Plaxton v. Lycoming County Zoning Hearing Board

986 A.2d 199 (2009)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Plaxton v. Lycoming County Zoning Hearing Board

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
986 A.2d 199 (2009)

Facts

In 2005, Laurel Hill Wind Energy, LLC (Laurel Hill) sought to build a wind-energy project in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania (the county). The relevant zoning ordinance permitted public-service uses of the land by special exception, but the county Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) (defendant) determined that Laurel Hill did not qualify for a special exception because the proposed wind-energy project was inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning district and would generate substantial adverse impacts that public-service uses typically did not generate. A Pennsylvania trial court upheld the ZHB’s decision. In 2007, the county commissioners amended the county’s zoning ordinance to allow, by right, the use of wind-energy facilities in the relevant zoning district. Laurel Hill then applied for and received a zoning permit to construct its wind-energy project. Arthur and Elke Plaxton (plaintiffs) subsequently challenged the validity of the amended zoning ordinance before the ZHB. The Plaxtons asserted that the amended ordinance did not promote the public health, safety, and welfare; was arbitrary and unreasonable; and did not satisfy Pennsylvania’s constitutional and statutory requirements that zoning laws must preserve natural, scenic, and historic value. The Plaxtons argued that the ZHB’s prior denial of Laurel Hill’s special-exception request demonstrated that wind-energy projects were detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare and, thus, that the ordinance allowing such projects by right had to be invalid. Specifically, the Plaxtons asserted that the doctrine of collateral estoppel prevented a finding that wind-energy projects were consistent with public health, safety, and welfare, given the trial court’s prior ruling upholding the ZHB’s determination. The ZHB rejected the Plaxtons’ challenge, finding, among other things, that (1) the zoning ordinance defined wind energy as a natural resource that could be harvested, (2) permit applicants were required to satisfy a community-impact and environmental-impact analyses, among other requirements, (3) controls were in place to address safety, land-use, and environmental concerns, and (4) the zoning ordinance was a rational addition to the county’s zoning plan. The common pleas court affirmed the ZHB’s decision, and the Plaxtons appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Simpson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 796,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership