For the uninitiated, the Supreme Court in Robinson Township relied on Pennsylvania’s Environmental Rights Amendment to strike down portions of the state's Oil and Gas Law (Act 13), which compelled local government to allow gas operations across all zoning districts, including residential districts. Otherwise, the state threatened to penalize local governments by withholding any "impact fees" intended to address harm caused to local communities by the industry. I know, nice guys.
In this case, Inflection applied for a conditional use permit for its proposed gas well pad. A number of residents spoke out against the well pad before the Fairfield Township Board of Supervisors, testifying to concerns about air pollution, noise pollution, light pollution, traffic congestion, and the impact of the operations on their property values and general well-being. The company introduced the testimony of two witnesses, neither of whom were experts in land-use matters. Often, their testimony consisted of nothing but conclusions, such as that the operations were compatible with existing uses authorized for residential districts, without any explanation of how the witness reached those conclusions.
On appeal, PennFuture made three arguments: (1) that the language of the ordinance expressly authorized gas operations in the industrial zoned district, and it was therefore inappropriate to use a conditional use permit to allow it in the residential zoned district; (2) that the township's decision was not supported by substantial evidence on the record; and (3) that the township had violated the residents' substantive due process rights and failed to comply with its obligations under Article I, Section 27 by authorizing the gas well operation in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
The Township and Company argued that the citizens had waived their rights to raise their various challenges, that the Township properly used its conditional use process, that the Township's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and that no constitutional violations were committed.
Even though the Court "saw merit" in PennFuture's first argument, Judge Lovecchio rejected the idea that the ordinance expressly allowed gas operations only in industrial districts. Instead, the Court vacated the conditional use permit on the basis that the Township's findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The Court stated that the company failed to provide the Township with any evidence to support the conclusion that the proposed use was similar and compatible, while the citizens had “presented substantial evidence that there is a high degree of probability that the use will adversely affect the health, welfare and safety of the neighborhood."
Deciding the case on the basis of substantial evidence relieved the Court of the need to address PennFuture's constitutional arguments. Nonetheless, the Court made plain that the Township had an obligation to protect the constitutional rights guaranteed to its citizens under Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The rights of citizens to a healthy environment, the Court said, "cannot be ignored and must be protected.”
In so ruling, the Court adopted both the rationale and express language of the Supreme Court's decision in Robinson Township.
The case is Gorsline et al. v. the Board of Supervisors of Fairfield Township and Inflection Energy, LLC et al. The full opinion can be found here.
George Jugovic, Jr. is chief counsel for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh.
George Jugovic, Jr. is chief counsel for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh.
No comments:
Post a Comment