Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2015

Home

November 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 21 Zoning Bulletin The Landlords pointed to the fact that each of the occupants had access to the full house and worked together in housekeeping. The court did find that the indi- vidual residents had formed a single -household unit, but the court also noted that the Code capped the number of unrelated people who could compose such a unit in a property zoned for single-family residential use at three. Therefore, the court found that the evidence that the group was "living as a single household unit us- ing housekeeping facilities in common," was insufficient to meet the Landlords' burden to show the Code was unconstitutional as applied to them. Instead, explained the court, "when a zoning ordinance utilizes the term `family' to define single-family residential use based upon how the household is composed rather than on how the residents within the household function, the burdened party must produce substantial evidence to show that the use of the property will be equivalent to the use of the property by a group that does fit within the strict def- inition of `family' found in the ordinance." Here, the court found that the group of unrelated students was not legally bound to one another, as are individuals related by blood, marriage or adoption. The court also found that the Landlords failed to show that the groups of students were a stable permanent unit, since some of the student residents moved out while others moved in each year. Concluding that the Landlords had failed to produce substantial evidence to demonstrate that their use of the properties was equivalent to use of the property by a group of persons related by blood, mar- riage or adoption, the court held that they failed to demonstrate that the Code was unconstitutional as applied to their use of the properties. Accordingly, the citations against the Landlords for violation of the Code were upheld. See also: Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 94 S. Ct. 1536, 39 L. Ed. 2d 797, 6 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1417, 4 Envtl. L. Rep. 20302 (1974). See also: Appeal of Miller, 511 Pa. 631, 515 A.2d 904 (1986). See also: Children's Aid Soc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 44 Pa. Commw. 123, 402 A.2d 1162 (1979). See also: Wengert v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Upper Merion Tp., 51 Pa. Commw. 79, 414 A.2d 148 (1980). Authority/Preemption—City says school district must obtain zoning approval for construction of stadium bleachers Board of Education argues school district's construction on property used for school purposes is not subject to local zoning Citation: Gurba v. Community High School Dist. No. 155, 2015 IL 118332, 2015 WL 5608249 (I11. 2015) ILLINOIS (09/25/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether municipal 6 © 2015 Thomson Reuters