Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2018

Home

July 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 13 Zoning Bulletin Agreeing with the Objectors, the trial court rejected Inflection's argu- ment, finding "the Board had offered no explanation regarding the man- ner in which Inflection's proposed fracking use was `similar to' a 'pub- lic service facility.' " The court noted that Inflection "would not be providing any public service, as it `[was] not constructing [those] wells to furnish natural gas to the residents of the [area], or even [the] Township.' " Inflection appealed. Reversing the trial court, the Commonwealth Court determined that Inflection's proposed natural gas compressor station use was "similar to and compatible with a `public service facility' use and/or an `essential service' use" and was thus appropriately permitted by the Board. The Objectors again appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Commonwealth Court reversed. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that Inflection's proposed gas wells use was not "in any material respect, of the same general character as, or similar to" a "public service facility" use or "essential services" use allowed in the Township's R-A district. In so holding, the court looked at the Township's zoning ordinance definitions of "public service facility" and "essential services." The Township's zoning ordinance defined "public service facility" as involving "public service structures by a utility . . . or by a municipality or other governmental agency." "Essential services" were defined as the facilities and related equipment of a "public utility." The court found that those uses were permitted in the R-A district "to promote residential and agricultural development in that part of the [T]ownship." The public nature of "pub- lic service facility" and "essential services" uses was inherently "local in nature" —namely, to provide services for the benefit of Township residents, found the court. Seen in that light, the court concluded that Inflection's proposed gas well use was "plainly not of the 'same general character as,' or `similar to,' `public service facility' or `essential services' uses." The court noted that Inflection was not a "public utility," and was "clearly not a municipality or a government agency, but rather [was] a private, for - profit commercial business." Moreover, the court found that Inflection had offered no evidence, and the Board had made no findings, that Inflection's extraction of natural gas "is in any respect for the benefits of the residents of the R-A district, [the] Township, or even [the] County." Rather, the court found that Inflection's proposed use provided "no public or essential services to the residents of the R-A district, and provide[d] no infrastructure that supports and promotes residential and agricultural development in Fairfield Township." Conversely, the court determined that "Inflection's proposed use was intended solely for Inflection's own commercial benefit, and not in any respect for the ben- 4 © 2018 Thomson Reuters