Dave Ball, Peters Township Supervisor and plaintiff in the landmark Act 13 case, prepared the following summary of the PA Supreme Court decision on Act 13 in regard to zoning. He wrote it in response to the attempt by the two new pro-fracking supervisors in Robinson Twp to change their local zoning ordinances to allow fracking as a permitted use in all zoning districts. Print this out and give it to all of your Council members, Supervisors and Solicitors in your municipality. David is a plaintiff on the Act 13 lawsuit, both as a private citizen and as Councilman for Peters Township. ------------- Zoning is a limited police power granted to municipal governments and is intended to assure that one person’s enjoyment of his or her rights does not interfere with the rights of another person. A zoning district is a geographically designated area into which are grouped like or compatible uses. Zoning exists to protect the due process rights of property ownership as well as to protect the health, safety, morals and welfare of the community as a whole. Section 3304 of Act 13 granted the gas industry the right to drill in all zoning districts and to operate compressor stations and processing plants in most districts. Section 3303 of Act 13 declared that state environmental laws “occupy the entire field” of oil and gas regulation, to the exclusion of local ordinances. The Supreme Court unambiguously struck down sections 3303 and 3304 as unconstitutional. They said that local municipalities could zone and could regulate the location of gas drilling AND they had to do this in a manner consistent with the environmental protection amendment, Article 1, Section 27 of the Constitution. They also clearly stated that gas drilling is an industrial operation and may not exist in a residential area or any other area where the stated uses are incompatible with industrial operations. The proposed Robinson ordinance seems to be a “re-enactment” of the unconstitutional portions of Act 13 and proposes to allow gas drilling in all zoning districts. This is a clear violation of the Supreme Court ruling and in violation of the State Constitution. Therefore it is an illegal ordinance. No municipal government may simply decide what they wish to allow where. Land uses must conform to the Constitutional mandates regarding zoning, one of which is that the uses included in a zoning district must be compatible. Any Supervisor voting to enact such an ordinance should be aware that to knowingly enact an illegal ordinance could subject that supervisor to personal liability. It may also place the municipality’s insurance coverage in jeopardy as insurance companies are increasingly prone to deny coverage under such circumstances. If such an ordinance should be enacted, citizens have every right, and indeed obligation, to challenge it in court as well as suing those who enacted it. I hope this very brief summary helps. Dave Ball Peters Township PS. Please note that I am not a lawyer and I do not represent this explanation as legal advice. It is an observation of what the SC said.
Posted on: Sat, 31 May 2014 11:50:40 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015