thousand square foot mansion on the back of the building the building as it is a you shaped three story building we're proposing a small dish and on the back side of the building it's one thousands were free it would be the a common dining and  living area and the front of the building where the gray shade it is that would be a new entrance a ten by ten entryway with a canopy to bring the people into the facility the work would be confined to the first the entire first floor and that section of the building has been changed from an independent senior living fourteen unit portion of the building it will be a short term rehab six rooms will be taken out one will become entranceway one will be an office two will be a physical therapy area one will be a pantry and want to be a common they call a spa to be a bathroom area  you can see the far lane i know four years ago when the building was built there was a lot of going back and forth to make sure we have fire lane around the building we're not touching that farming comes around a back comes across the front or the gray areas now where the new entrance can't be that's actually a landscape area we're just going to cut through that so the people so you can drive a car and drop off your people there is no new utilities all the existing plumbing one thousand square foot and that's it as far as the utilities ed said the facility will be brick stone and the other the other common materials are the ridge or building was buil of the same the canopy in the front will be small or a smaller version of the main canopy with a similar type materials that are built there consumer style i presume it and that was done a few years ago it was done in response to what was then and currently a rapidly changing environment with respect to generally known as unconventional oil and gas develop meaning your marcellus shale you're deep or shale formations not your typical oil and gas development that occurred for the previous hundred or so years so then the  pennsylvania general assembly and acted act thirteen of two thousand and twelve which was essentially a a statewide zoning ordinance in that it set requirements  state to allow a variety of oil and gas development features related to unconventional drilling within various different districts basically required you know our oil and gas development in all districts and then it had a tiered approach of pending on different types of uses but essentially was the general assembly telling every municipality look you have to do it the this way and if you don't there are repercussions  namely withholding monies with the impact the etc so based on that peter's one with other municipalities filed a lawsuit to halt act thirteen from coming into  and to seek a declaration that the law was unconstitutional on a variety of bases there is still litigation years later that is pending the before the courts but as to the  discussion this evening several points are clear the the pennsylvania commonwealth court heard the original act thirteen case because it was filed there and the commonwealth court analyzed the arguments that the municipalities had made based on what was really a pure zoning analysis that is occurred for decades in that the municipalities peter's included essentially argued that the the allowance or the requirement of oil and gas operations in every district in every municipality within the state was unconstitutional because it forced minas apologies to allow idea in that the right to use and develop private property is a basic right in the pennsylvania constitution in the united states constitution and the only way you can really limit that is through the use of what's called the police power of the state you know there has to be some kind of governmental regulation in order to protect every one so you give up certain rights that you have others give up certain rights that they have for the benefit of all so if you move into a residential district you give up your right to use your property to build a sports stadium because you know that your neighbor is not allowed to do that either and therefore did hans's both of your property values to protect your quality of life and what the commonwealth court said was oil and gas development is not compatible with every single zoning district in every municipality within the commonwealth and survey you know sure it can fit  requirement that it go everywhere just does not pass constitutional muster because you're no longer keeping like uses together in the compatibility uses within zoning districts is really the only thing that makes zoning constitutional at the end of the deck in the court said zoning is not a policy decision of what we want but this year in this year in those districts it's all about the compatibility of uses that exist and those are shown in the fact that there's residential districts commercial districts you know neighborhood districts the light industrial district in that he uses that are compatible with one another are placed together in zones and along those lines the the commonwealth court said that what the legislature really was doing was they were and they were legislating uses in incompatible areas without any concern for what the local community looked like you know municipalities and washing county even are not identical amel township is not like peters township in terms of land use development commercial those types of issues in the court said you know allowing oil and gas uses throughout the area is the equivalent of a spot use or a spot zone where instead of even trying to create a new doning district to allow for a does literally plopping it in you have residential residential residential and then industrial use which was the unconventional oil and gas development so then the that was appealed to the