Commonwealth Court affirms determination of standard is within discretion of the Zoning Hearing Board
In a ruling that reinforces the importance of neighborhood compatibility in zoning decisions, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court upheld the denial of a special exception for a proposed gun range.
In Cogan Properties, LLC v. East Union Township Zoning Hearing Board, the applicant filed for a special exception to permit a private recreation facility in the form of a gun range on a 526-acre property in Schuylkill County.
The East Union Township Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) denied the request, explaining that the applicant failed to comply with Zoning Ordinance Section 1510.2(5), which reads:
The proposed use shall be compatible with adjoining development and the character of the zoning district and neighborhood in which it is proposed to be located. The nature and intensity of the operation of the proposed use shall be considered regarding its compatibility or lack thereof.
Applicant appealed the ZHB decision to the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas (Trial Court), arguing that Section 1510.2(5) is a non-specific, subjective standard. The ZHB argued that the determination as to compliance with Section 1510.2(5) falls squarely within the discretion of the ZHB.
The Trial Court ruled in favor of the ZHB and applicant appealed.
Commonwealth Court Analysis
In affirming the Trial Court’s decision, the Commonwealth Court determined that a zoning hearing board’s interpretation of its own zoning ordinance is entitled to great weight and deference due to its expertise and experience. The Court explained that a special exception is a permitted use subject to conditions as outlined in the zoning ordinance, but absent a showing of detrimental effect on the community.
Reviewing the evidence and testimony, the Court found that applicant did not present evidence as to compatibility of the gun range with adjoining developments and the character of the neighborhood within the zoning district.
In fact, the Commonwealth Court found that the evidence presented by the applicant proved the opposite, pointing to the noise generated by the use. Testimony showed there would be shooting competitions with thousands of rounds fired per day, which the Court found to far exceed the intensity of the existing recreational shooting ranges in the district, and incompatible with the surrounding, primarily residential, developments.
Key Takeaways
Landowners in Pennsylvania considering or applying for zoning relief regarding the use of their property should be particularly conscious of the “character of the neighborhood” standard analyzed in Cogan.
Applicants for zoning permits and special exceptions should be adequately prepared with testimony and evidentiary support to prove compliance and conformity with this standard.
[View source.]
