Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2012

Home

August 25, 2012 1 Volume 6 1 Issue 16 Zoning Bulletin DECISION: Municipalities' motion for summary relief granted (and with other counts dismissed). j The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania agreed with the Municipalities. It held that § 3304 was unconstitutional —in violation of substantive due pro- cess —because it required all oil and gas operations in all zoning districts, including residential districts, as a matter of law. In other words, it was unconstitutional because the "changes required by [3304] d[id] not serve the police power purpose of the local zoning ordinances, relating to consistent and compatible uses in the enumerated districts of a comprehensive zoning plan," and therefore, "any action by the local munici- pality required by the provisions of Act 13 would violate substantive due pro- cess as not in furtherance of its zoning police power." The court explained that to determine whether a zoning ordinance is uncon- stitutional under Article 1, § 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, a substantive due process in- quiry must take place. When making that inquiry, the court said it takes into consideration the rights of all property owners subject to the zoning and the public interests sought to be protected. In order for a zoning ordinance to be constitutional, it "must be directed toward the community as a whole, concerned with the public interest generally, and justified by a balancing of community costs and benefits." The Commonwealth had essentially argued that its police powers allowed a mandate under Article 13 that zoning regulations be rationally related to its objective of promoting exploitation of oil and gas resources. The court responded that "the interests that justify the exercise of the police power in the development of oil and gas operations and zoning are not the same" as those interests to be protected by zoning: While the "state's interest in oil and gas development is centered primarily on the efficient production and utilization of the natural resources in the state," "[z]oning, on the other hand, is to foster the orderly development and use of land in a manner consistent with local demographic and environmental concerns." The court found that § 3304 required zoning amendments that had to be "normally justified on the basis that they were in accord with the comprehen- sive plan, not to promote oil and gas operations that were incompatible with the uses by people who had made investment decisions regarding businesses and homes on the assurance that the zoning district would be developed in ac- cordance with comprehensive plan and would only allow compatible uses." The court said that "[i]f the Commonwealth -proffered reasons [were] suf- ficient, then the Legislature could make similar findings requiring coal portals, tipples, washing plants, limestone and coal strip mines, steel mills, industrial chicken farms, rendering plants and fireworks plants in residential zones for a variety of police power reasons advancing those interests in their development. It would allow the proverbial 'pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.' " Having found § 3304 allowed incompatible uses in zoning districts and failed to protect the interests of neighboring property owners from harm, altered the character of the neighborhood, and made irrational classifica- tions the court declared § 3304 unconstitutional and null and void. The court permanently enjoined the Commonwealth from enforcing it, as well as 4 © 2012 Thomson Reuters �l