pennsylvania supreme court the end the pennsylvania supreme court looked at and followed that zoning analysis but then they took it a step further and they said that they focused on article one section twenty seven the pennsylvania constitution which guarantees individuals rights to clean air and pure water and they said that oil and gas development is certainly an issue of statewide concern it has economic value it as economic benefit but government whether it's the state or the local governments cannot just say we're going to allow this particular use because it's of economic benefit and they focused on the need to do the same as the commonwealth court decision the same as traditional zoning cases you have to look at the area what the uses are what's the development of the land what's the intensity what are the local conditions in order to tell whether these particular industrialized uses are appropriate and the court more or less said they said very clearly in a matter in a variety of different ways unconventional oil and gas development is in industrial use it's a heavy intensive use of the property and it's a requirement for municipalities to look at their local conditions look at the use of land and decide where it is appropriate within their boundaries so it comes full circle to analysis of the overlay district based on those cases to say is this really the best representation of where these uses should be placed within the township based on the existing zoning districts we have and obviously the view ordinances been amended present because the decision was reached to get to this point that the overlay district probably does not represent the the holding of the commonwealth court and the supreme court in the act thirteen litigation because it creates this larger overlay district that superstar all of the existing zones in those courts said that the existing zones that you have are really the key to evaluating whether this used can and cannot be put in different locations so that's really the overall backdrop to the oil and gas development in the overlay district but really from a a legal perspective it's no different than any other particular use that the planning commission or the council may see it's oil and gas development but you can call it anything else you can call it you know  cement factory you can call it a steel mill the analysis is the same does that particular use fit within the scope of the other uses in particular zoning districts and if it doesn't there's a reason it doesn't which was the zone was created with these uses in mind which are compatible with one another and by inserting an incompatible use essentially destroys the compatibility of the district which is the only thing that makes  and eleven when we first adopted our first mineral extraction ordinance this is what we came up with these properties in blue is where or ordinance is allow of for actual drills it all fifteen of these properties are zone or dash one a single family residential so the ordinance being presented tonight in monday night the first thing that this ordinance does it repeals that takes that away because of the commonwealth court decision in the supreme court decision recognizing drilling unconventional drilling as an industrial use you can't allow that in areas that are zoned residential so the ordinance to night be presented repeals that is also what it does is ok so we industrial districts and along charters creek along buckeye street we have an industrial district and along a little a little stretch of hidden valley road we have an industrial district but based on the way we've written or word in drilling sites compression stations could not be located on our industrial districts on hidden valley road can we zoom in so we have light industrial districts alone west  a guy we can move a little bit what i'm talking about on hidden valley road here it's zoned industrial but based on our setbacks and things that we have an ordinance hidden valley road here is could fully impact the air water so we will within the area that they want to drill as well as the surrounding area we've also put that same kind of language in for compression stations in processing plants uses as industrial the only industrial area districts that we have in order community is our light industrial district we're not resuming any land at this point industrial we just feel that we have to accommodate it somewhere we don't want to spot zoning put up somewhere where it's not zoned industrial we can't do that and so the best option for the township at this time is to make it a conditional use in the late industrial district we know that's a very limited area hundred fifty acres on say total in the community that zone industrial we will need to take a look at where possibly else within this community it could be accommodated without negatively impacting our residents where that is this point we don't know but if we do decide to do that we have to do it by amending our comprehensive plan first and then when in looking at where potentially residents in those areas if there is a change we need to be aware every possible way industrial use they could also if that would be ever brought the rent and my concern with what we're looking at here is i agree that the robinson decision is so nebulously worded it from my personal standpoint and i agree that as it's written it says that you cannot have drilling in a residential area now i don't know whether the court meant to meant to say that i think personally i think the court meant to say areas that are residential zone residential but that's not what we have in front of us now because it makes logically no sense that the  would have said if i have a hundred acres it's agricultural is own and i have one hundred acres that's residentially