Allegheny Township property owners taking fracking fight to Pa. Supreme Court |
Valley News Dispatch

Allegheny Township property owners taking fracking fight to Pa. Supreme Court

Mary Ann Thomas
Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review
A drilling rig towers over the walls of Huntley and Huntley Energy Exploration’s Poseidon well pad, in Penn Twp., as seen on Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2018.

Allegheny Township property owners are asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to appeal a ruling that allows unconventional gas drilling in all of the township’s zoning districts.

The plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to review a Commonwealth Court ruling that they believe infringed on their “fundamental and constitutionally-protected property and environmental rights.”

The appeal was filed Nov. 26 by the plaintiffs and Willowbrook Road residents Dolores Frederick, Patricia Hagaman and Beverly Taylor. The defendants include Allegheny Township, its zoning hearing board, CNX Gas Co. and other township residents.

They have been challenging a series of court rulings stemming from CNX Gas Co. in October 2014 winning approval to install an unconventional natural gas well pad, which is used in fracking, within 1,200 feet of township homes.

The gas well pad site is on the property of a neighboring farm owned by John and Anne Slike and Northmoreland Farms LP, who are among the defendants in the case.

Specifically, the plaintiffs take issue with Allegheny Township’s enactment in 2010 of a zoning ordinance amendment providing for oil and gas drilling operations in all of the township’s zoning districts. They have argued that the intensive hydraulic fracturing process — fracking — and horizontal drilling used to tap deep gas reserves constitute an industrial use.

Last month, the Commonwealth Court ruled 5-2 to deny an appeal by Allegheny Township property owners who tried to overturn multiple rulings that allow unconventional gas drilling in all of the township’s zoning districts.

Bernie Matthews, solicitor for Allegheny Township, was not surprised to learn of the request to the Supreme Court. There have been a number of local ordinance challenges regarding oil and gas drilling that have made it to the state’s top court, he said.

For the Allegheny Township case, Matthews said the Allegheny Township case “still gets down to the following flaw: They argue that the ordinance does not go far enough to regulate environmental effects, and we have no legal obligation to regulate at all through zoning.”

Although the state Supreme Court is asked to consider a number of cases, the plaintiffs’ attorney Christopher Papa, of New Castle, felt that the court would take the case. Papa said that the implications from the Allegheny Township case could be far-reaching because it covers residential property rights and zoning.

“When you buy residential, you are not buying industrial and that is what this is about,” he said.

If the Commonwealth Court ruling is allowed to stand, Papa said it would completely undercut traditional zoning.

“The whole purpose of which is to segregate industry from residents,” he said.

Mary Ann Thomas is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Mary Ann at 724-226-4691, [email protected] or via Twitter @MaThomas_Trib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.