* [author: Jack Auteri]
Rejecting a constitutional challenge to the Town of Bloomsburg’s Zoning Code, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has ruled that municipalities are not required to modify zoning laws to fit specific business models proposed by developers.
The challenge was brought by two related entities alleging that the zoning code improperly excludes a legitimate use because it does not recognize the use of a Transitional Living Facility (TLF).
The Court found that while none of Bloomsburg’s zoning districts allowed for all of the TLF’s uses, the town nonetheless permitted each of those uses contained in applicants TLF definition in certain districts. The challenge failed, the Court said, because zoning schemes are not required to conform to an applicant’s business model.
The Court’s decision in Bloomsburg Town Center, LLC v. Town of Bloomsburg underscores that the burden of challenging a zoning ordinance is high. Courts will not recognize new proposed uses if they are simply combinations of otherwise individually permitted uses.
Background
Applicants each own property located in Bloomsburg. Town Center’s property is located in the Industrial Park (I-P) zoning district, and Senior Living’s property is located in both the Business Campus (BC) and Industrial Park (I-P) zoning districts.
Both sought to use their properties as a TLF, which applicants describe as “a place that includes housing or lodging and meals and which provides a safe, structured … environment, that may include peer support, employment counseling, job placement, financial management assistance, and other programs and services to individuals making the transition from controlled group quarters living to one of independent or semi-independent living in ordinary society.”
Such a facility could accommodate formerly incarcerated individuals, individuals being released from drug and alcohol addiction treatment programs, and individuals recently released from psychiatric treatment programs.
The Challenge
In early 2021, Town Center and Senior Living challenged the validity of applicable Bloomsburg zoning ordinances on the basis that their proposed use for their properties as a TLF was not provided for in the zoning code. The challenge included proposed amendments to the zoning code.
In response to previous litigation, Bloomsburg’s Town Council had enacted ordinances in 2019 to require special exceptions for uses such as homeless shelters, substance abuse treatment facilities, and halfway houses. However, the applicants alleged that these sections did not encompass the uses included within their TLF definition.
The Council denied the request for a curative amendment that would incorporate all of the challengers’ proposed uses within a single zoning district. The applicants appealed to the trial court, which upheld the Council’s decision.
Appellate Court's Analysis
In upholding the trial court's decision, the Commonwealth Court found that the developers failed to meet the high burden of proving that the zoning ordinance is improperly exclusionary.
Under Pennsylvania law, the Court said, a zoning code “need not provide for a combined use merely to accommodate an applicant’s business model.”
Pennsylvania courts have also held that “a business design that merely attempts to patch together other discrete, commercial uses is not a new, discrete use that a municipality has a duty to ensure.”
Instead, the Court said, an ordinance is not exclusionary “as long as the uses for which the property is being sought are allowed in a zoning district under the ordinance.”
* Jack Auteri is currently a Summer Law Clerk at Fox Rothschild and a JD/MBA Candidate at Temple University Beasley School of Law.
