Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2019

Home

Zoning Bulletin December 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 23 ubstantive a Process/Spot Zoning/Oil and Gas Well Use — Township's zoning ordinance allows oil and gas well operations by right in all zoning districts Landowners contend ordinance amounts to illegal spot zoning and violates the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code by allowing incompatible uses in the same zoning districts Citation: Frederick v. Allegheny Township Zoning Hearing Board, 2018 WL 5303462 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018) PENNSYLVANIA (10/26/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether a township's zoning ordinance allowing oil and gas well operations in all zoning districts violated substantive due process by instituting illegal spot zoning. It also addressed whether such an ordinance violates the Pennsylvania Munici- palities Planning Code by placing public health and safety at risk and by al- lowing incompatible uses to take place in zoning districts. The Background/Facts: In December 2010, Allegheny Township (the "Township") enacted Zoning Ordinance 01-2010 (the "Ordinance"). The Ordinance made oil and gas development "a permitted use by right in all Zon- ing Districts" in the Township. That use by right was subject to numerous standards or conditions related to road safety, land clearing, security measures, emergency planning, and noise and light controls. The Ordinance also required gas well operators comply with all federal and state permitting requirements, including permits from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP"). In October 2014, the Township issued a "zoning compliance permit" to CNX Gas Company ("CNX") to develop an unconventional gas well on prop- erty located in the Township's R-2 Zoning District. The R-2 Zoning District was an agricultural -residential use district. The property (the "Property") on which CNX planned to develop the unconventional well was owned by a family -owned farm, Northmoreland Farms, LP. Dolores Frederick, Patricia Hagaman, and Beverly Taylor (collectively, the "Objectors") all lived near the Property. The Objectors filed with the Township's Zoning Hearing Board (the "Board") a challenge to the Ordinance. The Objectors argued that the Ordinance violated substantive due process and the Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code ("MPC") by placing public health and safety at risk and by allowing incompatible uses to take place in zoning districts. They also argued that the Ordinance "improperly instituted il- legal spot zoning in violation of substantive due process" by failing to desig- nate uses within the same district that were compatible. They maintained that © 2018 Thomson Reuters 7