Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 21 <br />See also: C & MDevelopers, Inc. v. Bedminster Tp. Zoning Hearing <br />Bd., 573 Pa. 2, 820 A.2d 143 (2002). <br />See also: Laurel Point Associates v. Susquehanna Tp. Zoning Hearing <br />Bd., 887 A.2d 796 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005). <br />Validity of oning ordinance City <br />Bans Natural Gas Drilling and <br />Exploration for Two Years <br />Landowners say ban is invalid because it is a <br />moratorium that fails to meet legal <br />requirements <br />Citation: Jeffrey v. Ryan, 37 Misc. 3d 1204(A), 2012 WL 4513348 (N.Y. <br />Sup 2012) <br />NEW YORK (10/02/12)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />city ordinance banning natural gas drilling and exploration was invalid as <br />a moratorium that did not meet the legal requirements for a moratorium. <br />The Background/Facts: On December 21, 2011, the City of Bingham- <br />ton, New York (the "City") adopted as Local Law 11-006: Chapter 250 of <br />the City's Code of Ordinances, entitled "Prohibition of Gas and Petroleum <br />Exploration and Extraction Activities, Underground Storage of Natural <br />Gas, and Disposal of Natural Gas or Petroleum Extraction, Exploration, <br />and Production Wastes" (the "Ordinance"). The Ordinance banned gas <br />drilling and exploration within the City until December 31, 2013, unless <br />sooner repealed. <br />Subsequently, several entities (the "Opponents") with interests related <br />to natural gas drilling and exploration filed, among other things, a declara- <br />tory judgment action seeking to invalidate the Ordinance. The Opponents <br />included: property owners in the City; an unincorporated group of land- <br />owners from the town adjoining the City; and the owner of a hotel in the <br />City. Among other things, the Opponents argued that the Ordinance was a <br />moratorium and that the requirements for a moratorium had not been met <br />and thus the law was invalid. <br />The City maintained that the Ordinance was enacted pursuant to their <br />police powers, and not as a zoning law. The City contended that the <br />Ordinance was not a moratorium. <br />The Opponents moved for summary judgment. They asked the court to <br />find that there were no material issues of fact in dispute and to decide the <br />matter in their favor based on the law alone. <br />DECISION: Opponents' motion for summary judgment granted. <br />The Supreme Court, Broome County, New York, found that the <br />© 2012 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />