No doubt the board is aware of several legal actions taking place in western Pa. regarding zoning and shale-gas drilling, most of which involve drilling in areas zoned at least partially residential. What this means is that the opinions of Section 27 Alliance and the opinions of township leaseholders – the local “popular vote,” as it were – may not be as important to the township in amending its drilling ordinance as how the state courts may rule in these cases involving residential drilling.

Of course no one knows for sure how the courts will ultimately rule in these cases, but there are some legal points already in play that the township might do well to consider. I'd like to share with the board a few things I've learned about zoning from the lawyers trying these cases. Granted, my grasp of these concepts may not be perfectly clear, and these lawyers may not know what they're talking about, but for what it's worth, here's what I've learned.

I've learned that, according to the Municipal Planning Code, the primary function of zoning is to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Zoning does this by placing compatible land uses together and keeping incompatible land uses separate. One of the more obvious examples of incompatible land uses are residential and industrial land uses – these must be kept separate.

There is some debate as to whether or not shale-gas drilling is an industrial use. An opinion which the township might want to consider is that of the PA State Supreme Court, which, in its ruling against Act 13 zoning, stated repeatedly that shale-gas drilling is an industrial use which is incompatible with residential land use. To this I would add that most of the well pad explosions I've read about have occurred on pads where the wells have already been drilled and fracked and are just “sitting there harmlessly,” which is the primary argument used when portraying shale-gas drilling as a non-industrial land use.

Finally, I have learned that it is not a function of zoning to ensure the financial viability of private contracts entered into between landowners and corporations – in other words, it is not a function of zoning to make sure that people get their money from their gas leases, especially if doing so violates the primary function of zoning to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community.

As I said, no one knows for sure how the courts will rule in these cases, but it seems likely that the courts will find that local ordinances which allow shale-gas drilling in residential zones are as unconstitutional as a state law which mandated that shale-gas drilling be allowed to occur in residential zones. But however the courts rule, a year or two down the road, if Butler Township's amended ordinance is not in compliance with that ruling, the township will have to undertake this ordinance amendment process all over again, and I keep hearing how expensive that process is. So I feel it would behoove the township to consider at least the potential ruling of the courts over local popular opinion in this matter of amending the township's drilling ordinance.


jpm

At the September 15, 2014 Butler Township commissioner’s meeting, representatives from Rex Energy made two distinct claims that stood out to me, which I decided to research further.  The first was that they were planning on drilling a maximum of 9 wells on the Krendale Golf Course well pad. Having been researching the fracking game since 2012, I did not trust what the drilling company said.  So when my eNotice email came from the Department of Environmental Protection a few days later, I noticed that Rex had applied for 11, not nine, drill-and-operate well permits on the Krendale pad.  The wells were labeled Krendale Unit 2H through 22HR on every even number. I visited the DEP website to verify this fact, and sure enough, there were 11 applications filed for well drilling on the Krendale pad. Wow, I said to myself. Rex lied to the township and to us. They also told the township planning commission the same thing on September 2nd.  Why weren’t they telling us the truth? I attempted to have this fact published in a letter to the editor in the Butler Eagle, but they did not print that part of the letter.  I also printed off and presented all 11 applications to the township commissioners at their October 20th meeting.

Another thing that I found hard to believe was Rex’s claim that they had no idea where the collection pipeline would be placed, even though such a pipeline is critical to the commercial success of a well.  So, into the Butler County Recorder of Deeds online database I went.  And lo and behold, I found five documents in which property owners signed right-of-way agreements with MarkWest, a Colorado-based pipeline company and the contractor for Rex’s pipelines.  The most recent document was dated July 10, 2014, over two months before the meeting at which they made that claim, and it was for the right-of-way on the Krendale property itself.  The pipeline runs along the eastern and northern edges of the golf course (conspicuously avoiding tee boxes by actually going around them), and then turns north off the property.  It passes through two private properties, crosses South Benbrook Road, and goes off down into Connoquenessing Township, ultimately to the Bluestone processing plant in Jackson Township.  I noticed something on the agreement documents for the two properties on the west side of Benbrook Road: they were both signed in November 2013, almost a year before Rex presented their plans to the township.  All of the agreements clearly identified the pipeline as the “Krendale to Bloom B Unit Collection Pipeline,” Bloom B being a well pad in Connoquenessing Township on Whitestown Road. Seems they did know where the pipeline was going after all. These agreements, and a map, were also presented to the commissioners at the October 20th meeting.

So again, Rex had lied to us. So much for being “good neighbors!” I guess this means that we shouldn't really trust these people...

– S.H.