zoned i can put the drilling in the agricultural area or the industrial area but i can't put it in the hundred acres of vacant residential land unfortunately i think that's how everyone reads ronson and that's what we're stuck with if we go with this my biggest concern is it takes at least twenty acres can take it was land ever so as well that and there is no where in any of those areas where we have where so it can come in and if they can establish all of their compliance with all the provisions of the ordinance there is nowhere in any of those areas that they can sink where they have the twenty acres a single well so my concern is someone's going to come in here  eventually and sue this township in argue that we haven't provided for it all because he was centrally created a situation where there's nowhere in the township where it can be done and if that's the case is you know the ordinance gets thrown out and they can do it anywhere unfortunately i don't know there is any better what we have now because robinson is so poorly worded that i think it's essentially tied our hands but i think that's i just want to go on record tonight is to say i think that's the biggest the issue here and i think that's something we're going to deal with down the road because if this is what we end up going with unfortunately i think we have to someday someone to come in and say well you've essentially banned it because there is no way that anyone can sink a well in compliance with the ordinance in austria larry i don't know ago now there may be true but the industry right now is changing to get tired tired and what you're seeing is the pad if you will is consolidating in some of the offsite or non had a central facilities are being personally i have seen my question would be is it the responsibility to ensure the use and their technical requirements as a conduit for in other words if they do require a three hundred sixty foot by two hundred  law imposes an obligation on to municipalities to zone work permit or to make lead use decisions based on the feasibility of one operational structure or another because as you alluded to and i think quite rightly as technology changes as they refine how they do work the character of the site probably is going to change quite in quite a good in a few years ago there were padds here there and everywhere and now they are consolidating activities on two to one pad and drilling more horizontal laterals from there the because the nature of the industry is constantly changing i don't necessarily think it's appropriate to draft a new ordinance so as to allow or to accommodate what a particular uses a particular point in time because it's necessarily going to change and you know associated with that would be while we're here with the oil and gas issue would just be more of the general question of any other use airport sports stadium or any other particularize use of land you can't i don't think you can necessarily say no we don't want this at all we can't have it a but in different municipalities the character of the municipality dictates what you can really do with the land and you know for example mount lebanon how much really large scale  developable space do they have verses save in north your bank and that and that's really to me the crux of the the supreme court decision of the local conditions the local character what can you do you know so the long in the short of it is the light industrial districts are presently constructed for you know the uses set forth in the ordinance and you know conceivably you know for example warehousing is a permitted use in the light industrial district but if someone wanted to create an enormous warehouse you know that would take up a footprint greater than what is is presently allowed i see that as being the same type of issue with the drill site just because someone may want to put in a huge distribution center that goes beyond the boundaries that we have whether in size or just where they're physically located i don't think that necessarily compels the municipality to all of a sudden create other issues so as to essentially zone for a use and that's right i think you kind of get more of the spot zoning or spot use analysis where what's the motivation are we doing this because we're opening it up for all these particular types of issues or we just take in this one property here to be able to accommodate or allow one particular eyes to use industrial districts and to the extent that there are at least from my perspective in my reading of the law and understanding of the law and not necessarily the robinson case because as you remember there are many many cases that are filed in the courts now that are seeking to test the limits how far to robinson go one way or another but in a traditional zoning analysis it really is a question of if the township wan greater area for oil and gas development or any kind of industrial activity as ed mentioned it really is an analysis of the comprehensive plan that sets forth where different types of uses are going to be set up within the municipality and then from there the creation or the location of zoning districts so that you have those compatible uses because otherwise you can wind up just creating an area where it's single family homes a convenience store and then a heavy industrial activity which you know is the thing that doesn't fit there so that really is the tension you really have a good point if i may interject is it would be more seen as a heavy industrial activity or industrial activity does the gas drilling activity mimic the uses that are currently prescribed in our like industrial zoning we mentioned where else and before i guess that's my question is we have a light industrial zone we're now saying that gaff drilling which could be construed as