In July 2005, JRAD Ventures, Inc. (“JRAD”) entered into an agreement to purchase property in the township. The property was located in the township’s RA Rural Agricultural District. On the property, JRAD planned to open an indoor shooting range, gun training facility, and gun and shooting supply store. Characterizing its planned facility as a “recreational facility,” JRAD applied to the township’s board of supervisors (the “Board”) for a conditional use permit.
The township’s zoning ordinance (the “Ordinance”) permitted “recreational facilities” in the RA District by conditional use. “Recreational facility” was defined in the Ordinance as: “an establishment offering recreation, sports . . . skill or leisure time activities to the general public or private membership for a fee or charge.”
Finding JRAD’s proposed facility qualified as a “recreational facility,” the Board granted JRAD its requested conditional use permit. The Board also found that the proposed store and training rooms were permissible, accessory uses.
Several township residents (the “Objectors”) appealed the grant of the conditional use permit to JRAD. On appeal, these residents argued that: (1) JRAD’s proposed facility should have been characterized as a “commercial retail use,” which was not permitted in the RA District; and (2) the Ordinance did not permit uses that were accessory to conditional uses; they argued the Ordinance only permitted uses that were accessory to permitted principal uses.
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that JRAD’s proposed facility was a “recreation facility,” permitted as a conditional use. The court reached this conclusion “[b]ased on the plain language” of the Ordinance’s definition of “recreation facility.” Even if the shooting range was a commercial enterprise, that did not, found the court, remove it from the definition. The Ordinance’s “recreation facility” definition was “not limited to ‘non-commercial’ recreational activities or restricted to entities offering services only to ‘members and their guests.’” Moreover, the Ordinances’ definition of “recreational facility” actually stated that such a facility could assess a “fee or charge.”
The court further held that JRAD’s proposed ancillary uses qualified as accessory uses. The Ordinance defined “accessory use” as “a use on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use.” The court found JRAD’s proposed gun shop and training rooms were “customarily incidental” to the use of a shooting range. Moreover, the court found that the Ordinance allowed accessory uses regardless of whether the principal use was a permitted use or was allowed by conditional use.
Aldridge v. Jackson Township, 2009 WL 380799 (Pa. Cmwlth., 11/16/2009)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/2217CD08_11-16-09.pdf
This abstract appears in the free Quinlan Zoning Law e-news. For subscription information click here
