Rudolph v. Zoning Hearing Board of Cambria Township
839 A.2d 475, 2003 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 932 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner does not acquire a vested right to operate a commercial enterprise in a residential zone based on a building permit for a permitted structure, even if the permit application mentioned the intended commercial use. Furthermore, a business cannot qualify as a "home occupation" if it is not subordinate to a principal residence on the same lot and violates ordinance provisions regarding employees, noise, and outdoor operations.
Facts:
- In 1997, Todd Niebauer applied for a permit to construct a pole building on his mother's property, which was located in an R-2 residential district.
- On the permit application, under the 'RESIDENTIAL' use column, Niebauer checked 'Other Specify' and wrote 'Pole Bldg — Landscaping Business'.
- The Township issued a building permit that authorized construction of the pole building for 'storage' but did not mention or authorize a landscaping business.
- After the building was constructed, the property was subdivided, creating a new lot (Lot No. 2) containing only the pole building.
- Matt Niebauer then began operating a commercial landscaping business from Lot No. 2.
- The business expanded to include five non-family employees, regular deliveries by tractor-trailers, and the open-air storage of equipment, supplies, mulch, and manure.
- The Rudolphs, who lived on an adjacent property, experienced significant noise and odors emanating from the business operations on Lot No. 2.
Procedural Posture:
- In May 2002, the Cambria Township issued an enforcement notice against Matt Niebauer for operating a commercial business in an R-2 residential district.
- Niebauer appealed the enforcement notice to the Cambria Township Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB).
- The ZHB found that Niebauer had a vested right to operate the business and granted him permission to continue, subject to several conditions.
- Richard and Margaret Rudolph (appellants), the adjacent property owners, appealed the ZHB's decision to the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County (a trial-level court).
- The Court of Common Pleas affirmed the ZHB's decision.
- The Rudolphs (appellants) then appealed the order of the Court of Common Pleas to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (an intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a property owner acquire a vested right to operate a commercial landscaping business in a residential zone when the building permit application for a pole building mentioned the business, but the issued permit only authorized construction for storage, and the subsequent business operations violate multiple local zoning ordinance requirements for a home occupation?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Cohn
No. A property owner does not acquire a vested right to operate a commercial landscaping business under these circumstances, nor does the business qualify as a home occupation. The doctrine of vested rights applies when a landowner relies on a permit that was erroneously issued, not when a landowner expands their use beyond what a validly issued permit allows. Here, the permit was validly issued for the construction of a pole building for storage, a permitted use. The permit did not authorize the operation of a commercial business. Merely writing 'landscaping business' on the residential section of the application does not create a vested right to operate a commercial enterprise in violation of zoning laws. Furthermore, the business fails every requirement for a 'home occupation' under the ordinance: it is not on a lot with a home, it employs more than one non-family member, it produces objectionable noise and odors, and the owner never obtained the required certificate.
Dissenting - Judge Friedman
Yes. Niebauer did acquire a vested right to continue operating his landscaping business. The majority improperly ignores the Zoning Hearing Board's (ZHB) findings of fact, which established that Niebauer met the five-part test for vested rights from Petrosky. The Township knew the intended use was a landscaping business when it issued the permit and then acquiesced to that use for four years while Niebauer expended substantial unrecoverable funds in reliance on the permit. The ZHB, as the local fact-finder, crafted an equitable solution that balanced the parties' interests by imposing conditions on the business, and this court has no authority to substitute its own judgment for the ZHB's supported findings.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the application of the vested rights doctrine in zoning law. It establishes that the doctrine protects reliance on an invalidly issued permit for a specific use, not a landowner's subsequent, unauthorized expansion of activities beyond the scope of a valid permit. The ruling reinforces that municipalities are not estopped from enforcing zoning ordinances simply because a landowner made a vague notation on a permit application. By strictly interpreting the definition of a 'home occupation,' the court also limits the ability of commercial enterprises to operate in residential zones under that guise, emphasizing that such uses must be genuinely incidental and subordinate to the residential character of the property.
