Court Opinion

ID: 9757792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:59:07.640587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:44.449092
License: Public Domain

FLAHERTY, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The city zoning administrator’s testimony contained an acknowledgment of the absence of any meaningful distinction between rooming houses and boarding houses, and the city has failed to establish an evidentiary basis for excluding boarding houses from an R-4 district where rooming houses are permitted. Even if a boarding house were regarded as having a “commercial” character, due to its functional similarity to an inn, the nature of a rooming house is no less inn-like, despite its lack of meal-service, and the latter is no less “commercial” than the former. A distinction between boarding houses and rooming houses, based on the availability of meal-service, embodies no signif*230icant difference relevant to legitimate zoning goals, and is, therefore, violative of equal protection.
It is to be noted, too, in response to the matter of scope of judicial review of zoning ordinances as addressed by Mr. Justice McDermott, that review must be sufficiently strict to constitute a meaningful inquiry. Hopewell Township Board of Supervisors v. Golla, 499 Pa. 246, 452 A.2d 1337 (1982).