and dr levy heavy industrial use i'm not familiar on how finley that slice from a legal perspective and i think it's a good question i think it is a legitimate one in the bigger picture because there's two real issues the from the chart in the proposed ordinance inventing gas drilling which as defined is is largely you or your vertical wells down in the elk sandstone is still a permitted use in every industry it's certainly not as intensive overall as you are unconventional drilling  you know it can be done with a smaller truck it doesn't require the intensity that you see with marcellus sites such as tracts for but i still think quite honestly that's even itself an industry could that be characterized as a light industrial use probably and i think that's part of the tension that the planning commission counsel generally has to consider of what is oil and gas development fundamentally it's not residential your shale development that you're seeing now as exemplified say trax farms is a heavy industrial use property and that you you've got a lot of traffic a lot of activity constant twenty four hour noise those types of issues because of the nature of the township i don't think that there is a a use that is somewhat compatible to the intensity of unconventional oil and gas development anywhere including the light industrial you've got warehousing landscape services theater auditorium studio academy self storage warehousing to some degree would fit the bill in that there is constant traffic in and out but you know each don't have a steel mill or a you know a small industrial type fabrication plant or something like that that's running twenty four hours where you've got you know maybe more pollution concerns and you would otherwise have or it has a few smokestacks this is primarily a residential like commercial tightness of paoli and that's where that's where also the tension comes in because this is as far as we go on the intensity of use spectrum we only get to light industrial we don't go beyond that and i think that is a legitimate issue for the planning commission and for at to figure out is it even appropriate in a light industrial or do we have to take a look in say well our one of our industrial areas are more conducive to having industry and then it kind of brings you back full circle to the issue of are you just zoning for one particular rise type of use for using owning over all the compatibility of all types of different uses because it really doesn't help the talents of you have a heavy industrial district for example where the only thing you can do is gas development if someone comes in and wants to do some type of have industrial activity and you say well no that uses an all out all you can do here is gas development is that the best use of the land through the creation of a district or you essentially keeping everybody else out for the promotion of one industry here and that's really where it goes back and forth in that there is no easy answer and if you take the districts that you have now i think light industrial is is the location to put anything beyond that i think would would require a look at the comprehensive plan in a real redo of zoning districts within the township because you've also got areas of the township which may be larger tracks but do they have but residential areas you know are there new subdivisions and houses were individuals and purchase those properties based on the reliance that look this is a residential district i would expect an industrial use to be behind my back yard and that's really the base exerting analysis that goes back to the primary cases zoning is only constitutional because you gr compatible uses together for the mutual benefit of everyone and that justifies why you can keep things then why keep things out because they're not consistent with one another but not compatible rocco's and there was a very good question we've been debating that went back and forth and i just want to add that we have a provision in or ordinance that if they used to comes in here that we don't provide  a steel plant or some sort of other heavy manufacturing operation if it ends up in the light industrial zone industry and anything that we don't provide for it automatically falls to us as a special exception in the light industrial district we we do not have a heavy industrial zone you're looking at our future land use map we just adopted this at the end of twenty thirteen there's no where after a year plus of studying with the township how it was developing what residents want the future know where do we operations so the ordinance before you tonight is pushing it on making it a condition we use in light industrial district i think we're committed to reopening the current land in discussing where potentially else within the community it could work but it's something that we can't just snap our fingers in right we have to go through the car plant process again well unfortunately i think the last thing we want to do is a zone any more areas in this township light industrial right now the way we have it pretty much on the out lies of the township i mean how would anyone feel that we decided that the simmons farm property or those farms on thomas road or up on just about should be industrial people who have so i guess my question would be is a my the only property and all the other properties that that zoning seems a little bit odd that it's residential in a flood plain in the one hundred year flood plain so are some of the zoning worthy of being challenged with the idea that maybe they could be illustrated is light industrial you notice out that municipal cooperation is a way to do it but essentially the jurisdiction of peter's township ends at the peters township line and you do wind up with scenarios like that where you