greaton Properties and Lower Merion Township v. Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Merion Township. Appeal of Lower Merion Township. Appeal of Greaton Properties, Inc., From the Decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Merion Township. Appeal of Lower Merion Township From the Decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Merion Township. Appeal of Anne Fox, Francis Fox, Celia Reisman, Mark Friedman, Renee Wagner, John Wagner From the Decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Merion Township. Appeal of Merion Civic Association From the Decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Merion Township. Appeal of Merion Civic Association. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Jan Z. Krasnowiecki, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Gilbert P. High, Jr., Norristown, for appellee, Lower Merion Township.
Sean P. Flynn, Norristown, for appellee, Lower Merion Township Zoning Hearing Board.
BEFORE: LEADBETTER, J., SIMPSON, J., and MIRARCHI, JR., Senior Judge.
OPINION BY Judge SIMPSON.
Mark Friedman and other neighboring residents (Individual Neighbors), Lower Merion Township (Township) and the Merion Civic Association (collectively Objectors) appeal orders affirming the decision of the Lower Merion Township Zoning Hearing Board (Board) granting a special exception to permit conversion of an existing apartment building into a dormitory for university students.
Greaton Properties, Inc. (Applicant), a wholly owned subsidiary of St. Joseph's University (University), owns 5.6 acres in Lower Merion Township (Property). The Property is zoned R 7 Residential, which permits multi-family use, and is currently improved with a 108-unit apartment building. Applicant's proposal will alter the existing apartment building to accommodate 220 University students. The Property is bordered by: St. Charles Seminary, a private educational institution with student and faculty housing; Wynnewood Hall, a University student residence hall; and the "Main Line" of the old Pennsylvania Railroad. One side of the Property abuts a single-family residential area.
In accordance with the Lower Merion Township Zoning Code (Code), Applicant submitted an application to the Board seeking a special exception as a private educational institution. The Board, with only two members present, held a hearing, after which the hearing officer concluded that the proposed use qualified as a "private educational institution." The other Board member disagreed, concluding that the proposed use qualified as a "student home." Applicant's special exception request was deemed denied as a result of the Board members' inability to decide this issue. Applicant appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (trial court). Individual Neighbors filed a petition to intervene in that appeal.
On June 4, 1999, trial court issued an order denying the petition to intervene of Individual Neighbors and of the Merion Neighbors Association on the basis of standing. On October 13, 1999, the trial court entered an order concluding that the proposed dormitory was a "private educational institution." The trial court remanded the matter to the Board to determine if Applicant met the remaining elements for a special exception.
On January 24 and 31, 2000, with a full complement present, the Board held two remand hearings. Objectors presented expert testimony by Ronald Turner, a specialist in land planning and architecture. Mr. Turner noted the vast differences between the lifestyles of college students and typical non-transient residents. He testified that college students tend to function on an unusual schedule, create excess noise and cause major parking problems. To explain why off-campus dormitories have a negative impact on the community, Mr. Turner compared the effects of a decentralized campus (with satellite buildings throughout a community) with the effects of a centralized campus (one with defined boundaries in the community). He opined that a remote dormitory would lead to commercial development along walkways, paths and streets between the dormitory and the main campus, ultimately creating an expanded college area. In addition to this testimony, Objectors offered the testimony of a real estate appraiser. This witness, however, could not definitively opine that the proposed dormitory would result in a decrease in neighborhood property values.
Applicant presented testimony by a land-planning expert, who opined that the proposed use would not have an adverse impact on public health, safety or welfare. The expert based his opinion on the limited number of residences immediately adjacent to the proposed dormitory, the setback of the building, the University's proposed security system and the likely path of travel for students. After considering all of the testimony, the Board concluded that Applicant's proposal satisfied all of the elements required to obtain a special exception.
The Board granted the special exception subject to several conditions.1 The trial court affirmed the Board's decision on December 14, 2000. On January 22, 2001, after an en banc hearing, the trial court entered an order again denying Objector's appeal and affirming the Board's decision. On September 7, 2001, an en banc panel of the trial court issued an opinion affirming its orders of October 13, 1999 and January 22, 2001.
