Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2006

Home

Page 8 -- February 10,'2006 Z~B. Accessory Use -- Church claims campground as accessory use to its property Seeks to turn it into ministry campus Citation: City of Hope v. Sadsbury Township Zoning blearing Board, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 657 C.D.20005 (2005). PENNSYLVANIA (01/17/05) --The City of Hope, a church, purchased a 24- acre parcel of Iand for the construction of a non-denominational ministry campus. The property was in the Sadsbury Townsh/p's General Commercial District, which allowed churches and their acceSSory uses as permitted by right. The church applied to the Sadsbury Township Zoning Hearing Board for necessary to construct its campus. UltLmately, the board denied the for the campground, finding the proposed use was not accessory to a permits permits church. The The church sued, and the court ruled in favor of the board. church appealed, arguing the campground was an accessory use be- cause it was a customarily incidental use to a church. DECISION: Affirmed. The board did not abuse its discretion in its determination that a camp- g-round was not an accessory use to a church/worship center. The township's definition of accessory use had the conjunctive require- merit the campground be subordinate and customarily incidental to the church/ worship center. While the church focused on the words customarily incidental, it did not address the requirement the use be subordinate to the principal use. Subordi- nate meant "placed in or occupying a lower rank or position." Here, the exten- sive nature of the campground indicated the campground would not be "in/e- flor" to the church/worship center, thus not subordinate as required by the ordinance de£mition of accessory use. The proposed campground would contain 127 camper.tent units with sewer, water, cable, and electric. These amenities were on the property when it was purchased by the church, left over from the property's preexisting conditional use as a campground/RV park. The prior campground was approved as a con- ditional use, wi'rich was a type of principal use, and nothing had changed in the camp in the intervening years. Ultimately, the campground continued to be the main or dominant use oc- curring on the individual lot, not an accessory one. see also: Steeley v. Richland Township. 875 A.2d 409 (2005). see also: Noah's Ark Christian Child Care Center [nc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of West Mifflin, 831 A.2d 756 (2003). 98 @ 2006 Ouintan PuDlishin~J Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.