Robinson Township v. Commonwealth
52 A.3d 463
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Act 13 (Oil and Gas—Marcellus Shale) in PA Commonwealth Court and seek summary relief; the Commonwealth and agencies file preliminary objections and cross-motions.
- Act 13 repeals the prior Oil and Gas Act and creates a statewide framework that preempts most local environmental and zoning rules, with limited setback provisions.
- Act 13 defines “oil and gas operations” broadly to include locations, storage, pipelines, and related facilities; it empowers eminent domain in gas transport/storage and requires uniform local ordinances.
- Petitioners bring 12 counts asserting violations of state and federal constitutions, separation of powers, non‑delegation, vagueness, and special-law provisions; Counts XIII and XIV seek injunctions.
- The court concludes Counts I–III and VIII are subject to summary relief, while Counts IV–VI, VII, IX–XII present issues of preemption, vagueness, and constitutional separation of powers; the final order grants some relief and enjoins others.
- The decision ultimately declares 58 Pa.C.S. § 3304 unconstitutional and void and grants summary relief on Counts I–III and VIII, with various Counts dismissed or sustained as described in the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3304 violates substantive due process (Counts I–III). | Petitioners claim § 3304 allows incompatible uses and irrationally alters neighborhood character. | Commonwealth argues zoning is a valid police power balancing oil and gas development with public health and safety. | Yes; § 3304 unconstitutional; summary relief granted. |
| Whether § 3304 violates Article III, § 32 (Special Law) (Count IV). | Petitioners contend § 3304 treats oil and gas differently from others, a special-law result. | Commonwealth asserts § 3304 is uniform regulation of oil and gas; not a single-group privilege. | Count IV sustained; § 3304 violates special-law prohibition. |
| Whether § 3241(a) Eminent Domain claim (Count V) is actionable in this proceeding. | Property takings for storage reservoirs are unconstitutional absent just compensation. | Challenge to condemnor power belongs to the declaration of taking process; this court lacks jurisdiction. | Count V dismissed for lack of proper pre-temptory objection and jurisdiction. |
| Whether Count VI (Article I, § 27) natural resources violates preemption and planning duties. | Act 13 preempts local planning balancing environmental concerns; undermines trustee role. | State preempts local regulation to protect natural resources; MPC obligations are limited by statute. | Count VI dismissed; preemption and MPC framework limit local balancing. |
| Whether § 3215(b)(4) non-delegation waiver provisions violate Article II, § 1 (Count VIII). | DEP may waive water setbacks without standards, violating non-delegation. | Standards exist elsewhere; waiver provision is consistent with legislative policy. | Count VIII granted summary relief; § 3215(b)(4) declared null and void. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725 (U.S. (1995)) (land-use restrictions designate districts with compatible uses; zoning validity governed by public interests)
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (U.S. (1926)) (zoning as rational means to separate incompatible uses; planning considerations)
- Huntley & Huntley, Inc. v. Borough of Oakmont, 964 A.2d 855 (Pa. 2009) (zoning/police-power balance with oil and gas development; preemption analysis)
- In re Realen Valley Forge Greenes Assocs., 838 A.2d 718 (Pa. 2003) (spot zoning and conformity with comprehensive plans explored)
- William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1975) (standing—substantial direct immediate interest; parking tax challenge)
- Pennsylvania v. Nixon, (cited in opinion) ((Pa. 2000)) (parens patriae standing and public-interest representation)