Penobscot Area Housing Development Corp. v. City of Brewer
Facts
The Penobscot Area Housing Development Corporation, a private nonprofit corporation, sought to use a house in a low-density single-family residential district in Brewer as a group home for six retarded adults or older minors supervised by approximately two full-time employees. The corporation applied for an occupancy certificate describing the use as a group home licensed by the State as a boarding home, but the code enforcement officer denied the permit because the use did not qualify as a single-family use under the ordinance. The Board of Appeals found that staff would not necessarily reside at the home, would likely serve on a rotating basis, would prepare meals and provide services, and that residents would not control admissions or departures and would stay on average one to one-and-one-half years. Three incompetent wards of the state had been selected to live in the proposed home before the Board hearing, and they were later added as parties in Superior Court.
Issue
Whether the proposed group home was exempt from Brewer's zoning ordinance as a state-related project, whether it qualified as a 'family' use under the ordinance's definition of family, whether the ordinance as applied violated due process or equal protection, and whether venue in Kennebec County was proper despite questions about the State's and Bureau's party status.
Rule
For purposes of appeal from a municipal board of appeals under 30 M.R.S.A. § 2411(3)(F), a 'party' is a participant in the proceedings who is aggrieved by the board's action, meaning one who suffers a particularized injury. The State's statutory zoning exemption does not extend to a nonprofit corporation merely because it serves state interests; absent compelling need, exemption requires substantial existing and continuing state involvement. Under a zoning definition of family that includes persons living together in a domestic relationship based on birth, marriage, or other domestic bond as a separate housekeeping unit doing their own cooking, a domestic bond implies a traditional family-like authority structure, cohesiveness, and relative permanence, and substantial external control or nonresident rotating staff may defeat family-use status. Zoning ordinances are presumed constitutional and, where no fundamental right or discriminatory treatment is shown, are valid if rationally related to legitimate interests such as preserving family values and a family style of life.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
Is the Ohio Support Services Office most likely a proper party to the zoning appeal?