On appeal, Individual Neighbors and the Merion Civic Association challenge the orders of June 4, 1999, October 13, 1999 and January 22, 2001. The Township appeals the orders of June 4, 1999, October 13, 1999 and December 14, 2000.2
Objectors first contend that the trial court erred when it held the proposed dormitory qualifies for a special exception as a "private educational institution."3 Objectors assert that prior cases which permitted college dormitories by special exception are distinguishable. Alternatively, they argue that the proposed use should be classified as a "student home."
In the absence of any definition to the contrary in a zoning ordinance, the term "educational institution" must be interpreted in its broadest, most permissive sense. Gilden Appeal, 406 Pa. 484, 178 A.2d 562 (1962) ().
Our decision in Dale v. Zoning Hearing Board of Tredyffrin Township, 91 Pa. Cmwlth. 220, 496 A.2d 1321 (1985) is instructive. In Dale, Cabrini College sought a special exception to allow construction of three dormitories in a residential district of a neighboring township. The residential district permitted educational uses by special exception. This Court interpreted the undefined term "educational use" broadly as encompassing all activities reasonably necessary to properly effectuate a college's academic functions. Therefore, we concluded that dormitories are an educational use and upheld the grant of the special exception. As no prior cases at the appellate level had addressed the issue of whether a dormitory fell within the definition of an educational use, we relied on Board of Adjustment v. Muhlenberg College, 48 Pa. D. & C.2d 489 (C.P. Lehigh 1969) to support this conclusion.
In Muhlenberg, the college sought a permit to convert an existing dwelling into an off-campus dormitory two blocks away from the main campus. This required the court in Muhlenberg to construe an ordinance that authorized "educational institutions" in a residential district. The court began its analysis by determining that the ordinance was permissive in nature and therefore subject to broad interpretation. The court held that "dormitories for housing students in residence to avail of the college curriculum are clearly within the broadly construed sense of an educational institution" (emphasis added). Id. at 492.
When confronted with factually similar situations, jurisdictions outside of Pennsylvania have reached the same result. See State of Connecticut v. Laurel Crest Academy, 2 Conn.Cir.Ct. 294, 198 A.2d 229 (1963) (); Schueller v. Board of Adjustment of City of Dubuque, 250 Iowa 706, 95 N.W.2d 731 (Iowa 1959) (); Western Theological Seminary v. City of Evanston, 325 Ill. 511, 156 N.E. 778 (1927) ().
Based on the foregoing authority, we conclude that the University's proposed dormitory satisfies the Code's undefined term "private educational institution." University dormitories are universally equipped with bookshelves, desks, and chairs, and as such, provide students with a place to study as well as sleep. Dale.
Objectors further contend that the proposed dormitory falls under the Code's definition of a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Markwest Liberty Midstream & Res., LLC v. Cecil Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 1809 C.D. 2016
...are met, it is presumed "that the use is consistent with the health, safety and general welfare of the community." Greaton Props. v. Lower Merion Twp. , 796 A.2d 1038, 1045–46 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) ; see also MarkWest I .To overcome the presumption, objectors' evidence must "show, to a high pr......
-
SOUTHDOWN v. JACKSON TP. ZONING HEARING BD.
...is expressly permitted, so long as the applicant can show the absence of a detrimental effect on the community. Greaton Properties v. Lower Merion Township, 796 A.2d 1038 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002). An applicant for a special exception has the burden of going forward with the evidence and of persuas......
-
City of Hope v. Sadsbury Tp. Zhb
...a community. See, e.g., Evans v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Easttown Twp., 40 Pa. Cmwlth. 103, 396 A.2d 889 (1979); Greaton Properties, Inc. v. Lower Merion Twp., 796 A.2d 1038 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002); Warren County Prob. Ass'n v. Warren County Zoning Hearing Bd., 50 Pa.Cmwlth. 486, 414 A.2d 398 (1980)......
-
Broussard v. Zoning Bd.
...of an adverse impact that will pose a substantial threat to the health and safety of the community. Id.; Greaton Properties v. Lower Merion Township, 796 A.2d 1038, 1046 (Pa. Cmwlth.2002). Mere speculation as to possible harm is insufficient. H.E. Rohrer, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Jac......