have a drill site that's been there for years and it's still going in very close proximity to very very densely populated areas and it has caused concern because it's industrial use then you have residential areas right near  norway's emissions all those type of cern's but i think you're a general point that you raised is correct in that it comes down to the nature of the municipality that really dictates what you can and can't do and given the population given the size given the development patterns those will dictate really where you can do a whole variety of uses you know you can't put in a big airport here just because there is not enough land to be able to do so and that's where is it in mention if it goes to the comprehensive plan of the community development objectives as to what  peter's township want to do to plan its growth in the future doesn't want to be focused on residential commercial or industrial and then from there you take a look at the districts that you have the development patterns etc see how you can get these comprehensive uses together to protect people well also going bigger picture to say this is where we want to go in the future so it really is one of those tensions th the more developed areas that you have are not conducive to certain types of uses just the same as if you have a very rural municipality it may not be condensed conducive to high density residential because the roads all the infrastructure just isn't there and that really is the fundamental tension with any type of zoning you know it's oil and gas development today maybe something else tomorrow you know trying to maybe take a step back from that particular use and just say classified and industrial residential commercial and make the decisions based on that you know as to the other points you know there is a manner and means under the municipalities planning code for property to be rezoned you know that really there's a variety of factors but there are ways to do it with flood plains and things like that you really run into issues with any kind of development whether it be residential commercial industrial i'm not totally up to speed on all d p regulations but i know that there's a variety of them in terms of placing oil and gas activities in flood plains in close proximity to creeks etc and in fact that was one of the sections of act thirteen which essentially required a mandatory waiver of setback distances from creeks so it really is the topography the streams the  development patterns that govern and dictate what you can do and that was the to me the fundamental take home message from the robinson township cases which is the local municipality is really the center of the analysis what do you have what does it look like do things on a local level based on you know what we have as we speak versus someone in harrisburg or anyone promulgating an ordinance it just says you have to do it here questions answered and unanswered about the environmental and health concerns that new york state just banned it entirely your charge is to attempt to put an industrial process into a residential community the simplest thing to do would be to can confine it to the existing industrial zones and not create any new ones i don't think most people move to peter's township to have more an industry if anything less these well pads typically by the way i'd say five fakers per pair would be my but they typically now have six wells per pad and they bring with them i mean you have the pads plus one compressor stations and pipelines but each each well typically brings with it one thousand to three thousand truck trips per well those would be round trips it takes four million gallons of water to frac each well so if you're hauling it on trucks and a tanker trucks four thousand gallons you can do the math and each well typically flows back one million gallons a wastewater so then you have all those truck trips or if they're above ground pipelines those are the ones we've typically seen leak and industrial but i'm lot of an attorney or planning commission or traffic continues to these well sites even after drilling and fracking ends so you don't you're always going to have tracks forms to see the problems i'm in touch with a couple gentlemen live on core doctrove they're within a thousand feet of that site and it's just driving him nuts the noise the vibration served there one night smelled like you know when you strike a match and put it out that just permeated the air one guy's wife typically leaves the house every night and goes sleeps with her daughter's over before so i don't think people in are quite ready for that and he could teach currently fracking eleven wells one that tracks forms pat and that's going to run from a started in mid december and they had to beg plead beg and plead with e q to get him not to frack on christmas day so that the one because one guy's pediatrician said you should have your kids there while they're fracking so he did agree to stop it ordinarily is a twenty four seven three sixty five operation that fracking on those eleven wells is set to run through the end of march so i mean that's that's not going to end for those people any time soon in fact what do you keep the finally did they tried to get all the residents of court our crew to sign a nuisance agreement they offered fifty thousand dollars each to sign off on a you know you're never complain about anything in the past present or future health noise otherwise a couple people didn't take it so  s ok so on specifics on your journey regs i looks room today page two under water you have a quote or any other source i think that leaves an open door and i think you already list see saw where range got that four million dollar fine for all those wastewater impoundments they found out that fresh water