Thomason v. ZONING HEARING BD. OF RADNOR
26 A.3d 562
Pa. Commw. Ct.2011Background
- Thomasons own a ~1-acre property at 211 Strafford Ave., Wayne, in Radnor Township's R-4 district, with a historic 6,000 sq ft, three-story house and parking for many vehicles.
- They seek to operate a bed and breakfast with five guest rooms while continuing to reside in the home.
- Radnor's Zoning Ordinance prohibits bed-and-breakfasts as a home occupation and lacks a similar explicit allowance in residential districts.
- The ordinance does permit a 'rooming house' in the R-5 district by special exception and allows 'hotel, motel or inn' in C-2/C-3/Planned Business districts, but not in R-4.
- The Board concluded that a bed-and-breakfast could fall under the broad 'rooming house' category, thus denying the validity challenge.
- The trial court held the ordinance de jure exclusionary of a bed-and-breakfast use and ordered site-specific relief; Radnor Township appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the ordinance de jure exclusionary of a bed-and-breakfast use? | Thomason asserts B&B is expressly prohibited as a home occupation, excluding it across districts. | Township contends 'rooming house' in R-5 covers B&B; the ordinance provides for similar transient-guest uses. | Yes; ordinance excludes bed-and-breakfast on its face. |
| Does 'rooming house' encompass Thomasons' proposed use? | A 'rooming house' is owner-occupied, with limited roomers; does not contemplate B&B as defined by hospitality norms. | Rooming house is broad enough to include B&B for transient guests in R-5 by special exception. | No; 'rooming house' cannot encompass a B&B, which is expressly prohibited as a home occupation. |
| Does the provision prohibiting bed-and-breakfast as a home occupation render the ordinance invalid under the MPC? | Exclusion is unconnected to health, safety, or welfare; it is a total ban on a legitimate use. | Ordinance allows analogous uses elsewhere and need not provide every business model. | Yes; the exclusion fails to show a substantial relationship to public interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caln Nether Co., L.P. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Thornbury Twp., 840 A.2d 484 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (de jure exclusion recognized where ordinance bans otherwise legitimate use)
- Ficco v. Bd. of Supervisors of Hempfield Twp., 677 A.2d 897 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (presumes validity but can be overcome by total prohibition of legitimate use)
- Cracas v. Bd. of Supervisors of West Pikeland Twp., 492 A.2d 798 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (burden shifts to municipality to justify exclusion after showing de jure ban)
- Montgomery Crossing Assocs. v. Twp. of Lower Gwynedd, 758 A.2d 285 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (zoning must provide for reasonable uses; not every business model required)
- Valley View Civic Ass'n v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 501 Pa. 550, 462 A.2d 637 (1983) (standard of review for zoning board discretion and substantial evidence)