In Re Scheiber

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a shooting range was not a land development requiring a zoning permit
• noting that “accessory uses have traditionally involved such various activities as home occupations, tennis courts, and airplane 8 hangers”
• describing Scheiber’s concern “was based primarily on the fact that the weapons were fired in the general direction of his house.”
• construing certain recreational activities as “neither regulated nor contemplated” by zoning ordinance
• describing three occasions where landowners “used the range in connection with a rifle safety course for the benefit of the local chapter of the American Pistol and Rifle Association,” which had also “held four annual picnics at the range”
• “[D]e minimis uses of private property . . . are neither regulated nor contemplated by the zoning regulations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).