## Facts

- Cambria Township’s zoning ordinance barred commercial enterprises in the R-2 residential district but allowed “home occupations” only if: (1) conducted inside structures on the property; (2) conducted by a family member of the person living in the residential structure, with no more than one non-family employee; (3) created no objectionable noise, vibration, smoke, or smells; and (4) the operator obtained a zoning certificate for the home occupation.
- Beverly Niebauer owned a residential lot in the R-2 district. Her son, Todd Niebauer, applied for a permit to build a 40' × 56' × 12' pole building on the property.
- On the permit application, Todd wrote “Pole Bldg—Landscaping Business” under the “Residential” portion of the form (not the “Nonresidential” portion).
- The Township’s zoning officer issued the building permit, testifying that he understood the request as a residential-type storage/garage use (such as storing vehicles), not as approval of a commercial landscaping yard in the R-2 district.
- The next year, Beverly subdivided the property, leaving a newly created lot on which the pole building was the only structure.
- Beverly conveyed the pole-building lot to her sons, Todd and Matt Niebauer.
- Matt Niebauer used the pole-building lot to operate a landscaping business. Over time, the business included outdoor storage of equipment and supplies (including items such as bricks, pavers, plants, and manure), frequent deliveries by tractor-trailers, and a workforce that grew to about five employees.
- Neighboring property owners Richard and Margaret Rudolph complained about significant noise and unpleasant odors associated with the use of the lot.
- The Township issued an enforcement notice alleging that Matt was operating a prohibited commercial use in the R-2 district. Matt challenged the notice before the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB).
- The ZHB permitted Matt to continue the landscaping operation. The Court of Common Pleas affirmed, reasoning that the permit application authorized the landscaping business. The Rudolphs appealed to the Commonwealth Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a building permit issued for construction of a pole building—where the application referenced “Landscaping Business”—created a vested right to operate a commercial landscaping business in an R-2 residential district.
2. Whether the landscaping operation, as conducted, qualified as a permitted “home occupation” under the Township’s ordinance.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Court of Common Pleas.
- The court held that the building permit did not create a vested right to operate a commercial landscaping business in the R-2 district.
- The court held that the landscaping operation did not qualify as a home occupation because it failed multiple ordinance conditions, including indoor-conduct requirements, employee limits, and the prohibition on objectionable noise and smells, and it lacked the required zoning certificate.

## Legal Principles

- A vested-rights claim requires good-faith reliance on valid governmental authorization, with due diligence and substantial unrecoverable expenditures; it does not arise from a permit that, properly read, does not authorize the challenged use.
- A building permit for a lawful structure does not, by itself, approve a separate land use that the zoning ordinance otherwise prohibits in the district.
- Where an ordinance requires a specific zoning certificate or authorization for a home occupation, a building permit is not a substitute for that zoning approval.
- Home-occupation status turns on the actual manner of operation and the ordinance’s limits, including requirements that the activity be conducted inside structures, remain secondary to residential use, stay within employee caps, and avoid objectionable noise and odors.

## Conclusion

The Commonwealth Court concluded that the Township’s building permit allowed construction of a pole building but did not authorize a commercial landscaping business in an R-2 residential district, so no vested right to the prohibited use arose from the permit. The court also determined the operation could not be treated as a home occupation because it involved outdoor commercial storage and activity, multiple employees beyond the ordinance limit, and conditions complained of as noisy and malodorous, and it was not supported by the required zoning certificate.


Rudolph v. Zoning Hearing Board of Cambria Township, 839 A.2d 475 (2003)