Opinion
No. 673 C.D. 2015
01-29-2016
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Charles E. Eckenrode, Appellant
BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McGINLEY
Charles E. Eckenrode (Eckenrode) appeals from an April 7, 2015, order (Order) of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (Trial Court) which adjudicated Eckenrode guilty and assessed fines against Eckenrode totaling $15,000 plus costs.
After a timely appeal by Eckenrode to this Court, the Trial Court issued its June 24, 2015 opinion (Opinion) in support of its Order. That Opinion affirmed the decision of the Magisterial District Judge (MDJ) which found Eckenrode guilty of violations of the Zoning Code of the City of Pittsburgh (Zoning Code) and the Building Code of the City of Pittsburgh (Building Code).
FACTS
Eckenrode owns a home at 343 Lawn Street in the Oakland section of the City of Pittsburgh, which he leases to tenants. This dwelling is the subject of the current controversy. The dwelling was zoned as a single family residence. Hearing Transcript, (N.T.) November 18, 2014, at 92, 106-107; see also Opinion at 2, Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 220a. A certificate of occupancy was not required if a dwelling is used as a single family residence. Under Title 9, Section 926.72 of the Zoning Code (Section 926), a family was defined as "[a] group of not more than three (3) persons who need not be related by blood or marriage or adoption." (Emphasis added.) Zoning Code, Title 9, Section 926.72, R.R. at 302a. When the use of the dwelling changes, the Zoning Code required the owner of the dwelling to file an application for a certificate of occupancy. See Zoning Code, Title 9, Sections 922.02.A(2), 922.02.D(2), R.R. 304a. It was undisputed that six (6) unrelated persons resided in Eckenrode's dwelling. N.T. at 18-19, 27.
Title 9, Section 922.02.A(2) of the Zoning Code states in pertinent part that "[a] Certificate of Occupancy shall be required for the lawful use or occupancy of all land, structures or premises, or parts thereof, in all of the following circumstances ...[such as] ... [a] new or changed use of land or new or changed use of structure." Zoning Code, Title 9, Section 922.02.A(2).
Title 9, Section 922.02.D(2) of the Zoning Code states in pertinent part that "[a]n application for a Certificate of Occupancy shall be submitted ... [at] the time of a change in use of land or structure." Zoning Code, Title 9, Section 922.02.D(2).
Subsequently, the City of Pittsburgh notified Eckenrode that there was a changed-use to the dwelling in issue and directed Eckenrode to apply for a certificate of occupancy because of that change in use. Private Criminal Complaint, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Allegheny County, Commonwealth v. Charles E. Eckenrode (Private Criminal Complaint); see also R.R. at 299a-300a. Eckenrode failed to comply and was charged. A hearing was held on November 18, 2014, and thereafter Eckenrode was found guilty by the Trial Court on April 7, 2015. April 7, 2015 Order. See also, R.R. at 2a. This appeal followed.
This Court's scope of review of the trial court's determination on appeal from a summary conviction is limited to whether there has been an error of law or whether competent evidence supports the trial court's findings. Commonwealth v. Hall, 692 A.2d 283 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997); see also Commonwealth v. Nicely, 988 A.2d 799 (Pa. Cmwlth 2010). When the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance is challenged, there is a presumption that the ordinance is valid and the party challenging its validity has a heavy burden to prove that it is unconstitutional. Farley v. Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Merion Township, 636 A.2d 1232, 1236 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).
ISSUES
On appeal to this Court, Eckenrode argues that: the Trial Court erred in convicting Eckenrode of violating Title 9, Section 922.02, of the Zoning Code because there was no requirement under the Zoning Code to apply for an occupancy permit for a single family dwelling in the City of Pittsburgh; Eckenrode was convicted under a non-existent section of the Zoning Code; and that Eckenrode's conviction (of a violation of Section 926) violated the equal protection and due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (14th Amendment) as being clearly arbitrary and unreasonable and having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare.
The non-existent Zoning Code section cited in the current controversy is ostensibly Title 10, Section 111.1 of the Zoning Code.
It is well-established that zoning legislation is economic and social legislation. See Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974). An ordinance is valid if it promotes public health, safety, or welfare and its provisions are rationally-related to the purpose it is to serve. Layne v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of Pittsburgh, 460 A.2d 1088 (Pa. 1983); see Muscarella v. Commonwealth, 87 A.3d 966, 973 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). The lack of any rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose must be obvious, Layne, 460 A.2d at 1088, and if validity of the zoning ordinance provision is debatable, the zoning provision must be upheld. Lynch Community Homes, Inc. Appeal, 554 A.2d 155 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1989).
Equal protection challenges are reviewed by the United States Supreme Court under strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny and a rational basis scrutiny. See e.g., Rogin v. Bensalem Township, 616 F. 2d 680 (3rd Cir., 1980). Under a strict scrutiny challenge, the test is whether the challenged classification is necessary to accomplish a compelling state interest and is reserved for discriminations based on race, national origin, alienage, and for classifications made on account of the exercise of a constitutional right by one of the two classes. Rogin v. Bensalem Township, 616 F.2d at 687 n. 29.
Under an intermediate scrutiny, the test is whether the discrimination substantially furthers the achievement of an important governmental objective. The application of an intermediate scrutiny has thus far only been applied to classifications based on gender or illegitimacy. Rogin v. Bensalem Township, 616 F.2d at 687 n. 29.
However, under a rational basis scrutiny, the United States Supreme Court has accorded great deference to the legislative decision to establish the challenged classification when it affects business or other economic activity. See Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93 (1979). In Vance, the Court held that "we will not overturn such a statute [affecting an economic activity] unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only conclude that the legislature's actions were irrational." Vance v. Bradley, 44 U.S. at 97.
In recent years, the United States Supreme Court has rejected a supervisory role in due process as applicable to zoning laws and now applies "virtually the same standard" of review under the due process clause as it does in equal protection cases involving economic classifications. Rogin v. Bensalem Township, 616 F.2d at 689 (citations omitted). "[T]he law need not be in every respect logically consistent with its aims to be constitutional. It is enough that there is an evil at hand for correction and that it might be thought that the particular legislative measure was a rational way to correct it." Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 48788 (1955).
The issues of whether Eckenrode failed to apply for an occupancy permit for a single family dwelling in Pittsburgh; whether Eckenrode was convicted under a non-existent section of the Zoning Code; and whether Eckenrode's conviction under Section 926 violated the equal protection and due process provisions of the 14th Amendment as being clearly arbitrary and unreasonable and having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare were raised and argued before the Trial Court and ably disposed of in the comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Robert C. Gallo, S.J. of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.
Therefore, this Court shall affirm the Trial Court's Order of April 27, 2015 based upon Senior Judge Gallo's June 24, 2015, Opinion in support of his April 27, 2015 Order. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Charles E. Eckenrode, Criminal Division No. CL/SA 2060-14, filed June 24, 2015.
/s/_________
BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of January, 2016, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.
/s/_________
BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge
Image materials not available for display.