|
There is no particular percentage of a structure’s floor-area ratio that automatically defines the structure’s primary as opposed to accessory use; such a comparison is relevant, but not a controlling factor in any primary use inquiry.
Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of the Borough of State College, 899 A.2d 399 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
The Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown desired to transform three contiguous parcels of land into a “Catholic Student Center.” The land was located in the Borough of State College’s R-2 District, which allowed property to be used as a church or other place of worship, including accessory uses for religious instruction and religious schools, but precluding secular student centers. The proposed Center included, among other things, a seventy seat chapel where daily mass would be held, study rooms, kitchen, living room and a residential structure for three Benedictine monks who would oversee the facility.
The Borough’s Planning Officer approved the Concept Plan for the Center finding that the proposed uses of the Center are “religious in nature akin to a church” and any secular uses are incidental and logically connected with the principal use. Neighbors appealed the Planning Officer’s decision to the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB).
The ZHB overturned the Planning Officer’s approval finding that the primary proposed use of the facility was that of a student center, not a church or place of worship; that the structure was primarily for secular uses; and that the Center neither aligned with the character of the neighborhood nor promoted area homogeneity. The ZHB based its decision on the disparity in floor-area ratios between the chapel and the remainder of the facility finding that the residential portion of the structure was substantially larger then the chapel. Therefore, the primary use of the facility was a student center which the Zoning Ordinance did not permitted in an R-2 district. The Diocese appealed to the Court of Common Pleas.
The trial court reversed the ZHB reasoning that the Center was a “church” which is permitted as of right within the R-2 District. The trial court broadly defined a church as a “building dedicated to religion” and relied on testimony to establish that reaching out to youths in the community involves emersion in the vestments and traditions of the Catholic faith which is not limited to the use of the chapel itself. Neighbors appealed.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court and rejected the Neighbors arguments that the Center’s primary use was a secular student center and not as a church; that even if the primary use was a church that the non-chapel portions are impermissible accessory uses; and the Center would disrupt the homogeneity of the historic district. Rather, the Commonwealth Court concluded, the primary use of a structure is not defined by any particular floor-area ratio and, furthermore, the ratio is only a relevant, not a controlling factor in a primary use inquiry. In addition, the Court held that because all of the Center’s uses, both chapel and non-chapel, are tied to providing a “religious home” to Catholics, the Center is a permissible accessory use within the “Religious Instruction” amendment to the ordinance. Finally, the Court determined that there was nothing in the record to indicate that the proposed structure would be an architectural eyesore and detract from the character of the neighborhood.
DISCLAIMER:
This site is designed to provide summary review of selected Pennsylvania and Federal Court decisions related to land use and land use controls. The information contained herein, although produced by professionals, is not intended to render any legal service. Nor should the materials herein be utilized as a substitute for professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the service of an attorney or other professional should be sought. DCED makes no representations, warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information provided herein.
Back to Top |
