Pittsburgh, PA
Legal Intelligencer
(By Jennifer Malik and Anna Hosack)
While municipalities continue to grapple with the repercussions of Slice of Life, proponents for another controversial residential use—community living or group homes—attempted to rely on Slice of Life to support a curative amendment to a zoning ordinance that would allow a community living use in a residential district.
In 2019, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court examined the zoning issues surrounding the increasingly popular use of single-family homes as short-term rentals in Slice of Life v. Hamilton Township Zoning Hearing Board, 207 A.3d 886 (Pa. 2019). In the nearly four years since Slice of Life was decided, many municipalities have relied on its holding to prohibit short-term rentals in residential zoning districts—reasoning that the purely transient use of short-term rentals is inconsistent with the common definition of “family” that is typically defined as a single household in local ordinances. While municipalities continue to grapple with the repercussions of Slice of Life, proponents for another controversial residential use—community living or group homes—attempted to rely on Slice of Life to support a curative amendment to a zoning ordinance that would allow a community living use in a residential district.
On Nov. 7, 2022, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court rendered a decision in Hope House in Midland PA v. Borough of Midland, PA, No. 145-CD-2022 2022 WL 16727674 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022), affirming the denial of a property owner’s curative amendment that would have permitted a group home in a single family residentially zoned district. Although the court’s decision was unreported, it may be cited for persuasive value in the future and is indicative of the court’s interpretation of the boundaries of the holding in Slice of Life.
In December 2020, Hope House, a nonprofit organization, purchased a six-bedroom home located in Midland Borough’s R-1 Single-Family Residential Zoning District—intending to use the property as a “community living facility” for approximately 17 women and children in need of shelter. Hope House would not limit how long a resident could stay on the property, but estimated residents would stay for an average of four to five months. Hope House sought a curative amendment to the borough’s zoning ordinance that would allow a “community living arrangement” as a use permitted by-right in the R-1 zoning district, on the theory that the borough’s zoning ordinance was exclusionary. During the public hearing on the proposed amendment, the borough’s code enforcement officer opined that Hope House’s proposed use qualified as a “group residence,” which is permitted as a conditional use in the R-3 zoning district under the existing zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance defines “group residence” as “a dwelling facility operated for not more than 15 persons plus staff, living together as a single family or as a single housekeeping unit.” The borough denied the curative amendment, finding that the proposed amendment was not only overly broad, but also unnecessary because Hope House’s proposed use fit into the existing definition of a “group residence” under the zoning ordinance. Hope House appealed the borough council’s determination to the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County who affirmed the denial.
On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, Hope House argued that pursuant to Slice of Life, its proposed use did not qualify as a “group residence” under the zoning ordinance because its residents would be transient, and therefore could not be considered to be living as a “single housekeeping unit.” As readers may recall, in Slice of Life, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court evaluated whether a local zoning ordinance prohibited the use of property as a short-term rental unit in a single-family residential zoning district. There, the local zoning ordinance defined a “family” as “one or more persons occupying a dwelling unit, related by blood, marriage, or adoption living together as a single housekeeping unit and using cooking facilities and certain rooms in common.” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that by defining “family” as requiring “a single housekeeping unit,” the ordinance clearly and unambiguously excluded purely transient uses of property in a single-family residential district.
The Commonwealth Court rejected Hope House’s argument, distinguishing Slice of Life, because in that case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was interpreting the phrase “single housekeeping unit” in the context of the zoning ordinance’s definition of a “family,” as opposed to as part of a definition of a “group residence,” within a multi-family zoning district. Consequently, the Commonwealth Court found that the “logic and reasoning used to interpret the meaning of ‘single housekeeping unit’ in the definition of ‘family’ could not be extended to interpret the meaning of ‘single housekeeping unit’ in the zoning ordinance’s definition of ‘group residence.’” The Commonwealth Court reasoned that group residences are unlike single-family households and do not have an inherent expectation of stability. Additionally, the plain language of the zoning ordinance at issue indicated that a “single housekeeping unit” was not intended to be synonymous with “family” and it is clear the borough did not intend to adopt the definition laid out in Slice of Life since the zoning ordinance was last revised in 1993. Lastly, the court reasoned that by using the disjunctive “or,” the zoning ordinance made “living together as a single housekeeping unit” distinct from “living together as a family.” Since Hope House’s residents will have common living and dining areas and will participate in similar programs and activities within the residence, the residents will be living together as a single housekeeping unit for purposes of qualifying as a “group residence.” Therefore, the court concluded that persons “living together… as a single housekeeping unit” under the zoning ordinance’s definition of “group residence” can include transient persons and rejected Hope House’s argument that the zoning ordinance was exclusionary.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding in Slice of Life remains undisturbed by Hope House, and it remains clear that municipalities may prohibit short-term rentals and other purely transient residential uses in single family residential districts. However, the interpretation of “single housekeeping unit” by the Commonwealth Court in Hope House appears to represent a logical boundary to how Slice of Life may be applied going forward and indicates that the law has not fully settled on how zoning ordinances should account for transient uses such as short-term rentals. It remains imperative that municipalities that regulate short-term rentals or other transient residential uses expressly address such uses within their zoning ordinances. As the Hope House court noted, it is crucial for the municipality to have the ability to place conditions on transient uses to regulate the health and safety of those in the area surrounding the use. Therefore, once a municipality has planned for the use, the municipality should consider what conditions would be appropriate for the use and location. Relevant standards for transient uses could include those that regulate parking, noise, signage, smoke, electrical disturbance, odors or glare.
Jennifer Malik is a shareholder and Anna Hosack is an associate in the public sector services group of the Pittsburgh law firm of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C. Malik focuses her practice on health care benefits, administration, insurance coverage and appellate law—with an emphasis on zoning and land use. Hosack focuses her practice on zoning, subdivision and land development, and municipal ordinance construction and enforcement. Contact them at jmalik@babstcalland.com and ahosack@babstcalland.com.
To view the full article, click here.
Reprinted with permission from the February 9, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer© 2023 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.
