P. Marshall and J. Marshall v. Charlestown Twp. Board of Supervisors and C.J. Cloeter and N.H. Cloeter, 169 A.3d 162

Background

Paul and Julie Marshall own a 12.6-acre FR‑Farm Residential parcel with a historic farmhouse and bank barn in Charlestown Township; they sought conditional‑use approval to run "farm‑to‑table" educational culinary workshops (children daytime; adults nighttime) in the barn.
The Township Board of Supervisors (Board) held hearings, granted daytime use with conditions but denied the adult nighttime workshops, finding the nighttime program was effectively a dining/restaurant experience rather than an educational use.
The Marshalls appealed the Board’s denial to the Court of Common Pleas, which reversed the Board and authorized the nighttime use subject to court‑imposed conditions; the Board sought reconsideration unsuccessfully and appealed to this Court.
The Marshalls challenged the Board’s standing to appeal, arguing a governing body that acted as adjudicator below lacks appellate standing (analogizing to zoning hearing boards). The Board argued it represents the Township and had party status and therefore may appeal.
On appeal this Court considered: (1) whether the Board had standing to bring the appeal; (2) whether the nighttime use qualified as an "educational" conditional use under the zoning ordinance; and (3) whether the trial court exceeded its authority by imposing conditions (later rendered moot by the Court’s resolution).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Marshalls)	Defendant's Argument (Board)	Held
Standing to appeal	Board lacks standing because it was the adjudicatory body below; zoning board precedent bars adjudicators from appealing.	Board, as the township governing body that operates for the municipality and participated as a party, has standing to appeal.	Board has standing: a board of supervisors acts also as the governing body and may appeal when it participated as a party.
Whether nighttime use is an "educational" conditional use	The farm‑to‑table adult workshops are educational in the ordinance’s broad sense; the Board construed "educational" too narrowly and mischaracterized the use as a restaurant.	Nighttime program’s primary function is a dining experience (multi‑course meal, alcohol, service staff), so education is accessory; Board’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.	Court held Board did not err or abuse discretion; substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that nighttime use is not primarily educational.
Consistency between daytime and nighttime approvals	Daytime children’s workshops are educational, so nighttime adult workshops must be similarly educational.	The daytime and nighttime programs differ materially; Board reasonably credited differences in format and objectives.	Court rejected Marshalls’ consistency argument; Board reasonably found the programs distinct.
Trial court imposing conditions on nighttime use	(Marshalls supported trial court reversal and conditions)	Board argued the trial court exceeded jurisdiction by imposing its own conditions.	Moot because the Court reversed the trial court’s substantive reversal; did not reach the merits of the Board’s argument about conditions.

Key Cases Cited

Mollick v. Township of Worcester, 32 A.3d 859 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (a second‑class township operates through its board of supervisors)
Gilbert v. Montgomery Township Zoning Hearing Board, 427 A.2d 776 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (municipality must have party status below to pursue appellate review of zoning board decisions)
Burgoon v. Zoning Hearing Board of Charlestown Township, 277 A.2d 837 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1971) ("educational use" construed broadly where undefined in ordinance)
Visionquest Nat’l, Ltd. v. Board of Supervisors of Honey Brook Twp., 569 A.2d 915 (Pa. 1990) (primary function test: educational label not dispositive if primary mission differs)
Callowhill Neighborhood Ass’n v. City of Philadelphia Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 118 A.3d 1214 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (deference to municipal ordinance interpretations by administering body)