UNEQUAL PROTECTION

The recent decision in J. Keefe, CHIBS, Inc., d/b/a Carnivores Sports Bar et al. v. Borough of Oakmont Zoning Hearing Board et al., 201 C.D. 2024 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct., 11/6/2024) addresses the issue of when a municipality tries to fix a problem but only makes things worse. Keefe owned a number of businesses in the commercial district in Oakmont, a suburb of Pittsburgh. To deal with traffic congestion, Oakmont amended its zoning ordinance in 2011 to require businesses in the commercial district to provide off-street parking for their patrons. In 2021, Oakmont realized that proposed new businesses could not locate in Oakmont because they could not comply with the off-street parking requirements. To address this unanticipated problem, Oakmont amended its zoning ordinance in 2023 to allow on-street parking spaces to count toward the required parking spaces under certain conditions. A traffic study had to be completed showing that traffic congestion would not be created, and the on-street parking had to be within 300 feet of the property and in the commercial district.

Keefe brought a substantive validity challenge to the new ordinance asserting that the zoning amendment was arbitrary and unreasonable and had no substantial relationship to public health, safety, morals or general welfare and, therefor, violated his right to equal protection. The Commonwealth Court agreed with Keefe. The zoning amendment failed the rational basis test since it did not further a legitimate government interest that was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The Commonwealth Court found that while it was permissible for Oakmont to relax parking requirements for new businesses by making sure that new businesses demonstrated that their proposals would not adversely affect safety and traffic congestion, it crossed the line because it arbitrarily failed to treat new businesses and existing business similarly. The Commonwealth Court pointed out that an existing business cannot obtain the same benefit as a new business even if the existing business could meet the same conditions. The zoning amendment classified existing businesses and new businesses differently with regard to parking requirements even though they are similar in nature. The zoning amendment forced existing businesses to bear the cost of lessening parking congestion, but allowed new businesses to capitalize on the benefit of the reduced congestion.

The lesson to be learned from this decision is that a governing body needs to think through the unintended consequences when making amendments to a zoning ordinance that attempt to relax prior restrictions placed on property owners. If an existing business does not get the same benefit from the relaxed requirements as a new business, then the new regulations will likely fail to pass constitutional muster.