Nalbone v. Borough of Youngsville
| Decision Date | 16 March 1987 |
| Parties | John J. NALBONE, Jr., and Louis J. Nalbone, Appellants, v. BOROUGH OF YOUNGSVILLE, Appellee. (Two Cases) |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Carl N. Moore, Knox, Graham, McLaughlin, Gornall & Sennett, Inc., Erie, for appellants.
Joseph C. Barnhart, Solicitor, Titusville, William J. Kubiak, Bradford, for appellee.
Before BARRY, COLINS, (P.) and PALLADINO, JJ.
John J. Nalbone, Jr. and Louis J. Nalbone (appellants) are property owners in the Borough of Youngsville, Pennsylvania (Borough). Appellants intended to drill oil and/or gas wells upon their property but were prevented from doing so by the operation of two ordinances enacted by the Borough as amendments to the existing zoning ordinance. The first ordinance, entitled the Youngsville Oil and Gas Development Permit Ordinance (Ordinance No. 456), required all persons to obtain a conditional use permit for the "drilling, fracturing, shooting and other treatment" of oil and/or gas wells. The second ordinance (Ordinance No. 457) designated an "oil production district" on the official zoning map of the Borough required compliance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 456 for oil and/or gas production in this district.
On June 12, 1985, appellants challenged the validity of the above ordinances in the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County, asserting that: (1) the Oil and Gas Act, Act of December 19, 1984, P.L. 1140, 58 P.S. §§ 601.101--601.605, had preempted the field of oil and gas mine regulation so as to supersede local efforts to so regulate and that (2) the ordinances were confiscatory and thus unconstitutional because they effectively acted to deprive appellants of their property without due process of law. Appellants' Motion for Summary Judgment was denied by the trial court and the court, upon its own motion, 1 granted summary judgment for the Borough. The trial court determined that the ordinances were a legal exercise of the Borough's police power enacted for the preservation of the health, safety and general welfare of Borough residents and that the restrictions imposed by the ordinances were reasonable and thereby constitutional. Appellants' appeal of that order, as well as their appeal of the trial court's denial of their motion for reconsideration, consolidated for our review, 2 followed.
To uphold the summary judgment, there must be not only an absence of genuine factual issues, but also an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Pa.R.C.P. No. 1035(b).
We first consider the appellants' contention that the Oil and Gas Act has preempted the field of oil and gas well development so as to preclude the Borough's regulation in this same area. The legislature has specifically addressed the question of preemption in Section 602 of the Oil and Gas Act, 58 P.S. § 601.602, as follows:
Except with respect to ordinances adopted pursuant to the act of July 31, 1968 (P.L. 805, No. 247), known as the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code and the Act of October 4, 1978 (P.L. 851, No. 166), known as the Flood Plain Management Act all local ordinances and enactments purporting to regulate oil and gas well operations regulated by this act are hereby superseded. The Commonwealth, by this enactment, hereby preempts the regulation of oil and gas wells as herein defined. (Emphasis supplied.)
The statute appears to be a strong articulation of legislative intent to preserve local regulation of oil and gas well operations upon compliance with the provisions of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. §§ 10101-11202.
Appellants have not pointed to any specific provision of the MPC allegedly violated by the Borough in enacting the subject ordinances. See, e.g., Borough of Edgeworth v. MacLeod, 72 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 122, 456 A.2d 682 (1983), wherein an ordinance was contested upon the ground of the Borough's alleged failure to comply with the notice and hearing requirements of Sections 608 and 609 of the MPC, 53 P.S. §§ 10608, 10609. We take appellants' challenge to the ordinances sub judice to be that they are not, in substance, zoning ordinances, but are rather an attempt by the Borough to regulate an area preempted by the comprehensive provisions of the Oil and Gas Act.
