Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/09/1995

Home

Page 6 -- October 1995 Z.B. · Ordinance -- Board Approves of Golf Range's Profit Drive Ludwig v. Zoni~,g Heari~g t~oard of Earl Town,ship, 658 A.2d 836 (Pennsylvania) J995 In t992, Martin bought a little more than 28 acres of rurally zoned property in Earl Township, Pa. The property was being used as farmland and a meadow, and was bordered by other agricultural uses and one industrial use. Permitted uses in the zone included farms, single-family homes, conservation uses, and "non-commercial recreational area[s] owned and operated by a public or pri- vate non-profit agency." Martin wanted to operate a for-profit golf driving range on 10 to 12 acres of the property. He applied for a variance, which the township's Zoning Hear- ing Board denied in November 1993. Sometime later, Martin built a parking lot for 28 cars on the property. In early 1994, Martin reapplied for a variance for the driving range. Again, he proposed using 10 to 12 acres for a range that would accommodate 25 to 30 people; the remaining 16 to 18 acres would remain devoted to farming. He would build a 14-by-32 foot office, and install lighting and 25-foot-high mesh fencing that would prevent golf balls from going onto the road. The range would employ two people and be open from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. for six to seven months a year. Martin also challenged the validity of the ordinance provision that required public or nonprofit ownership of recreational areas. This time, the board granted the variance. It concluded that the ordinance's distinction between for-profit and nonprofit owners was unrelated to land use and did not serve a legitimate zoning purpose. According to the board, application of the ordinance would create an unusual hardship on the property that Martin did not create himself. The board decided Martin's request would not alter the neighborhood and that the land would remain primarily open space. Ludwig, who opposed the driving range, challenged the board's decision in court. The court reversed, holding that the board could not question the valid- ity of the ordinance -- it had to apply it as written. The court said the board had no authority to substitute its.judgment for that of the township's supervisors, who had enacted the ordinance. Martin appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The board properly granted the variance, so the lower court should not have reversed it. The ordinance provision was an attempt by the township to regulate the way property was owned, not a valid regulation of the way prop- erty was used. The board was correct when it found that the ordinance improperly distin- guished between for-profit and nonprofit entities. Under the state Municipalities Planning Code, municipal legislators had to enact uniform regulations for each class of uses in a zoning district. There was no evidence to suggest the ordinance's treatment of different kinds of owners had any Iogical connection to the way the property was used.