Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin December 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 23 <br />health, safety, morals, and the general welfare. (See MPC Section 604). The <br />court noted that the Board had found that natural gas development was a com- <br />patible use in the R-2 District, and the court found that Objectors had "pre- <br />sented only conclusory arguments without reference to enumerated uses al- <br />lowed in the R-2 District and how oil and gas drilling [was] incompatible with <br />those uses." Accordingly, the court concluded that the Objectors' MPC viola- <br />tion claim also failed. <br />See also: Gorsline v. Board of Sup'rs of Fairfield Tp., 123 A.3d 1142 (Pa. <br />Cornrow. Ct. 2015), appeal granted, 635 Pa, 591, 139 A.3d 178 (2016). <br />See also: Robinson. Tp., Washington County v. Com., 623 Pa. 564, 83 A.3d <br />901, 181 O.G.R. 102 (2013). <br />Case Note: <br />The Objectors had also challenged the Ordinance as not comporting with the <br />Environmental Rights Amendment, in Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania <br />Constitution. The Board rejected that challenge. The Commonwealth Court of <br />Pennsylvania also rejected that claim. The court found that the Objectors failed to <br />prove the Ordinance was a law that "unreasonably" impairs their rights under the <br />Environmental Rights Amendment. In reaching that conclusion, the court stated that <br />Objectors' complaints about the "purported harm to the environment" from the opera- <br />tion of the gas well were better addressed to the DEP than the Board. The court noted <br />that "a municipality may use its zoning power only to regulate where mineral extrac- <br />tion takes place" and "not ... how the gas drilling will be done." <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the court expressed being "confound[edj" by "Objectors' objectives in <br />this litigation." The court noted that were Objectors to succeed in invalidating the <br />Ordinance, oil and gas operators would be released from conditions related to noise, <br />lighting, hours, security, and dust. Without the Ordinance, CNX would no longer need <br />a permit to operate the gas well, said the court. "Objectors' proper recourse is to elect <br />a different board of supervisors to achieve their objective of keeping oil and gas drill- <br />ing out of the R-2 District," suggested the court. <br />© 2018 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />