Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin July 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 13 to others allowed in zoning district, suggesting gas wells are like a "public service facility" Citation: Gorsline v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfield Township, 2018 WL 2448803 (Pa. 2018) PENNSYLVANIA (06/01/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether a natural gas company satisfied the local zoning ordinance's requirement that, to be permitted as a conditional use, its proposed gas wells be "similar to" other uses allowed in the relevant zoning district. The Background/Facts: Inflection Energy, LLC ("Inflection") sought to construct and operate multiple gas wells on a nearly 60-acre parcel of land in Fairfield Township (the "Township"). The parcel of land was located in a Residential -Agricultural ("R-A") zoning district. Inflection submitted to the Township's Board of Supervisors (the "Board") a "Zoning and Development Permit Application" for its proposed gas wells use. Because gas wells were not identified under the Township's zoning ordinance as a permitted or conditional use in the R-A district, the Board looked to section 12.18 of the Township zoning ordinance. Section 12.18 was known as the "savings clause." It provided that when a use was neither specifically permitted nor denied, the Board would review the request as a conditional use. Section 12.18 specified that the Board had the authority to permit or deny the use in accordance with condi- tional use applications but only if the use: "is similar to and compatible with other uses permitted in the zoning district"; "is not permitted in any other zone"; and is not "in conflict with the general purposes of [the Township] zoning ordinance." The Board granted Inflection a conditional use permit for its proposed gas wells use. In doing so, the Board found that: the use was not al- lowed in any of the Township's three zoning districts and thus was governed by the savings clause in section 12.18. The Board also found "that the criteria for review set forth in section 12.18" had been "suf- ficiently satisfied." Town residents (the "Objectors") appealed the Board's decision to grant Inflection the conditional use permit. The Objectors asserted that the Board had made no findings of fact with respect to the requirements of section 12.18 "and instead reached the bald conclusion that Inflection somehow satisfied its burden of proof without identifying any similar permitted use the in the R-A district." Inflection argued that its gas wells use was "similar" to other uses permitted in the R-A district because it constituted a "public service fa- cility" since it furnished gas to the public. The Township's zoning ordinance allowed for "public service facility" uses (as conditional uses) in all three of the Township's zoning districts. © 2018 Thomson Reuters 3