Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pipeline Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
West Township planners weigh prospective pipeline setbacks and new‑development rules
Summary
West Township officials discussed a draft pipeline ordinance focused on prospective regulations for new pipelines and new development, balancing safety setbacks (staff noted 236 parcels would fall within a 100‑foot radius) against impacts on existing homeowners and legal preemption limits.
West Township planners spent most of the June 1 Super Workshop debating whether and how the township can regulate pipelines through zoning and land‑use rules while avoiding retroactive limits on existing property owners.
A staff member opened the session by noting the legal boundaries: "Pennsylvania municipalities can't regulate certain aspects of pipeline construction," but "we can set setbacks" and otherwise regulate surface uses and screening. Staff distributed a map and a spreadsheet (prepared by Bella) showing property proximity to pipelines; staff said that within a 100‑foot radius "there's 236 parcels that are affected."
Commissioners and attendees raised two consistent concerns: public safety and property rights. Participants recalled a 2016 board resolution linked to the Mariner pipeline that urged emergency‑response planning including evacuation routes and first‑responder training. Several commissioners expressed reluctance to make existing homes nonconforming, noting that many pipelines and structures have coexisted for decades and that large setbacks could require variance applications for ordinary accessory structures.
On scope, the group repeatedly returned to a prospective approach that would apply only to "new pipelines" or to new development near existing pipelines. Commissioners asked staff to clarify operational definitions—whether a replacement, upsizing, flow reversal or repurposing of a pipe would count as "new" construction. Energy‑industry examples were discussed as potential challenges to overly broad local restrictions.
Staff recommended exploring notice and permit tools for privately initiated building work near easements, and suggested the township could require survey documentation, impose conditions through permitting (for example limiting initial occupancy to office uses), or craft engineering/design standards in a subdivision or land‑development ordinance rather than a zoning provision. Several participants coalesced around studying a two‑tier model that treats future development prospectively while avoiding retroactive restrictions on existing homeowners.
Next steps: staff will refine draft language based on tonight's feedback, with further discussion expected when the planning commission reconvenes. No formal motion or vote was taken during the workshop.
