Summary
In Reed v. Zoning Hearing Board of West Deer Township, 377 A.2d 1020 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977), this Court concluded that a single mobile home clearly fell within the definition of a "single-family dwelling," defined in the relevant ordinance as "[a] building designed for or occupied exclusively as a residence for only one family."
Summary of this case from Spencer v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Salem Twp.Opinion
Argued May 6, 1977
September 15, 1977.
Zoning — Scope of appellate review — Error of law — Abuse of discretion — Single family dwelling — Mobile home — Strict construction of zoning restrictions — Unlawful property use during pendency of appeal.
1. In a zoning case where the lower court heard additional evidence, review by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is to determine whether the court below committed an error of law or abused its discretion. [606-7]
2. A mobile home intended to be permanently affixed to a lot qualifies as a single family dwelling under a zoning ordinance which describes such a dwelling as a building designed for or occupied exclusively as a residence for one family and defines a building to be a thing constructed with a fixed location on the ground with a roof supported by columns or walls. [607]
3. The fact that a zoning ordinance specifically provides that two portable units may be combined so as to constitute a single family dwelling does not indicate that a single mobile home cannot also constitute a single family dwelling. [607-8]
4. Zoning restrictions must be strictly construed and cannot be extended by implication to further restrict the use of land. [607-8]
5. Allegedly unlawful action by an applicant for a permit in proceeding with a use of property forbidden by zoning authorities during the pendency of an appeal from the action of such authorities does not require that the decision be upheld, but may provide the municipality with the basis for an action in equity against the property owner or for summary proceedings charging the owner with a violation of the applicable ordinance. [608-9]
Argued May 6, 1977, before Judges KRAMER, MENCER and ROGERS, sitting as a panel of three. Judge KRAMER did not participate in the decision.
Appeal, No. 1440 C.D. 1976, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Mary A. Reed v. The Zoning Hearing Board of West Deer Township, No. SA 453 of 1975.
Application for permit to install mobile home on property denied by zoning officer. Applicant appealed to The Zoning Hearing Board of West Deer Township. Appeal denied. Applicant appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Appeal sustained. Permit ordered issued. Township appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Henry W. Ewalt, Solicitor, with him John H. Bingler, Jr., and Thorp, Reed Armstrong, for appellant.
P. Ronald Cooper, with him Norman H. Rea, Robert R. German, and Reding Rea, for appellee.
West Deer Township has appealed an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County reversing a decision by the township zoning authorities that Mary A. Reed could not place and occupy a mobile home on a lot in the Township's R-3 zoning district.
In the Spring of 1975, Reed lived in a mobile home on a rented lot in Saxonburg, Pennsylvania. She owned a vacant lot in West Deer Township. She was required to leave the rented site and decided to move her mobile home to the West Deer Township lot. The township zoning officer denied her application to place the mobile home on her lot and the Zoning Hearing Board affirmed. Reed appealed. The court below heard additional evidence and reversed the Zoning Hearing Board's affirmance of the zoning officer's denial of a permit. The court below held that the placement and occupation of a mobile home as a single-family dwelling was permitted in West Deer Township's R-3 zoning district.
Our review is to determine whether the lower court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Ephross v. Zoning Hearing Board, 25 Pa. Commw. 140, 359 A.2d 182 (1976).
Section 702 of the West Deer Township zoning ordinance permits the use of land in the R-3 district for "Single-family detached dwellings." Section 401 defines a single-family dwelling as "[a] building designed for or occupied exclusively as a residence for only one family." A building is defined in the same Section as "[a]nything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground that has a roof supported by columns or walls." It is too plain for argument to the contrary that Reed's mobile home is a single-family dwelling as so defined.
Section 401 of West Deer's zoning ordinance includes a definition of a mobile home, as follows:
A portable dwelling unit designed and built to be towed on its own chassis, connected to utilities and occupied on a year-round basis. The unit may contain parts that collapse, fold, telescope or otherwise permit continued mobility; however, these characteristics shall not categorize it as a sectional or modular home.
Two portable units designed and built to be towed on their own separate chassis and permanently combined on site to form a single immobile dwelling unit shall be regarded as a single-family detached dwelling.
The Township says that under this definition a single mobile home cannot be a single-family detached dwelling. It says that the proper reading of the second paragraph of the definition should be: "Two portable units designed and built to be . . . permanently combined on site to form a single immobile dwelling unit . . . ." and contends that unless a mobile home is one specially designed for permanent placement it cannot be a single-family dwelling. One difficulty with this argument is that the second paragraph deals with two portable units, and this case is about one portable unit, which is the subject of the first paragraph of the definition of a mobile home. The first paragraph does not provide that a portable unit shall not be considered a single-family dwelling; it says that certain described characteristics shall not make it a sectional or modular home. Sectional or modular homes are not defined in the ordinance or the subject of regulation therein. Restrictions imposed by zoning ordinances must be strictly construed; they may not be construed so as to restrict the use of land by implication. Fidler v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 408 Pa. 260, 182 A.2d 692 (1962). The Township here asks us to infer from Section 401's definition of a mobile home that a mobile home cannot be a single-family dwelling. Even if we were able to find support for such an inference in the definition, we could not have it prevail over a definition of a single-family dwelling clearly including a mobile home.
The Township also argues that the lower court abused its discretion in finding that Reed intended permanently to affix her mobile home to her lot in West Deer Township. In her application to the Township Reed stated that she intended to place the home on a permanent foundation. In her court testimony she stated her intention to place the home on a cement foundation and to add a porch, awnings and skirting. The court had more than ample evidence supporting its finding.
The Township's argument that it should have prevailed in this case because Reed unlawfully placed her mobile home on her lot while her appeal from the denial of her application was pending in the court below is without merit. The Township's remedy for Reed's apparently unlawful action was to ask for equitable relief or to charge Reed with a violation of its ordinance in summary proceedings. This case concerns only the legal propriety of the zoning officer's decision that the ordinance required him to refuse Reed's application.
We affirm the order below.
Judge KRAMER did not participate in the decision in this case. See Pa. R.A.P. 3102(d).
ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of September, 1977, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the above-captioned matter, dated July 29, 1976, is hereby affirmed.