"Under the MPC, which our Supreme Court has characterized as 'the Legislature's mandate for the unified regulation of land use and development,' " Id. at 124, 456 A.2d at 684, quoting Gary D. Reihart, Inc. v. Township of Carroll, 487 Pa. 461, 466, 409 A.2d 1167, 1170 (1979), zoning ordinances may "prohibit, regulate, restrict and determine" uses of land and bodies of water, areas of land to be occupied by uses and structures, and population density, and may "provi[de] for the protection and preservation of natural resources and agricultural land." Section 603 of the MPC.
Section III of Ordinance No. 456 clearly enunciates the Borough's purposes in enacting same as follows:
The general purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the health, safety, welfare and environment of the residents and their property in the Borough of Youngsville, and to provide the procedure for the issuance of conditional use permits to enable oil and gas wells to be drilled and placed in production in a safe manner with the utmost regard for protection of the existing Borough of Youngsville public water supply wells and the fresh ground water which supplies those wells.
This statement indicates that Ordinance No. 456 was enacted to regulate land use, which, as we have previously noted, is one of the primary purposes of zoning regulations. Moreover, conditional use provisions as detailed in the ordinance are traditional zoning devices. See Section 603 of the MPC. Ordinance No. 457 amends a prior zoning regulation addressing the activities of oil production and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huntley & Huntley v. Council of Oakmont
...drilling and production. In the latter respect, the court relied on the Commonwealth Court's decision in Nalbone v. Borough of Youngsville, 104 Pa.Cmwlth. 623, 522 A.2d 1173 (1987), in which the court held that the Act permitted local regulation of oil and gas operations upon compliance wit......
-
McClimans v. Board of Supervisors of Shenango Tp.
...ordinance have been superseded, the traditional zoning aspects of the ordinance clearly have not. See Nalbone v. Borough of Youngsville, --- Pa.Commonwealth Ct. ---, 522 A.2d 1173 (1987); Greene Township v. Kuhl, 32 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 592, 379 A.2d 1383 (1977). As such, the Township does p......
-
Ruditsky v. Orben
...of genuine factual issues, but also entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Pa.R.C.P. No. 1035(b); Nalbone v. Borough of Youngsville, 104 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 623, 522 A.2d 1173 (1987). The appellant argues that there exist genuine issues of material fact which should have precluded the ......
-
Warner Co. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Tredyffrin Tp.
...ordinance because the township enacted the ordinance before the effective date of the SMCRA. In Nalbone v. Borough of Youngsville, 104 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 623, 522 A.2d 1173 (1987), a landowner challenged two ordinances enacted by the borough as amendments to the existing zoning ordinance. ......
-
CHAPTER 5 LOCAL LAND USE REGULATION OF OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
...oil and gas operations]." [90] 1934 OK 185, 168 Okla. 69, 31 P.2d 608. [91] 31 P.2d at 611. [92] 68 Pa.Stat.Ann. § 601.602. [93] 104 Pa.Cmwlth. 623, 522 A.2d 1173 (1987). [94] 884 A.2d 364, 164 O.&G.R. 826 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005), app. denied, 588 Pa. 753, 902 A.2d 1243 (2006). [95] 929 A.2d 1252......
-
LOCAL LAND USE REGULATION OF OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
...oil and gas operations]." [90] 1934 OK 185, 168 Okla. 69, 31 P.2d 608. [91] 31 P.2d at 611. [92] 68 Pa.Stat.Ann. § 601.602. [93] 104 Pa.Cmwlth. 623, 522 A.2d 1173 (1987). [94] 884 A.2d 364, 164 O.&G.R. 826 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005), app. denied, 588 Pa. 753, 902 A.2d 1243 (2006). [95] 929 A.2d 1252......
-
LOCAL REGULATION OF OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS: DON'T ALL HOMEOWNERS WANT A PUMPJACK IN THEIR BACKYARD
...227 N.W. 743 (1929). [104] Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183 (1928). [105] Nalbone v. Borough of Youngsville, 104 Pa.Commw. 623, 522 A.2d 1173 (1987). [106] Braly v. Board of Fire Commissioners, 157 Cal.App.2d 608, 321 P.2d 504, 8 O.&G.R. 849 (1958). [107] The court relies heavily o......