196 A.3d 677
Pa. Commw. Ct.2018Background
- Allegheny Township enacted Zoning Ordinance 01-2010 (Dec. 2010) permitting oil and gas development as a use by right in all zoning districts, subject to enumerated operational standards.
- Township issued a zoning compliance permit to CNX for an unconventional multi-well pad (Porter Pad) on a 330-acre farm in the R-2 Agricultural/Residential district.
- Neighbors (Objectors) challenged the ordinance and permit, claiming illegal spot zoning, violation of substantive due process, breach of the Environmental Rights Amendment (ERA, Pa. Const. art. I, §27), and violations of the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC).
- Zoning Board held hearings, credited CNX experts (including Prof. Pifer), discredited Objectors’ experts, and found extensive existing leasing/drilling in the Township and that setbacks, state permits, and ordinance standards mitigate local impacts.
- Trial court affirmed the Zoning Board; Commonwealth Court (majority) affirmed, rejecting Objectors’ claims. Two judges dissented on ERA grounds, urging remand for further evidence and stricter scrutiny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process / spot zoning | Ordinance permits an industrial use incompatible with R-2 and thus is arbitrary/spot zoning. | Ordinance applies to all districts (no single ‘spot’), oil & gas historically coexists with rural uses, and conditions mitigate harms. | Affirmed—no spot zoning or substantive due process violation; Board findings (unchallenged) supported compatibility and reasonableness. |
| Environmental Rights Amendment (Article I, §27) | Ordinance unlawfully burdens public natural resources and fails to account for environmental harms; requires trustee-level scrutiny/remand. | ERA duties focus principally on public/state trust assets; local zoning regulates "where," not "how," and state permits/regulation address operational impacts. | Majority: Affirmed—Objectors failed to show the ordinance unreasonably impairs ERA rights; Board credited evidence of coexistence and state oversight. Dissent: Would remand and apply more searching review under ERA. |
| Compliance with MPC (sections 603–605) | Ordinance conflicts with community objectives, permits incompatible uses, and risks water/public welfare. | Claims mirror due process arguments; Board found no probative evidence of harm and procedures under MPC were followed. | Affirmed—no MPC violation shown given Board’s factual findings and absence of challenged record evidence. |
| Validity of CNX permit | Permit rests on invalid ordinance and fails to protect neighbors/ERA resources. | Permit complied with ordinance and state permitting regime; permit issuance properly evaluated. | Affirmed—permit upheld because substantive attack on ordinance failed and Board found no credible evidence of site-specific adverse impacts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boundary Drive Associates v. Shrewsbury Township Board of Supervisors, 491 A.2d 86 (Pa. 1985) (zoning ordinance valid if substantially related to public health, safety, or welfare)
- Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013) (plurality) (interpreting Environmental Rights Amendment and recognizing local trustee considerations)
- Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth, 161 A.3d 911 (Pa. 2017) (superseding Payne test; ERA construed in trust terms)
- In re Realen Valley Forge Greenes Associates, 838 A.2d 718 (Pa. 2003) (property use balancing and deference to legislative zoning judgments)
- Gorsline v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfield Township, 123 A.3d 1142 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (speculative construction-phase impacts insufficient to defeat a zoning permit)
- EQT Production Co. v. Borough of Jefferson Hills, 162 A.3d 554 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (objectors must tie evidence of harms to the specific site challenged)
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1926) (land use regulation balances public interest against private property rights)