Sky's the Limit, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 123
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- STL operates a skydiving business at Pocono Stroudsburg Airport under a lease with airport owner Strenz; Zoning Officer issued a camping violation notice; camping includes RV and tent camping; Board held camping prohibited in M-1 Industrial District; STL appealed to trial court arguing camping is an accessory use; trial court affirmed the Board; STL appealed to Commonwealth Court.
- Strenz testified camping existed at the airport since before 1984; he treated RV parking as customary; Root testified about camping and RVs and that campers paid for slips; PDOT Aviation official Gromlowicz acknowledged camping occurs at some PA airports but did not know applicability to M-1 zoning.
- Zoning Ordinance M-1 prohibits camping; accessorial use and customary incidental-ness require analysis; Hess v. Warwick Township standard adopted; evidence focused on whether camping is necessary or customary to airport operation; Board found insufficient evidence that camping is customarily incidental to airport or STL’s skydiving business.
- Board’s credibility findings and legal conclusions rested on lack of evidence that camping is customarily incidental to the principal airport use; camping not tied to the skydiving operation; evidence did not show frequency or necessity of camping at the airport; court affirmed trial court’s decision.
- The disposition: the trial court’s order affirming the Board is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is camping an accessory use to the airport under the Zoning Ordinance? | STL argues camping is an accessory use to the airport. | Board found camping not permitted as accessory use. | No; camping not proven to be an accessory use. |
| Is camping customarily incidental to the airport use under Hess v. Warwick Township? | STL contends camping is customary incidental to airport use. | Evidence fails to show a customary connection between airport and camping. | Not proven; insufficient evidence of customary incidental use. |
| Did the Board commit an error of law or abuse its discretion in upholding the zoning enforcement? | STL argues Board ignored uncontradicted evidence of accessory-use status. | Board properly applied Hess and substantial-evidence standard. | Board’s findings supported by substantial evidence; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hess v. Warwick Township Zoning Hearing Board, 977 A.2d 1216 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (customary incidental standard applied via objective reasonable person approach)
- Southco, Inc. v. Concord Township, 552 Pa. 66, 713 A.2d 607 (1998) (wagering component as accessory use dependent on restaurant context)
- One Meridian Partners, LLP v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Philadelphia, 867 A.2d 706 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (scope of review; substantial evidence standard)
- Valley View Civic Ass'n v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 462 A.2d 637 (Pa.1983) (substantial evidence standard for board decisions)
- Tennyson v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of West Bradford Township, 952 A.2d 739 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (test for accessory use requires secondary and customary connection)