Robertson v. Western Baptist Hosp.

• Decision Date: 29 January 1954
• Citation: 267 S.W.2d 395
• Parties: ROBERTSON et al. v. WESTERN BAPTIST HOSPITAL et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Page 395

267 S.W.2d 395

ROBERTSON et al. v. WESTERN BAPTIST HOSPITAL et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 29, 1954.

Rehearing Denied May 14, 1954.

Terrell, Schultzman & Hardy, Paducah, Wyatt, Grafton & Grafton, Louisville, Martin R. Glenn, Louisville, for appellants.

David R. Reed and Raymond C. Schultz, Paducah, for appellees.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

The judgment construes the Paducah zoning ordinances as allowing the use of a large dwelling house, known as the 'Reeves Home,' owned by the Western Baptist Hospital, a corporation, as a home for its staff of nurses who are employed at the hospital located two or three squares away. Neighboring property owners have protested this use as being in conflict with the zoning restrictions of this area.

In March, 1952, the Board of Commissioners, by ordinance, approved the zoning of property on both sides of Broadway between 28th and 30th Streets, in which area the property involved is situated, 'for residential purposes only.' Detailed restrictions were imposed and penalties for violation prescribed. In April, 1952, the Commissioners adopted a comprehensive zoning and regulatory ordinance in accordance with a final report of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. The general classification of the area made by the March, 1952, ordinance was not affected. Section 5 of the ordinance prohibits the later use of buildings or their erection or alteration unless it be in conformity with the provisions of the ordinance. Every lot zoned for residential use was placed in one of the following specific classifications: 'R-1 One Family Zone; R-2 One Family Zone; R-3 Two Family Zone; R-4 Multiple Dwelling Zone.' The residence involved in this case is within the 'R-1 One Family Zone.' Title III, Sec. 3. Certain regulations are specified for such zone. Among the 'permitted uses' are 'One Family Detached Dwelling' and 'Multiple Dwelling--Resulting from the conversion of a building existing at the effective date hereof,' provided that the general character and appearance of the building remain unchanged and the resultant lot area is not less than 300 square feet. Title V, Sec. 16.

Among pertinent 'Definitions' of the terms used in the ordinance, which are expressly made applicable to the R-1 One Family Zone, is that defining 'Family' as 'One or more persons living as a single housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, fraternity or sorority house. A family shall be deemed to include servants.' The decision of the case turns upon whether the home for nurses is to be regarded as a housekeeping unit within these terms.

The evidence on the point is summarized. The Hospital Board of Trustees passed a resolution describing its purpose to use the property acquired as the home for the 'family' of nurses employed at the hospital. The nurses, about 20 in number, will have their own rooms, either singly or in pairs, and have the joint use of the parlor. They will have their regular meals at the hospital or elsewhere but limited kitchen facilities will be available for light lunches or snacks, the nurses furnishing their own food. A matron or housemother will have charge of the housekeeping.

The word 'family' is an elastic term and is applied in many ways. In Mullins v. Nordlow, 170 Ky. 169, 185 S.W. 825, 828 (construing the terms of a lease) it is said the word is often given a broader meaning and 'may, and does sometimes, mean a collection of persons living together in a home, though none of them be married.' We therein construed the term 'a family' as including a group of lodgers where the lessee cared for the rooms even though the lodgers had the exclusive right of occupancy of those rooms. See also McHugh v. Knippert, Ky., 243 S.W.2d 654. In Boston-Edison Protective Association v. Paulist Fathers, 306 Mich. 253, 10 N.W.2d 847, 848, 148 A.L.R. 364, the Michigan court declined to give too strict or literal meaning of 'family,' and regarded the use of a dwelling house in a highly restricted district as a residence for Roman Catholic priests as not a violation of a restriction in a deed against the use of the property "except for a single dwelling house and dwelling...