4th hearing in Murrysville fracking ordinance challenge set for March 14 | TribLIVE.com
Murrysville

4th hearing in Murrysville fracking ordinance challenge set for March 14

Patrick Varine
849680_web1_gtr-MurrFrackFolo1-120518
Attorney John Smith gives his opening statement on behalf of the Murrysville Watch Committee on Thursday, Nov. 29, 2018. The group is challenging the validity of Murrysville’s fracking ordinance before the municipality’s zoning hearing board.

The fourth hearing in the Murrysville Watch Committee’s substantive validity challenge to the municipal fracking ordinance is set for 7 p.m. Thursday at the municipal building, 4100 Sardis Road.

Murrysville council members voted 6-1 in 2017 to approve a fracking ordinance, which they worked on over seven years. Canonsburg drillers Huntley & Huntley soon after requested state permits to drill a 4-acre well pad and access road on 71 acres off Bollinger Road.

Committee members contend that the purpose of developing an overlay district — the designation Murrysville gave to the area where fracking is permitted — is to provide additional protections, rather than open up a residential district to what committee members consider an industrial activity.

Attorneys for Huntley & Huntley, as well those representing the municipality and landowners looking to lease their mineral rights, argued in the initial hearing that a Commonwealth Court case involving the validity of Allegheny Township’s fracking ordinance has essentially already established a precedent for the issue.

Unlike council meetings, zoning hearing board proceedings are not televised on Comcast local access Channel 19.

Patrick Varine is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Patrick at 724-850-2862, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Murrysville
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.