More voices raised against pipeline work

More public officials and groups are seeking a halt to construction work on the Mariner East 2 pipeline.

Two groups of local residents dissatisfied with the outcome of their pipeline legal battles are taking their concerns to the next level.

Six Middletown plaintiffs who filed a complaint against Sunoco Logistics for violation of the township’s pipeline setback requirements have appealed to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. The action follows a June 26 order issued by Delaware County Common Pleas Court Judge Charles Burr which partly sustained Sunoco’s objections to the lawsuit and dismissed the complaint.

Known as the “Middletown Six,” the residents contend municipalities have the right to create zoning and land use ordinances that protect their residents by insuring hazardous liquids pipelines are placed a sufficient distance from their homes, according a press release issued by the Middletown Coalition for Community Safety.

“That issue was not raised or decided in the case cited by Judge Burr and a recent case decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the right of townships to adopt municipal ordinances in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of their residents,” it added. “Because the township has elected not to uphold its own ordinances, the Middletown Six are seeking to do so.”

In similar fashion, the Andover Homeowners Association has filed an appeal in Delaware County Common Pleas Court in light of a May decision by the Thornbury zoning board to deny an appeal regarding zoning, building and electrical permits issued to Sunoco Logistics for the Mariner East 1 pipeline. The 39-home development, on approximately 42 acres near Middletown Road, includes 40 percent open space as required by municipal code.

The permits related to construction of a 5-foot high fence and installation of a utility pole and automated valve assembly on land where Sunoco has had an easement since 1963. The association claims, however, that the easement is part of the development’s open space and the project therefore reduced the tract below the 40-percent minimum.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to reverse the zoning board’s decision and deny the permits.