Keener v. Rapho Township Zoning Hearing Board
79 A.3d 1205
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Keener owns a 130-acre farm and seeks to operate a mixed recreational/commercial use: restored bank barn and farmhouse as a banquet/wedding/meeting venue plus outdoor recreational activities and tours.
- Rapho Township Zoning Ordinance permits "Parks and Playgrounds" by right in the Agricultural Zone but only if "not operated on a commercial basis;" other commercial recreation uses require special exception or are permitted in other zones.
- Keener applied for a special exception (and argued alternative classifications: adaptive reuse, tourist farm, "use not otherwise provided for"). The Rapho Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) denied the application as commercial and not a park/playground open to the "general public."
- The Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas affirmed the ZHB, accepting the ZHB’s distinction between facilities open to the "general public" and those open to the public who pay; remand occurred for clarification; ZHB again denied, and common pleas affirmed.
- On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the court considered whether the ordinance’s commercial/noncommercial and "public"/"general public" distinctions are legally valid and whether they unlawfully regulate ownership or lack a rational basis.
Issues
| Issue | Keener's Argument | Township's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ordinance’s proviso that parks/playgrounds must be "not operated on a commercial basis" unlawfully regulates ownership | That the restriction effectively discriminates against for-profit owners (like Keener) versus non-profit owners and thus impermissibly regulates ownership/class | The phrase limits operation mode (commercial vs non-commercial) not owner identity; it targets use, not ownership | The court rejected Keener’s ownership argument: the ordinance regulates commercial activity (use), not ownership, but found the commercial/noncommercial distinction lacks a rational relation to public welfare and is invalid as applied to banquet facilities |
| Meaning of "on a commercial basis" | Means carried on for profit (mere fee insufficient) | Means an activity carried on as a business (fee-based, commercial operation) | Court adopts Township’s reading: "commercial" = activity carried on as a business; "non-commercial" = communal/open use (no fee) |
| Whether distinguishing between facilities open to the "general public" and those open to the public who pay is a valid use distinction | Banquet use is substantively the same whether fee charged or not; fee does not change impacts; thus no valid use distinction | Ordinance distinguishes unrestricted public access (general public) vs commercial operations where use is by paying customers | Court held the "general public" vs "public who pay" distinction unreasonable for banquet facilities; fee-based banquet use still falls within parks/playgrounds as defined when irrational restriction removed |
| Need to remand to ZHB for reconsideration | Required to evaluate Keener’s application without the invalid commercial exclusion | ZHB had previously denied for multiple reasons (parking, sewage, adverse impacts) | Court reversed common pleas and remanded to ZHB to reevaluate Keener’s application consistent with opinion (i.e., without excluding banquet facilities solely because commercial) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ludwig v. Zoning Hearing Board of Earl Township, 658 A.2d 886 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (invalidating zoning distinctions that regulate ownership by discriminating between for-profit and nonprofit operators)
- Mahony v. Township of Hampton, 651 A.2d 525 (Pa.) (holding ownership-based distinctions lacked reasonable relation to health, safety, welfare)
- Rapaport v. Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Allentown, 687 A.2d 29 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (distinguishing private playgrounds from public playgrounds based on unrestricted public access)
- Beaver Gasoline Co. v. Zoning Hearing Board, 285 A.2d 501 (Pa.) (zoning restrictions must bear a rational relationship to public health, safety, welfare)