Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 21 "A person living independently or a group of persons living as a single household unit using housekeeping facilities in common, but not to include more than three persons unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption." The Landlords each rented their properties to a group of students that contained more than three persons unrelated by blood, marriage or adoptions. The Landlords each appealed their citations. The City's Zoning Board of Ap- peals ("ZBA") denied each of their appeals. They then each appealed to the trial court. The trial court consolidated the appeals. The trial court affirmed the ZBA's denial of the appeals. The Landlords again appealed. On appeal, the Landlords argued that the Code provision defining "family" was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to them. They argued that the Code impermissibly burdened an individual's First Amendment (to the United States Constitution) right to association and the right to privacy. They also contended that the use of their properties by more than three unrelated persons was functionally equivalent to use of the properties by a "family," and that therefore the Code was unconstitutional as applied to their use of the properties. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Common Pleas affirmed. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the Code's definition of "family" was not unconstitutional on its face or as applied to the Landlords. In so holding, the court first reviewed the level of scrutiny applied by courts to the review of zoning ordinances. The court noted that Pennsylvaniacourts have consistently utilized the rational basis test to examine the constitutionality of zoning ordinances limiting the composition of households in single-family resi- dential districts. In other words, if the Code's definition of "family" had a rational basis, then it would be constitutional on its face. Here, the court found that the Code did not prohibit more than three persons unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption from cohabitating within the municipal- ity; instead the Code prohibited groups that did not fit within the definition of "family" from cohabitating by right in a property zoned for single-family resi- dential use. The court found that the Code provided for a diversity of residential uses by right. The court further found that the Code struck a balance in its provi- sion of uses by right in single-family residential districts between the fundamental rights surrounding related or legally bound families, and the rights of those who are unrelated but desire a similar residential use without having to seek a vari- ance or special exception. The court concluded that the Code's provision limiting single-family residen- tial use based on a definition of "family" that permitted an unlimited number of persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption to cohabitate in a single-family residence, while restricting the number of unrelated persons who may do so, was a permissible intrusion when rationally related to the use of land rather than the people using it. In "dense urban areas," noted the court, such an intrusion on land use may be a "practical necessity." Thus, held the court, zoning ordinances, such as the one here, defining "family" using biological and legal bonds are not facially unconstitutional. The Landlords had argued that the use of properties by unrelated groups of students was functionally equivalent to the use of the properties by a "family." © 2015 Thomson Reuters 5