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.
------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Win an M1 Garand from Fulton Armory while helping the Cause!
Details of the MPFO rifle raffle are at http://myguns.org/
------------------------------------------------------------
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.
That's great until the EPA shuts them down for lead contamination.
Even if humans are the only creatures in the universe who convert a
portion of their species into lawyers it seems like clear proof of the
non-existence of a benevolent creator.
# That's great until the EPA shuts them down for lead contamination.
It's an indoor range. The EPA doesn't have jurisdiction.
# In article <hhgs5d$bkg$1...@news.albasani.net>, bo...@apt0.sao.arizona.edu
# (Louis Boyd) says...
#
# # That's great until the EPA shuts them down for lead contamination.
#
# It's an indoor range. The EPA doesn't have jurisdiction.
Not YET.
When Liar-in-Chief Comrade Obama unleashes the EPA,he'll use it to regulate
gun owners.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com