123 A.3d 1142
Pa. Commw. Ct.2015Background
- Inflection Energy seeks to locate and operate a natural gas well on Shaheen land in Fairfield Township's Residential Agriculture (RA) District, using the zoning savings clause to obtain a conditional use permit where the use is not expressly authorized.
- The Township has three zoning districts and has previously granted conditional uses for four other gas wells in the RA District.
- Neighbors (Gorsline and Batkowski families) opposed the project citing potential impacts to drinking water, a nearby stream, truck traffic, noise, lights, and property values; a public hearing was held.
- At the first hearing, Inflection’s field operations manager described the proposed pad size, drilling plan, water supply, and truck traffic during construction; the plan contemplated starting with two wells and possibly drilling more, with a 90-day construction period and substantial truck traffic.
- At the second hearing, Inflection presented an erosion and sediment control plan approved by DEP and testimony from a geologist about environmental safeguards; neighbors did not present opposing expert evidence.
- The Board granted Inflection a conditional use permit with 14 conditions; the trial court reversed, finding Inflection failed to show similarity/compatibility with RA uses and not detrimental to health and safety; Inflection appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Inflection’s use is similar to and compatible with RA uses and not conflict with the ordinance’s purposes. | Inflection: use is similar to public service facilities allowed in RA. | Neighbors: need proof of compatibility, not shown; court should defer to Board. | Yes; use is similar to and compatible with RA uses and does not conflict with the ordinance. |
| Whether Inflection proved the well would not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare. | Inflection: expert testimony shows no adverse impacts; DEP plan approved. | Neighbors: insufficient evidence to prove lack of detriment. | Yes; record supports no detrimental health/safety impacts. |
| Whether the Board’s 14 conditions were properly considered by the trial court. | Conditions were properly imposed to mitigate impacts; trial court should defer. | Not necessary to reweigh if threshold is met. | Error to disregard Board’s conditions; not essential to reweigh. |
| Whether the trial court properly limited review to issues raised before the Board. | Court may review under MPC and Section 12.18; Board’s findings should stand. | Court may reject unsupported findings or remand for more evidence. | Court erred in expanding issues beyond the record; proper review allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- MarkWest Liberty Midstream & Resources, LLC v. Cecil Township Zoning Hearing Board, 102 A.3d 549 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (similarity analysis for ‘public service facility’ in zoning context)
- Sunnyside Up Corp. v. City of Lancaster Zoning Hearing Board, 739 A.2d 644 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (evidence must be probative to show health/safety impacts)
- Rural Area Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Fayette County Zoning Hearing Board, 646 A.2d 717 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (arguments of possible harms insufficient without substantial evidence)
- In re Drumore Crossings, L.P., 984 A.2d 589 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (conditional use burden on applicant; board is fact-finder)
- Koutrakos v. Zoning Hearing Board of Newtown Township, 685 A.2d 639 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (record with findings; court may not disturb supported findings)