J. Worthington v. Mount Pleasant Twp.
212 A.3d 582
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2019Background
- Range Resources applied for conditional-use approval to build an unconventional gas well and pad on land in Mount Pleasant Township (R-1 zoning); the proposed well was ~3,840 feet (≈0.73 mile) from a Fort Cherry School complex.
- Township Planning Commission approved; the Board of Supervisors held a public conditional-use hearing on August 22, 2016.
- At the hearing the Township solicitor explained that persons "in close proximity" and showing adverse impact may be granted party status (standing) with full rights; Worthington sought party status representing her 12‑year‑old granddaughter, alleging benzene exposure and health risks at the School.
- Worthington lived over three miles from the Well Site and did not present documentary proof of legal custody or residency for the granddaughter; the Board denied Worthington party status but allowed public comment; the Board approved the conditional use subject to conditions requiring compliance with laws and emissions controls.
- Worthington appealed the Board’s denial of party status to the trial court; the trial court affirmed, and this Court affirmed, holding she failed to meet the William Penn test (substantial, direct, immediate interest) for standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Worthington had standing (party status) to contest the conditional‑use decision | Worthington argued she represented her granddaughter (allegedly benzene‑exposed) and the School was within one mile, so she had a substantial, direct, immediate interest | Township/Range argued Worthington lived >3 miles away, lacked proof of custodial relationship or concrete causal exposure, and so lacked William Penn standing | Court held Worthington lacked standing: failed to show substantial (no legal custodial proof), direct (no causal showing of harm), and immediate (the risk was speculative) interests |
| Whether denial of party status violated Worthington's due process rendering Board action void ab initio | Worthington argued denial deprived her of procedural protections and chance to fully participate | Defendants argued nonparties may still comment; procedural protections reserved for parties; Board complied with procedures | Court did not decide the void‑ab initio issue because standing was dispositive; affirmed Board and trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Broad Mountain Dev. Co., LLC, 17 A.3d 434 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (proximity can confer standing in zoning challenges)
- Laughman v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Newberry Twp., 964 A.2d 19 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (owners one-half mile or more away generally lack proximity‑based standing)
- Whitehall Manor, Inc. v. Planning Commission of the City of Allentown, 79 A.3d 720 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (discussing William Penn test and meaning of "aggrieved person")
- Friends of Lackawanna v. Dunmore Borough Zoning Hearing Bd., 186 A.3d 525 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (defining "substantial" and "immediate" interests for standing)