J.T. Juskowich and N. Albanese v. Washington Twp. ZHB, Greene County, PA, J.T. Juskowich and N. Albanese v. Washington Twp. ZHB, Greene County, PA

EQT Production Company applied for special exceptions to drill unconventional gas wells on two A-1 (Rural Agricultural) parcels in Washington Township; extractive operations are permitted by special exception under the Township Zoning Ordinance.
EQT submitted a voluminous application (including site plans, permits, access agreements) and held Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) hearings on Feb. 26 and May 28, 2015.
Locust Lane (access road) users raised safety concerns about the road’s insufficient width and emergency access; EQT proposed widening the road to two-way/18-foot width and was negotiating right-of-way agreements.
The ZHB granted the special exceptions with two conditions: EQT’s traffic control must give priority to non-EQT vehicles, and EQT must widen/improve Locust Lane to allow two-way traffic.
Appellants (residents) appealed to the trial court alleging EQT failed to meet ordinance special-exception requirements; the trial court affirmed the ZHB, finding most objections waived because they were not raised before the ZHB and that road concerns were addressed by conditions.
The Commonwealth Court (majority) affirmed the trial court; a concurring/dissenting judge would have reversed, finding EQT did not meet its evidentiary burden and Appellants did not waive objections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether EQT presented substantial evidence showing compliance with ordinance special-exception criteria	Appellants: EQT failed to prove it met the specific, objective requirements (site plans, water impact, fencing, bonding, performance standards)	EQT/ZHB: Application, filings, EQT testimony and zoning officer’s statements show compliance; Appellants failed to timely object	Held: Majority—issue waived for failure to raise before ZHB; Zoning Officer’s testimony and record suffice; affirm ZHB grant.
Whether Appellants waived their objections by not challenging compliance at ZHB hearings	Appellants: Could not meaningfully object because EQT did not present required detailed evidence; waiver inapplicable	ZHB/EQT: Appellants had opportunity to question the zoning officer and challengable assertions and did not; failure to raise issues before ZHB is waiver	Held: Majority—Appellants waived most ordinance-based objections by not raising them at the ZHB; dissent disagreed and would find no waiver.

Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 831 A.2d 764 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (a special exception is a use expressly permitted, not an exception to a restriction)
Dunbar v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 144 A.3d 219 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (applicant bears burden to persuade ZHB that proposed use satisfies ordinance requirements; burden then shifts to objectors)
Bray v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 410 A.2d 909 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (applicant has persuasion burden and duty to present evidence showing compliance with ordinance criteria for special exception)
Poole v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 10 A.3d 381 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (issues not raised before the local board are waived on appeal)
Morrell v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Shrewsbury, 17 A.3d 972 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (reiterating applicant’s burden for special exception)
Greaton Properties v. Lower Merion Township, 796 A.2d 1038 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (applicant’s duty to present evidence and persuade board that use satisfies objective ordinance requirements)