Robinson residents challenge zoning law
McDONALD – Six Robinson Township residents are challenging the validity of the township’s zoning amendment, passed last month, which opened up more areas to drilling companies.
The challenge, filed Thursday with the township, will require Robinson’s zoning hearing board to review the validity of the amendment and make a determination. If the hearing board rules against the residents, they can take the matter to court.
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. The challenge was filed by Wexford attorney Dwight Ferguson, with support from the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonprofit organization founded by former Environmental Protection Agency attorneys.
Alan Shuckrow, solicitor for Robinson Township, criticized the Environmental Integrity Project’s involvement.
“This group is targeting a small community in Western Pennsylvania, forcing it to expend taxpayer dollars to defend what was a legitimate local legislative decision to amend a zoning ordinance,” Shuckrow said in an email. “Unfortunately, knowing the legal system as I do, with a group like this involved, the township could be in court for several years, even though we believe the ordinance is perfectly legitimate.”
Harlan Stone, solicitor for the township zoning hearing board, said he is not permitted to comment on the challenge.
Robinson supervisors approved an amendment to the zoning ordinance in a 2-1 vote Aug. 7. The amendment replaced the special exception process for considering oil and gas applications with a permitted use or conditional use process, depending on the zoning district.
As long as oil and gas companies meet a list of uniform requirements outlined by the township, they can drill land in the interchange business development, industrial, rural residential and agricultural zoning districts.
A conditional use process, which involves a hearing before the board of supervisors, will be used for applications in commercial and special conservation districts.
The challenge alleges that these changes are in violation of the Environmental Rights Amendment in the Pennsylvania Constitution, which provides for the “preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.”
The complainants allege the amendment created entirely new zoning districts because it “completely changed the comprehensive zoning scheme and disregarded the current Comprehensive Plan by converting the expressly-intended purposes of the affected zoning districts to radically different purposes.”
The challenge also alleges that the amendment violates property rights and contradicts previous case law.
Adam Kron, an attorney for the Environmental Integrity Project, said this is “a novel case,” especially in light of the state Supreme Court decision in December that struck down parts of Act 13 that pre-empted local zoning rules.
“Our claim under the Environmental Rights Amendment … that’s pretty new because the Supreme Court opened that up as much more of an actionable claim in the Act 13 case,” Kron said. “There’s both old law at play and new law.”