Atiyeh v. BD. OF COM'RS OF TP. OF BETHLEHEM
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 109
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- Atiyeh challenged Bethlehem Township's zoning ordinance as de jure exclusionary to a prison use and filed a curative amendment under MPC §609.1 on Feb. 6, 2009, as equitable owner of 4255 Fritch Drive in GI district.
- Property surrounds include office, automotive garage, warehouse, and medical office uses.
- Board held hearings; engineer Martin testified prison development was feasible; LVPC planner Taremae confirmed no prison as a permitted use in the Township.
- Township’s Rosato testified treatment centers can resemble prisons and can include housing for rehabilitation; Board concluded treatment center encompassed a prison despite exclusion.
- Trial court affirmed the Board; Atiyeh appealed; Commonwealth Court reversed, holding the prison use is not encompassed by the term “treatment center” and the ordinance is de jure exclusionary, entitling site-specific relief.
- The court remanded with reversal of the trial court’s judgment and ordered relief consistent with permissive site-specific development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Ordinance is de jure exclusionary to a prison use | Atiyeh—prison not encompassed by any permitted use | Township—treatment center includes prison, despite exclusion | Yes, de jure exclusionary |
| Whether a treatment center sufficiently covers a prison use under the Ordinance | Unclear scope; treatment center does not include prisons | Board's view that treatment center includes prison is valid | No, not encompassed; exclusion stands as to prison |
| Relief appropriate for a de jure-exclusionary finding | Equity requires site-specific relief allowing prison on the property | No explicit remedy other than invalidating exclusion | Site-specific relief granted; prison permitted on the Property under plan subject to regulations |
Key Cases Cited
- Caln Nether Co., L.P. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 840 A.2d 484 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2004) (exclusionary challenge; presumption of validity; burden shifts if total exclusion shown)
- County of Beaver v. Bd. of Zoning Hearing B., 656 A.2d 157 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995) (total exclusion of a legitimate use; municipality must justify)
- Exton Quarries, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 425 Pa. 43 (1967) (complete exclusion reviewed for public health, safety, welfare relation)
- H.R. Miller Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 529 Pa. 478 (1992) (adjacent discussion on when exclusion invalidates ordinance)