Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/1999

Home

Page 4 -- January 25, 1999 Z.B. run constantly, 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. The area was zoned agricultural/rural, so Lomak applied to the zoning hear- ing board for a special exception to build and operate the compressor as a public service facility. The county zoning ordinance defined a "public service facility" as "buildings ... or other similar public s~rvi'e'~.~tmctures by a utility... including the furnishing of electrical, gas, communication,~water supply and sewage disposal services." The ordinance allowed utilities to provide "essen- tial services," which included gas distribution systems needed to service the public- but it didn't define "utility." The zoning board granted Lomak's request, and the neighbors appealed to court. The court affirmed the board's decis.ion. The neighbors appealed again, arguing Lomak w~sn't entitled to a special exception because it wasn't a public utility. According to the neighbors, the test for determining whether a business was a public utility was "whether it held itself out as ready, able and willing to serve the public." DECISION: Reversed. Lomak wasn't entitled to a special exception because .it wasn't a public utility. : The neighbors' characterization of "utility" in terms of public service was consistent with the county's zoning scheme. Although the zoning provisions that allowed "essential services" by right included gas distribution systems, · they were limited to "public services." State common law also provided "a public utility holds itself out to the public generally and may not refuse any legitimate demand for service." Moreover, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Code's definition of"public utility" expressly excluded "any producer of natu- ral gas, not engaged in distributing such gas directly to the public." Finally, according to the state's highest court, an entity qualified as a public utility only if it served all members of the public upon reasonable request, charged just and reasonable rates subject to review by a regulatory body, and filed tariffs speci- fying all of its charges. see also: Crown Communications v. Glenfield Borough Zoning Hearb~g Board, 705 A.2d 427 (1997). see also: Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. WVCH Communications Inc., 351 A.2d 328 (1975). Recreational Use ~ Neighbor claims shooting range requires zoning or conditional use permit Citation: In re Scheibe~; Supreme Court of Vermont, No. 97-150 (1998) The Pikes owned property in Cabot, Vt., which was zoned residential/agri- cultural. Scheiber lived about one-half mile away. In 1989, the Pikes created a shooting range on their property. They re- moved 10 trees, created an earthen "backstop," and built a small platform. The range could accommodate four people. The Pikes initially used it for family