Galzerano v. Zoning Hearing Board
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 296
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- Galzerano sought a use and occupancy certificate to operate a stand‑alone crematory at 71 Fox Drive in Tullytown (Light Industrial district); crematories are not mentioned or defined in the Borough Ordinance.
- Funeral homes and mortuaries are permitted uses in the LI district; Galzerano owns a separate funeral home in Levittown and proposed the Tullytown crematory to serve funeral homes (including his own).
- Zoning officer denied the application because a crematory is not a permitted use in the LI district; Galzerano appealed to the Zoning Hearing Board (Board).
- At the Board hearing Galzerano testified the crematory would perform cremations and prepare remains but would not deal directly with families (services would be provided through funeral homes); some limited funeral services or viewings might occur at the crematory.
- The Board denied the application, finding a standalone crematory is not a funeral home and is more analogous to an incinerator (permitted only in the Solid Waste District); the trial court affirmed on appeal.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding a standalone crematory is distinct from a “funeral home” (which provides direct services to families) and thus not a permitted principal use in the LI district; accessory‑use argument failed because accessory uses must be on the same lot as the principal use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Galzerano) | Defendant's Argument (Board/Tullytown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a stand‑alone crematory is a permitted use in the LI district as a "funeral home" | Crematory is not mentioned in the ordinance; under common definitions it qualifies as a funeral home (prepares dead for cremation) and ambiguities should be construed in owner’s favor | A crematory is distinct from a funeral home; Galzerano’s facility will not provide direct services to families and is therefore not a permitted funeral home use | Held: crematory is not a funeral home; ordinance construed by Board and court upheld |
| Whether the crematory could be an accessory use to Galzerano’s Levittown funeral home | Crematory is functionally accessory to his funeral business and should be allowed | Ordinance requires accessory uses to be on same lot as the principal use; Levittown funeral home is not on the same lot | Held: accessory‑use claim fails because accessory must be located on same lot |
| Whether the Board erred by classifying the crematory as an incinerator permitted only in Solid Waste District | Galzerano: crematory is not municipal waste incinerator; human remains are not municipal solid waste | Board: crematory analogous to incinerator and thus restricted to Solid Waste District | Held: Court expressed skepticism about treating human remains as municipal waste and did not rely on that finding to affirm denial |
| Standard of review for ordinance interpretation | Galzerano: ambiguous omission requires liberal construction for property owner | Borough: Board’s interpretation entitled to deference as zoning administrator | Held: Board’s interpretation entitled to weight; court applied common‑usage definitions and deference in concluding crematory is distinct from funeral home |
Key Cases Cited
- Rabenold v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Palmerton, 777 A.2d 1257 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (recognizes crematories and funeral homes as distinct but related uses; crematory may be accessory to funeral home)
- Coal Gas Recovery, L.P. v. Franklin Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 944 A.2d 832 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (standard of review where trial court takes no additional evidence)
- City of Hope v. Sadsbury Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 890 A.2d 1137 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (deference to zoning board interpretations)
- H.E. Rohrer, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Jackson Twp., 808 A.2d 1014 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (use common definitions and external sources when ordinance is silent)
- Ruley v. West Nantmeal Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 948 A.2d 265 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (interpret zoning language according to common usage and sensibly)
- Fidler v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of Upper Macungie Township, 182 A.2d 692 (Pa.) (zoning restrictions in derogation of common law must be strictly construed; ambiguities read in favor of property owner)