Attorneys dispute Robinson zoning challenge
At far right, attorney Dwight Ferguson, representing the plaintiffs in the challenge to Robinson Township’s zoning amendment, sits next to township solicitors during Thursday’s zoning hearing, which will be continued.
The McDonald borough building, used by Robinson Township officials to accommodate larger crowds, was overflowing with residents from Robinson and neighboring communities who came Thursday to attend the first hearing regarding a challenge to the township’s zoning law as it pertains to oil and gas.
McDONALD – More than 100 people attended the first hearing on a challenge to Robinson Township’s zoning law Thursday, but discussion was limited to those seated in the front row.
There, nine attorneys representing several parties – the plaintiffs, the township and natural gas companies – heatedly exchanged legal arguments and case law while the zoning solicitor moderated. The question under debate was whether the zoning challenge lodged by six Robinson Township residents was legitimate in the first place.
“I’ve read the challenge, and I don’t understand why we’re even here today,” said Shawn Gallagher, representing natural gas drilling company Range Resources.
The challenge was filed Sept. 4, less than a month after a zoning amendment passed by the Board of Supervisors changed the map and process by which natural gas applications can be approved. In some ways, the change made it easier for natural gas companies to do business in Robinson, because a permitted-use process with a uniform set of criteria went into effect in the business, industrial, rural residential and agricultural districts.
Dwight Ferguson, attorney for the plaintiffs, argued the current board engaged in special legislation by catering to the drilling industry.
Residents named in the challenge are Cathy and Christopher Lodge of Meinrad Drive, Bulger; Brenda and Nolan Vance of Maple Grove Road, Bulger; and Irene and Richard Barrie, also of Maple Grove Road. They argue the zoning changes violate the Environmental Rights Amendment in the state Constitution.
Gallagher, township solicitors, an attorney for MarkWest and an attorney for a civic organization, argued the challenge should be dismissed because it does not meet the legal criteria of standing and rightness. They argued in order for a challenge to be filed, there needs to be a pending zoning application or some development under the new zoning amendment that directly impacts the complainants.
“There is case law that you have to have a substantial, direct and immediate interest to have standing, and it has to be something above the common interest of everyone,” Gallagher said.
Ferguson said citizens were given the right to challenge zoning ordinances after the state Supreme Court struck down key provisions of Act 13, the state law governing oil and gas drilling, last year. He called this case “the local Act 13,” but township solicitor Gretchen Moore argued the two cases are like “apples and oranges.”
Unless the challenge meets the necessary pre-conditions, the zoning board is engaged in “no more than an academic exercise,” she said.
All attorneys have until next Thursday to submit arguments regarding the standing and rightness of the challenge. If the challenge goes forward, the substance of the challenge will be considered. It has not yet been determined if testimony will be accepted.