## Facts

- A developer proposed a wind-powered electric-generating facility (about 70.5 megawatts) along Laurel Ridge in Lycoming County, using dozens of turbines plus related transmission and substation facilities.
- Under an earlier zoning ordinance, the project was treated as a “public service use” eligible for a special exception; the zoning hearing board and the trial court upheld that classification, and a further appeal was later discontinued.
- In 2007, the county amended its zoning ordinance to allow “wind energy facilities” as a permitted use by right in specified districts, including the Resource Protection district, subject to detailed performance standards.
- The amended ordinance required environmental and community impact analyses and imposed controls addressing setbacks, noise, safety, interference, and other land-use and environmental concerns.
- The Plaxtons, nearby landowners, filed a substantive validity challenge to the 2007 amendments, alleging the changes failed to protect public health, safety, and welfare and conflicted with environmental preservation duties.
- The zoning hearing board denied the challenge, and the trial court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the 2007 zoning amendments permitting wind energy facilities by right in the Resource Protection district were substantively invalid as arbitrary, unreasonable, or unrelated to the public health, safety, and welfare.
2. Whether the amendments violated constitutional and statutory environmental obligations to protect natural, scenic, and historic values.
3. Whether collateral estoppel (or related preclusion doctrines) barred the county from adopting the amendments based on earlier proceedings under the prior ordinance involving the same project type.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court’s order, which upheld the zoning hearing board’s denial of the substantive validity challenge.
- The court held the amendments were not arbitrary or unreasonable and were reasonably related to legitimate governmental objectives, including encouraging renewable energy and regulating it through specific standards.
- The court held the amendments’ impact-review and performance requirements adequately addressed health, safety, land-use, and environmental concerns.
- The court rejected collateral estoppel because the earlier proceedings applied a different ordinance and involved a different legal question than the validity of later-enacted legislation.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning ordinances and amendments are presumed valid; a substantive validity challenger bears a heavy burden to prove the enactment is arbitrary, unreasonable, and not substantially related to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
- Local governments have broad legislative discretion to amend zoning classifications and regulatory schemes, including changing how a use is permitted within a district.
- Collateral estoppel requires the same issue to have been actually litigated and essential to a prior judgment; prior adjudications under an earlier ordinance do not preclude later legislative amendments that change the governing legal framework.
- Environmental preservation obligations may be satisfied where the ordinance includes impact analysis requirements and operational standards directed to safety and environmental effects.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Lycoming County’s 2007 zoning amendments permitting wind energy facilities by right in designated districts because the ordinance contained detailed protective standards and reflected a rational legislative judgment, and earlier proceedings under a prior ordinance did not preclude the county’s later legislative change.


Plaxton v. Lycoming Cnty. Zoning Hearing Bd., 986 A.2d 199 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009)