L. Shortt and S. Shortt v. East Marlborough Twp. ZHB
L. Shortt and S. Shortt v. East Marlborough Twp. ZHB - 1401 C.D. 2015
Pa. Commw. Ct.Mar 2, 2017Background
- Landowners (Lance and Sandra Shortt) own an ~11-acre RB-zoned property improved with a residence, accessory dwelling, converted barn used for bed-and-breakfast (B&B) units, cottages, outdoor areas (tentable), pool/pavilion, and other outbuildings.
- Landowners sought to use the property as a "place of private assembly"—leasing the premises for private events (weddings, parties, seminars) as a principal use, separate from their existing residential and B&B operations.
- They filed a substantive validity challenge under Section 916.1 of the MPC, alleging the Township Zoning Ordinance de jure excludes that use in all zoning districts.
- At the Zoning Hearing Board hearings, Landowners’ planner (Frederick) testified the Proposed Use cannot be conducted anywhere in the Township as a principal use; Township’s planner (Grafton) testified the Proposed Use is not a distinct use but a combination of functions already allowed as hotel or restaurant (and other categories) in certain districts.
- The Board credited the Township planner, found the Ordinance not exclusionary (alternative findings: MU/LMU/C-2, AP and RB allowances), and denied the challenge; the trial court affirmed. The Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Ordinance is de jure exclusionary by failing to allow a principal "place of private assembly" use | Shortt: Ordinance bans a business model—leasing premises for private events—as a principal use throughout the Township | Township: The Proposed Use is not a separate land use but a combination of functions already permitted (e.g., hotel, restaurant, club) in various districts | Ordinance not de jure exclusionary; business model is not a distinct protected use |
| Whether the Proposed Use must be recognized separately because of differences from "hotel" | Shortt: Proposed Use differs—primarily private, may not provide lodging or typical hotel services | Township: "Hotel" (and "restaurant") commonly include private events; definition/function covers Landowners’ activities | Court held hotel/restaurant definitions encompass the event functions; Proposed Use falls within existing uses |
| Burden of proof in exclusionary challenge | Shortt: Argued the Ordinance completely excludes their intended primary use | Township: Ordinance allows component uses elsewhere; plaintiff must show total exclusion | Court reiterated challenger bears heavy burden to prove total exclusion; Landowners failed to meet it |
| Whether Landowners’ business model is protected such that zoning must accommodate it | Shortt: Claimed entitlement to zoning recognition of their leasing model | Township: No duty to zone for every business model; zoning regulates uses/functions, not contractual arrangements | Court held municipalities need not accommodate every business model; ordinance valid where component uses are allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- H.R. Miller Co., Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Lancaster Township, 605 A.2d 321 (Pa. 1992) (de jure exclusion doctrine explained)
- Interstate Outdoor Advertising v. Zoning Hearing Board of Warrington Township, 39 A.3d 1019 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (standard for de jure/de facto exclusion)
- Atiyeh v. Board of Commissioners of the Township of Bethlehem, 41 A.3d 232 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (challenger bears burden to prove complete exclusion)
- Township of Exeter v. Zoning Hearing Board of Exeter Township, 962 A.2d 653 (Pa. 2009) (municipality may justify exclusion by showing substantial relation to public welfare)
- Sultanik v. Board of Supervisors of Worcester Township, 488 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (business model/configuration is not a separate land use)
- East Marlborough Township v. Jensen, 590 A.2d 1321 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (zoning need not provide for every planning variation or commercial configuration)
- Montgomery Crossings Associates v. Township of Lower Gwynedd, 758 A.2d 285 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (municipality not required to zone for larger versions of permitted uses to avoid exclusion)