The Cutler Group, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Worcester Twp. ~ Appeal of: D. Comly
The Cutler Group, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Worcester Twp. ~ Appeal of: D. Comly - 1223 and 1239 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jul 3, 2017Background
- The Cutler Group (Landowner) sought conditional-use approval to build a 157-acre residential life-care development in Worcester Township’s AGR district: detached villas, attached carriage houses (independent living), and a senior care complex with assisted living/memory care. All residences limited to persons 55+.
- The Township’s Zoning Ordinance permits a “residential life-care facility” only if it is a residential development restricted to the elderly that provides a "continuum of accommodations and care," including independent living units within the facility.
- Landowner presented a planner and traffic engineer and a Memorandum of Understanding with Heritage Senior Living promising priority access to the senior care complex and provision of care when requested; Heritage would operate the senior care complex (not licensed as a skilled nursing facility).
- The Board denied the conditional use, finding (inter alia) that the project: was not “restricted to the elderly” (55 was not "elderly"); did not guarantee a continuum of accommodations or a continuum of care; did not include a ‘‘nursing home’’ level of care; and did not place independent living units within a single residential life-care facility.
- The trial court reversed the Board, concluding ordinance terms were ambiguous and must be construed in favor of the landowner; this Court affirmed the trial court, adopting its reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the development is "restricted to the elderly" | Cutler: 55+ covenant satisfies restriction. | Board/Objectors: "elderly" implies 62–65+ (Medicare-age); 55 is not elderly. | Court: Ambiguity resolved for landowner; 55 restriction suffices. |
| Whether there is a "continuum of accommodations" (ability to move between unit types) | Cutler: Memorandum and adjacency to senior care provide access; continuity exists. | Board: No contractual guarantee to move between independent units and senior care; memorandum gives only priority, not a guaranteed right. | Court: Ordinance ambiguous; trial court properly construed in favor of landowner; no reversible error in finding continuity met. |
| Whether there is a "continuum of care" (guaranteed progression of care levels) | Cutler: Heritage will provide care and priority access; continuity of care exists. | Board: Memorandum does not guarantee contractual right to transition into assisted/memory care; no binding continuum of care. | Court: Ambiguous terms favor landowner; trial court correctly interpreted that requirements were satisfied. |
| Whether the project must include a "nursing home" level of care | Cutler: Senior care complex provides higher-level care; satisfies ordinance. | Board: Facility will not be licensed as a skilled nursing facility (nursing home), so requirement unmet. | Court: Trial court’s interpretation (in favor of landowner) adopted; ambiguity resolved for landowner. |
| Whether independent living units must be "within" the residential life-care facility (vs. adjacent, separately owned homes) | Cutler: Villas/carriage homes coupled with senior care and MOU create an integrated life-care development. | Board: Design treats independent units as separate residential development adjacent to, not within, the life-care facility; no contractual guaranteed access. | Court: Ambiguous ordinance language construed for landowner; trial court reversal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shvekh v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Stroud Twp., 154 A.3d 408 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (zoning terms construed in favor of landowner when ambiguous)
- Bailey v. Upper Southampton Twp., 690 A.2d 1324 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (conditional use is municipal analog to special exception)
- Pittsburgh Cellular Tel. Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Marshall Twp., 704 A.2d 192 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (whether a proposed use fits an ordinance category is a question of law)
- Wadlow v. Zoning Bd. of Borough of Bellevue, 436 A.2d 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (courts consult common usage when ordinance terms are undefined)
- Thompson, 896 A.2d 659 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (standard of appellate review where no new evidence below)
- Holland v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 656 A.2d 178 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (brief-appending rules nonfatal where record allows meaningful review)