Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(.) <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />July 25,20081 Volume 21 No. 14 <br /> <br />....---.... <br /> <br />operating a kennel on the Property without first obtaining special excep- <br />tion approval. <br />Section 601 of the township zoning ordinance permitted operation <br />of a "kennel" by special exception, Section 201 of the zoning ordinance <br />defined "kennel" as: "[a]n establishment under the Pennsylvania Dog <br />Law [3 P.S. ~ 459-101-459-1205] operated for the purpose of trading, <br />breeding, boarding, training, or grooming customary household pets for <br />compensation. " <br />Finding Ruley never obtained a special exception to operate Help .the <br />Animals, the township ordered her to cease and desist her operations. <br />Ruley appealed. <br />The township's zoning board (the Board) conducted a hearing. At that <br />hearing, both a veterinarian who provided services to Help the Animals <br />and Ruley testified that Help the Animals: was a no-kill rescue shelter <br />primarily for cats; could shelter up to eight dogs; and received donations <br />that were primarily used to cover medical expenses and procedures and <br />did not cover the cost of housing animals. At the time of the hearing, in <br />addition to her own pets, Ruley had two dogs and approximately sev- <br />enty cats at the shelter, <br />The Board sustained the cease and desist order. The Board found that <br />Ruley's receipt of donations constituted "compensation." As such, the <br />Board determined Ruley's operation .was a "kennel," as defined under <br />~ 201, since it was an "establishment. . . boarding 'customary house- <br />hold pets for compensation.''' In a companion decision, the Board also <br />denied Ruley's requesdor a special exception under ~ 601. <br />Ruley appealed both Board decisions. <br />The trial court affirmed the Board's holding that Help the Animals <br />was a kennel. <br />Ruley appealed. She argued that the Board erred in concluding that <br />she violated the zoning ordinance by operating a kennel. <br /> <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br /> <br />The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that Help the Ani- <br />mals was not a "kennel" as defined in the township's zoning ordinance. <br />In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that the Board's inter- <br />pretation of the zoning ordinance was entitled to great deference and <br />weight. The court further noted that when interpreting zoning ordinanc- <br />es, courts: relied on the common usage of words and phrases; construed <br />language in a sensible manner; and afforded permitted uses the broadest <br />interpretation so that landowners could have the benefit of the least re- <br />strictive use of their land. <br />Taking such an approach, the court agreed with Ruley that the trial <br />court and the Board misinterpreted the zoning ordinance's definition of <br />"kennel." The court emphasized that ~ 201's definition required that <br /> <br />\ . <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson ReutersNVest <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />51 <br /> <br />., <br />