Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/15/2015

Home

September 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 17 Zoning Bulletin The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the Township's zoning ordinance was not preempted by the Noncoal Surface Mining Con- servation and Reclamation Act. In so holding, the court looked to the language of the Act, which states: "Except with respect to ordinances adopted pursuant to . . . the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code [`MPC'], all local ordinances and enactments purporting to regulate surface mining are hereby superseded. The Commonwealth, by this enact- ment, hereby preempts the regulation of surface mining as herein defined." The court found that the zoning ordinance was not preempted by the Act because: (1) the zoning ordinance was enacted pursuant to the MPC; and (2) the zoning ordinance regulated where a noncoal surface mine could be located within the Township; it did not regulate the manner in which such a facility was operated (which was governed and preempted by the state Act). The court also rejected Huckleberry's claim that the solid waste recycling facility was a natural expansion of the Property's prior, nonconforming use as a surface mine and quarry. The court found that "[u]nder any reasonable interpretation, the collection of third -party, consumer food waste is neither a mining activity nor a quany activity, nor is it a natural expansion of such activities." Notably, the evidence showed that all of the materials used for the composting and biosoils use at the Property were imported onto the Property from outside sources; none of the materials used in the composting and biosoils manufacturing process were derived from the Property or the quarry on the Property. Accordingly, the court affirmed the ZHB's decision, finding that Hucklebeny's change in use of its Property from a surface mine and quany to a solid waste recycling facility, without obtaining required zoning pennits, violated the Township's zoning ordinance. See also: Geiyville Materials, Inc. v. Planning Com'n of Lower Milford Tp., Lehigh County, 74 A.3d 322 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013), appeal denied, 624 Pa. 699, 87 A.3d 817 (2014) Spot Zoning—Two acres -of 108 - acre aroperty co -owned by father and son is rezoned Neighbors allege rezone constitutes illegal spot zoning Citation: Good Neighbors of Oregon Hill Protecting Property Rights v. County of Rockingham, 2015 WL 4449994 (N. C. Ct. App. 201 S) NORTH CAROLINA (07/21/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether the rezoning of two acres of land co -owned by a father and son constituted illegal spot zoning. 4 © 2015 Thomson Reuters