JALC Real Estate Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Lower Salford Tp.

• Decision Date: 16 March 1987
• Parties: JALC REAL ESTATE CORPORATION and Community Foundation for Human Development, Appellants, v. ZONING HEARING BOARD OF LOWER SALFORD TOWNSHIP and Lower Salford Township, Appellees.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 710

522 A.2d 710

104 Pa.Cmwlth. 605

JALC REAL ESTATE CORPORATION and Community Foundation for

Human Development, Appellants, v. ZONING HEARING BOARD OF LOWER SALFORD TOWNSHIP and Lower

Salford Township, Appellees.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Dec. 8, 1986.

Decided March 16, 1987.

Ronald M. Agulnick, Pitt, Agulnick, Supplee, Johnson & Slade, and Patricia T. Brennan, West Chester, for appellants.

Marc D. Jonas, Norristown, for Lower Salford Tp. Zoning.

Thomas M. Garrity, Norristown, Solicitor for Lower Salford Tp.

Ronald M. Agulnick, Patricia T. Brennan, Sondra K. Slade, West Chester, for Community Foundation for Human Development.

Before MacPHAIL and COLINS, JJ., and KALISH, Senior Judge.

MacPHAIL, Judge.

JALC Real Estate Corporation and Community Foundation for Human Development (Appellants) ¹ appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County which affirmed an order of the Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Salford Township (Zoning Hearing Board). We reverse. ²

Appellants requested relief from a cease and desist order issued by the Lower Salford Township Zoning Officer. The officer felt that Appellants' use of a house in an area zoned "R-3 Medium-Density Residence District" was not permitted by the township's zoning ordinance. The Zoning Hearing Board made the following undisputed relevant findings of fact:

11. The proposed use is to house four (4) mentally retarded women between the ages of thirty-two (32) and forty-six (46) with an intelligence I.Q. ranging from one (1) to six (6) years of age.

12. The residents of the building require around-the-clock supervision in the nature of professionally trained employees including a Resident Manager and various full-time and part-time employees, none of whom sleep or permanently reside in the home.

13. The individuals who live at the property reside at no cost to them, but the operation is funded by the United States Government (fifty-five [55%] percent) and by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (forty-five [45%] percent).

14. The operation ceased on October 1, 1982 because of inadequate staff, but a resumption of the use is contemplated based upon the securing of adequate staff and the receipt of necessary approvals from the Township.

15. The full staff complement constitutes ten (10) full-time and part-time employees with alternates as required.

16. The functioning of ...[Appellants'] use is dependent upon the securing of qualified staff.

17. Approximately four (4) cars will be parked at the property at any given time period.

18. The ratio of staff to residents is determined by monies available from State and Federal sources with the minimum ratio based on Federal guidelines of two (2) staff members to four (4) residents.

Appellants make three arguments in the alternative here, as they did before the Zoning Hearing Board and the common pleas court. Appellants argue: (1) that under the zoning ordinance they are entitled to use the property in the manner they desire as a permitted use; (2) that they are entitled under the ordinance to a special exception; and (3) that if they are not entitled to use the property in the manner they wish, either as a permitted use or as a special exception, the zoning ordinance is unconstitutional. Because we agree with Appellants' first argument, we need not address the other two.

The property in question is located in an area of Lower Salford Township zoned "R-3 Medium-Density Residence District." Section 164-41 A of the Zoning Code of Lower Salford Township (Code) provides as a permitted use a "[s]ingle-family detached dwelling." "Dwelling" is defined in Section 164-5 of the Code as follows:

A building or other structure, whether mobile or immobile, designed for and occupied exclusively for residential purposes, including hotel, rooming house, tourist home, institutional home, residential club, motor court and the like.

In the same section of the Code, "single-family dwelling" is defined as:

A building designed for and occupied exclusively as a dwelling for one (1) family.

"Family" is, in turn, defined as:

Any number of individuals living together as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit and doing their cooking on the premises, excluding, however, occupants of a club, fraternity house, lodge, residential club or rooming house.

Zoning ordinances must be strictly construed. Constantino v. Borough of Forest Hills, 88 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 306, 489 A.2d 968 (1985). Further, a permitted use must be afforded the broadest interpretation so that a landowner may have the benefit of the least restrictive use and enjoyment of his land. Appeal of Ethken Corp., 89 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 612, 493 A.2d 787 (1985).

We are convinced that the findings of the Zoning Hearing Board and the undisputed testimony support the conclusion that the four mentally retarded women who would live at the house in question constitute a "family" as defined by the ordinance. The ordinance requires simply that the individuals must "live together as a single, non-profit housekeeping unit" and must do their cooking on the premises. There is no requirement in the ordinance that to be considered a "family" the occupants must be related or that they resemble the common concept of a "family" as used in everyday parlance.

Further, in the definition of "dwelling" the Code includes "institutional home." In the Code's definition of "family," occupants of a "club, fraternity house, lodge, residential club or rooming house" are excluded; however, occupants of an "institutional home" are not. We conclude, then, that occupants of an institutional home who fall under the Code's definition of "family" are living in a "single-family dwelling." ³

Beyond our analysis of the Code, we feel that this case is controlled by this Court's decision in Philadelphia Center for Developmental Services, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Plymouth Township, 89 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 591, 492 A.2d 1191 (1985). The question in that case was essentially identical to the one we are faced with here: whether a group home for mentally retarded individuals is permitted in an area zoned for single family dwellings. The pertinent part of the zoning ordinance in Philadelphia Center defined a family as "no more than five (5) unrelated individuals living together as a single, nonprofit housekeeping unit and doing their cooking on the premises." Id. at 594, 492 A.2d at 1192-93 (quoting Section 200 of the Plymouth Township Zoning Ordinance) (emphasis deleted). This Court held that group homes for mentally retarded individuals were permitted under the ordinance.

The Court in Philadelphia Center dealt with arguments similar to those raised by the Zoning Hearing Board in the instant case:

The township raises a question as to the number of people actually present on the premises at any one time by referring to the number of central staff people required to support the residents. However, the relationship of a staff member to the residents of the CLA [Community Living Arrangement] is similar to that of a non-resident housekeeper, maid, or gardener who performs services for the occupants of a home; the similarity remains whether the staff provides twenty-four-hour supervision or has one of the staff members remain overnight on a rotating basis.

The township asserts that "the relationship between the CLA residents and the Center's non-resident employees is not the functional equivalent of a biologically related family, but more like an institutional use." The township also cites a number of cases in its attempt to show that these arrangements are not the functional equivalent of families; Judge...