the contrary, the Owners argue the apartment complexes are not “ ‘commercial,’ ” which “is commonly defined, in relevant part, to mean ‘of or relating to commerce.’” However, “commercial” has several definitions. Another definition of “commercial” is “viewed with regard to profit.” MeRriam-WebsteR’s Ninth New Collegiate DictionaRY 264 (Merriam-Webster, Inc.1984). The Owners do not dispute that their primary aim in owning the apartment complexes is profit. But, they argue, their apartments cannot be considered “commercial” because they are used by their occupants as residences. However, in support of this argument, the Owners rely exclusively on authority holding that residential use restrictions do not prohibit the construction of apartments, condominiums, and duplexes. See 544 (1972) (<HOLDING>). As the Association points out, the
holding that restrictive covenants disallowing commercial or industrial ventures or business of any type  from being maintained on any lot in the subdivision were not ambiguous and that according to their plain meaning clearly allow the rental of residential property whether shortterm or longterm because the use does not violate the prohibition on commercial and business activity as such terms are commonly understood holding that the specific date restriction set forth in  541a5 controls and that  1306a1 does not eliminate that restriction holding that the judges restriction of the class was not an abuse of discretion holding that in pennsylvania there is a rule that proof of the ownership of a business vehicle involved in an accident raises a presumption that the operation of the automobile was for the owners business purposes holding that apartment complex did not violate residential use restriction but noting that in many respects and for certain purposes ownership and operation of an apartment house is a business