Daily Development for Wednesday, November 10, 2004
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin Kansas City, Missouri dirt@umkc.edu
ZONING AND LAND USE; USE RESTRICTIONS; SINGLE FAMILY; HALFWAY HOUSES: A halfway
house for recovering alcoholics and drug-addicts does not qualify as a
“single-family detached dwelling” under zoning ordinance permitting
single-family detached dwellings in residential district in which halfway house
was located, when the average stay for a resident at the Retreat was expected to
be just two to six months.
Albert v. Zoning Hearing Board of North Abington Township, 854 A.2d 401 (Pa.
July 2004).
The plaintiff landowner filed a zoning application to operate a retreat house
(the “Retreat”) for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts on a 30-acre parcel
of land. The Township’s zoning officer denied the application, concluding that
the proposed use was not a permitted use under the ordinance in the residential
district in which the property was located. The landowner appealed to the Zoning
Hearing Board (“ZHB”), who reversed the decision of the zoning officer,
concluding that the proposed use of the property as a halfway house was
permitted under the local zoning ordinance because the Retreat qualified as a
“single family detached dwelling,” a permissible use in the ordinance’s
residential district. A group of abutters appealed, but both the trial court and
the Commonwealth Court of Appeals affirmed the ZHB’s decision.
On appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, held: Reversed. The city can bar
the group care facility from a “single family detached dwelling” zone.
The appellant abutters put forth two primary arguments. The abutters argued that
the residents of the Retreat could not be deemed a “family” because: (1) by
charging a monthly fee to Retreat residents, there was a clear profit motive
that was the basis for the relationship between the owner/operator and the
residents and (2) the short-term stays of the Retreat residents were not
qualities consistent with a traditional family.
The Supreme Court rejected the appellants’ first argument that the Retreat had a
profit motive that was incompatible with the concept of a “family.” The Court
found no support for the conclusion that a profit motive would be the basis for
the Retreat’s relationships, especially given the owner’s testimony that she did
not propose the project as a profit-making enterprise, and that the owner was
willing to organize the Retreat as a non-profit organization.
The Court agreed with the abutters argument that the Retreat could not qualify
as a “single-family detached dwelling” under the Ordinance in light of the
transience of its residents. In reversing both the trial and appellate courts,
the Supreme Court held that in order to qualify as a “single family dwelling”
under the ordinance, the composition of the group must be sufficiently stable
and permanent so as not to be fairly characterized as “purely transient.” It
acknowledged that dicta in its own prior opinions had emphasized that the
quality, rather than the duration, of the stay, is what is relevant to the
question of whether the property is used for “family” purposes, and indicated
that otherwise this was an issue of first impression in Pennsylvania.
Relying on New Jersey authority, the Court reasoned that in order for a group of
unrelated persons living together as a single housekeeping unit to constitute a
single family in terms of a zoning regulation, they must exhibit the kind of
stability, permanency and functional lifestyle that is equivalent to that of a
traditional family unit. Because the evidence adduced at trial indicated that
the average stay for a resident at the Retreat was expected to be just two to
six months, the Court held that this level of instability and turnover was
simply incompatible with the single-family concept, and accordingly, denied the
landowner’s application to operate the Retreat as a “single-family dwelling.”
Comment 1: Note that this case now has passed through the filter of state court
interpretation of the ordinance. Now, if there is juice behind the group home
position (often national nonprofits advocate for homes in these cases), we’ll
see if the Fair Housing Act or the Equal Protection Clause provide other answers
for this conflict.
Comment 2: The editor was struck by the notion that operation of a home for a
profit might preclude it from being a single family home. Note that the “profit”
if any, was being owned by a nonresident owner, not someone who was conducting
activities in a house in which she resided. (A paid “housemother” would
administer the activities within the household.)
The court decided this issue on the grounds that in this case the owner in fact
was not making a profit. But what if she was? Is she any different from any
other landlord? Are we saying that people with homes in single family
neighborhoods cannot rent them out? It’s moot here, but that’s where the dicta
appears to lead.
Comment 3: The court ignored entirely the continuous presence of a resident
“housemother.” In many single family homes, children come and go, for school,
for jobs, etc. And for significant periods of time, one or two parents are the
only stable residents. Is this “home” really any different from that situation?
If not, then did the county really intend to draw a distinction based upon how
long given residents reside in a home that is also occupied by a continuous
“mother?”
In short, to the editor, this opinion has a number of holes that suggest an
interpretation hostile to a group care facility that might well qualify for
special treatment as a handicapped facility under the Fair Housing Act. Is there
a distinction because these alcoholics are “recovering,” rather than currently
undergoing withdrawal treatment? Shouldn’t be.
Comment 4: For the "there goes the neighborhood" Nimbies who feel editor is
selling them out - please note that this was a single house on a thirty acre
parcel.
Items reported here and in the ABA publications are for general information
purposes only and should not be relied upon in the course of representation or
in the forming of decisions in legal matters. The same is true of all commentary
provided by contributors to the DIRT list. Accuracy of data and opinions
expressed are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the
publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a source that is readily
accessible by members of the general public, and should take that fact into
account in evaluating confidentiality issues.
ABOUT DIRT:
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious real estate professionals.
Message volume varies, but commonly runs 5 15 messages per work day.
Daily Developments are posted every work day. To subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription, send the message signoff DIRT to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
for information on other commands, send the message Help to the listserv
address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only commercial
and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon residential
real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find this service
more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential specialist attorneys,
title insurers, lenders and others interested in the residential market will
want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it
is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT
traffic in addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message signoff BrokerDIRT
to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association Section on Real Property,
Probate & Trust Law and the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School of Law.
Daily Developments are copyrighted by Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of
Law, UMKC School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants permission for copying or
distribution of Daily Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that no charge is imposed for such
distribution and that appropriate credit is given to Professor Randolph, DIRT,
and its sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage at:
http://cctr.umkc.edu/dept/dirt/
*************************************
To unsubscribe from this discussion list, send an email to
dirt-dd-unsubscribe-request@mail.abanet.org or use the following link:
http://w3.abanet.org/abanet/common/email/listserv/listcommands.cfm?parm=unsubscribe&LISTGROUP=dirt-dd
If you have any problems, please contact the list owner at
dirt-dd-request@mail.abanet.org.