Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin June 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 12 <br />958 A.2d 602 (Pa. Conunw. Ct. 2008), order aff'd, 612 Pa. 598, 32 A.3d 587, <br />175 O.G.R. 622 (2011). <br />See also: Valley View Civic Ass'n v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 501 Pa. <br />550, 462 A.2d 637 (1983). <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the court noted that the variance granted where an unnecessary hard- <br />ship is shown because of the confiscatory nature of a zoning ordinance is often referred <br />to as a "validity variance." <br />Validity of Zoning I rdinance—City <br />says property owner is violating <br />zoning ordinance by renting to <br />tenants who fail to meet permissible <br />"family" definition <br />Property owner alleges zoning law's restrictions <br />on permitted "family" occupants is unconstitutional <br />Citation: City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Myers, 2013- <br />2011 La. 5/7/14, 2014 WL 1800064 (La. 2014) <br />LOUISIANA (05/07/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether a zon- <br />ing law definition of "family," which restricted the permissible occupancy of <br />homes in a single-family residential zone, was unconstitutional and <br />unenforceable. <br />The Background/Facts: Stephen C. Myers ("Myers") owned a home in an <br />"Al" zone in the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge (the "City - <br />Parish"). Under the City -Parish's Unified Development Code (the "UDC") the <br />"Al" zone was restricted to "single-family dwellings." "Family" was defined <br />as: <br />"[a]n individual or two (2) or more persons who are related by blood, marriage or <br />legal adoption living together and occupying a single housekeeping unit with <br />single culinary facilities; or not more than two (2) persons, or not more than four <br />(4) persons (provided the owner lives on the premises) living together by joint <br />agreement and occupying a single housekeeping unit with single culinary facili- <br />ties on a non-profit, cost sharing basis." <br />The City -Parish alleged that Myers rented his home to tenants that did not <br />fit the UDC's definition of "family." The City -Parish filed a legal action against <br />Myers, asking the court to compel Myers to cease his alleged violation of the <br />UDC. Myers responded by alleging that the UDC zoning law's definition of <br />"family" was unconstitutional on its face and as applied, violating his state <br />and federal constitutional rights. More specifically, Myers alleged that the two <br />© 2014 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />