|
|
Agnew v. Bushkill Township ZHB, (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), 837 A.2d 634
Note: Appeal Denied
The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court and refused to grant Agnew (landowner) a special exception to conduct a roofing business as a “home occupation” on a residential property in a Rural Agricultural District. The court explained that the ZHB ignored the language of the Ordinance restricting a home occupation to “only” those uses that are “clearly incidental and secondary to the principal residential use.” The court stated that although administrative work associated with an offsite business may be allowed if conducted is entirely within the confined of one’s home, the landowner’s proposed uses go far beyond running an office.
In addition to ignoring the language of the Ordinance, the Court explained that the ZHB ignored the limitations specified in the Ordinance on permitted home occupations. Specifically, the landowner could not comply with the requirements established for 1) the number of employees, 2) outdoor activity, 3) the location of the business and 4) the square footage devoted to the home occupation. The landowner failed to satisfy his burden of proving that his proposed use met the specific criteria for a special exception home occupation.
DISCLAIMER:
This site is designed to provide summary review of selected Pennsylvania and Federal Court decisions related to land use and land use controls. The information contained herein, although produced by professionals, is not intended to render any legal service. Nor should the materials herein be utilized as a substitute for professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the service of an attorney or other professional should be sought. DCED makes no representations, warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information provided herein.
Back to Top |
