Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2013 ( Volume 7 I Issue 18 banquet facilities bore a real or substantial relation to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, or was invalid. The Background/Facts: James C. Keener ("Keener") owned a 130-acre active farm (the "Property") in the Agricultural Zoning District in Rapho Township (the "Township"), Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (the "County"). In March 2010, Keener sought approval of a mixed use of Property, including for: banquets; weddings; farm tours; walking and riding tours; hayrides; and use of the pond and paddle boats. Keener contended that the proposed use must be permitted under § 201.2.6 of the Township Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Ordinance"). Section 201.2.6 allowed "Parks and Playgrounds" by right in the Agricultural Zoning District. By definition, "Parks and Play- grounds" included a wide range of recreational activities, including "banquet and social halls" as long as they were "not operated on a commercial basis." The Township's Zoning Hearing Board ("ZHB") found that Keener's proposed use was not a "Park or Playground" under the Zoning Ordinance because the proposed facility would not be available for use by the general public but would be operated on a commercial basis and only be available to those who paid for the use of the facilities. Keener appealed. The Court of Common Pleas affirmed the ZHB's conclusion. Keener again appealed. On appeal, Keener contended that by restricting the uses to those that "are not operated on a commercial basis" the Zoning Ordinance illegally restricted ownership of land used as "Parks and Playgrounds." Keener said this was because the Zoning Ordinance prohibited a "for -profit" owner from operating the same permitted use as a "non-profit" owner, without any discernible relationship to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Common Pleas reversed, and mat- ter remanded. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania disagreed with Keener's inter- pretation of the Ordinance, but nonetheless concluded that it was not reason- able to find that Keener's proposed use did not meet the definition of "Parks and Playgrounds" under the Ordinance. The court explained that in "promulgating zoning ordinances, ordinance drafters are to provide for uniform uses in respective zoning districts pursuant to Section 605 of MPC, 53 P.S. § 10605, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: `Where zoning districts are created, all provisions shall be uniform for each class of uses or structures, within each district, except that additional classifications may be made within any district. . ... " Again, here, Keener had argued that the Zoning Ordinance's prohibition on banquets "operated on a commercial basis" illegally restricted ownership of land used as "Parks and Playgrounds" because the Ordinance prohibited a "for -profit" owner from operating the same permitted use as a "non-profit" owner, without any discernible relationship to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Rejecting Keener's interpretation, the court found that the jterm "commercial" in the Zoning Ordinance was unaffected by the use of broperty by a for -profit or not -for -profit entity. Rather, the court found the ©2013 Thomson Reuters 3