River's Edge Funeral Chapel and Crematory, Inc. v. ZHB of Tullytown Borough Appeal of: The Borough of Tullytown
150 A.3d 132
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- River’s Edge leased a building in Tullytown Borough’s Light Industrial (LI) district and applied for a Use and Occupancy Certificate to operate a funeral home with an accessory crematory.
- Borough zoning officer denied the application, concluding the crematory would be the property’s principal use; Board upheld that denial.
- Appellee presented testimony and a site plan showing chapel, viewing room, embalming room, morgue and two cremators; expert testimony said the site met Pennsylvania funeral-home licensing requirements.
- Board relied on building appearance, industrial location, and a 2011 crematory application to find the crematory would be primary (the 2011 application had been excluded from the record).
- Trial court reversed the Board and ordered issuance of the certificate; the Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding the principal use is a funeral home because the crematory occupies minimal space and the facility meets funeral-home criteria.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Borough) | Defendant's Argument (River’s Edge) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed use qualifies as a "funeral home" under the ordinance | The building’s appearance, location, and prior crematory application show primary intent to operate a crematory, not a funeral home | The use meets common-law and regulatory definitions: preparation, viewing, funeral services, and required supervising director | Property does qualify as a funeral home (affirmed) |
| Whether the crematory is the principal use (vs. accessory) | Crematory facilities and past application indicate cremation will be primary use | Crematory occupies ~12% of space; majority of space and staffing devoted to funeral services | Crematory is accessory; funeral home is the principal use (affirmed) |
| Admissibility/relevance of the 2011 crematory application | 2011 application shows intent to operate crematory and is probative | 2011 application was excluded from the record; different applicant and different proposed use, so it is irrelevant | 2011 application was properly excluded and is not substantial evidence |
| Whether the Board permissibly considered building appearance and location in denying a by-right use | Board may consider context; appearance/location show unsuitability for funeral home | Ordinance permits funeral homes in LI district; appearance is not a lawful basis to deny a use-by-right | Board erred to deny based on appearance/location; Borough’s determination of permitted uses controls (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruley v. West Nantmeal Township Zoning Hearing Board, 948 A.2d 265 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (use of undefined ordinance terms construed by common meaning)
- H.E. Rohrer, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Jackson Township, 808 A.2d 1014 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (ambiguities resolved in favor of landowner; consult statutes/regulations for definitions)
- Galzerano v. Zoning Hearing Board of Tullytown Borough, 92 A.3d 891 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (distinguishes a standalone crematory that does not serve the public from a funeral home)
- Tennyson v. Zoning Hearing Board of West Bradford Township, 952 A.2d 739 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (size and scope of accessory use relevant to subordinate/incidental determination)
- Coal Gas Recovery, L.P. v. Franklin Township Zoning Hearing Board, 944 A.2d 832 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (definition of substantial evidence on zoning review)
- Riverside Development Group, LLC v. City of Harrisburg Zoning Hearing Board, 109 A.3d 358 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (zoning boards must enforce the ordinance, not remake it)
- Van Sciver v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of Philadelphia, 152 A.2d 717 (Pa.) (zoning boards must base findings on record evidence)