just means fresh to the site that doesn't mean it's water from a creek or anything you'd recognize so i delete those words or any other source of ground water you have in there the term and fractures i'd leave that out i wouldn't give the industry any wiggle room on fractures as that fractures down on the grounds that from fracking shale i don't think it's needed could be misconstrued the water impoundments waste is that it is a possible to ban these i mean they're they're  news i mean we've seen you go down there and won't township the jaeger in the drawing day impoundment these things all leak people have a major problems with their water wells i mean that's along with other things b o c under a page five seven thirteen mineral extraction quote how fluids will be brought to and from the site well chances are it's going to be tractable tanker trucks and mostly trying twenty four seven i've seen fleets around a valve you'll see one or two dozen run in and herds all night long ok and then under seven thirty see minimum seven hundred fifty foot distance from protected structures end quote and then you have township reserves right to increase any setback i i'd go ahead an established a set back distance especially for schools and nursing homes and you know one of these places now they'd they don't even want just within a thousand feet of their schools and a lot of people would question whether twenty five hundred feet a half of miles for enough away of quote testing only existing water supplies one thousand feet i think the standard now is going to twenty five hundred feet i think of thousands that's five years ago now it's twenty five hundred feet so i'd increase it to twenty five hundred feet for all water testing post track testing you have quote one to two months after fracking you have it worded differently but that's basically what it says i would add a second test period six to twelve on page eight eight i would add no engine brakes signs posted within a one mile radius of all gas well sites that's been a major problem in a lot of communities  when and how the tracks example i've been to three you need township meetings where the same residents are current are true there are screaming and hollering for you know they have the sound limits that have been s air testing down there so then the ambient noise levels like when they measured over their tracks are you going to step to the monitors on route eighty eight to get your ambient noise with truck traffic or are you going to set it back into a more secluded basically a dump site that's the same one had a radioactive materials that they couldn't get any other states to take and they had left it on site for things sat there for a couple months i don't even know where it finally went patri fifteen item a architectural features i'd say good luck with that one about the specially the buildings and the brick and stuff those are usually big green metal emissions i would put in there to make sure they use best available technology on any emission controls you mention noise you don't mention vibration no i don't know how you'd word better how you stations and i don't think that ever flew but he said it was required under building code page eighteen item ass clean air you know you mention residents having like the environmental amendment gives opens vainest right to clean air and pure water well you know clean air and in this industry just don't mix it's just not going to happen some of the new compressor stations in washington county have fifteen thousand to twenty thousand compression horsepower so i mean if you let a compressor station be build is going to be the old models have three or four these new ones like out in smith township and  they have ten compressors i mean they're huge so how claim can a really big presentation by cleaner council a couple years ago and taylor stern said that the fifteen compressor stations already built for moving m asked in washington county he admitted the equivalent of three thompson's steel mills and that analysis using the smaller three to four compressor registrations built years ago not the new jumbo not you're for or against drilling it's about living too close to the industry and i don't have a crystal ball to predict how technology will change or how drilling will be developed in the next twenty years in the half mile radius that i  i live to light industrial i live in that blue section that's in the middle of all those light industrial zones what i do know is that the blast zone of the green county accident and many others according to the newspapers was a thousand or fifteen hundred feet or so of drilling activities or zone into late industrial there are many homes that would be within the blast zone same situation for compressor stations that we just talked about that could easily fit into light industrial areas as well there sniffing concerns with compressor stations they're noisy they run twenty four seven for decades and they're dangerous because they can explode and have vapor bursts and again many homes are within this thousand to fifteen hundred feet to  industrial areas that living too close to these types of industry is too risky beyond this there are many organizations that have recently been created to investigate and address health concerns related to drilling activity one of which is in our backyard it's called the southwestern pennsylvania environmental health project and it's located on washington road in mcmurray other organizations are the p s eve for health energy pediatric environmental health specially units and list goes on the medical research is trying really hard to keep up with the gas boom however there's not enough literature excuse me there is enough literature to support that the closer you live to the activity and that's a half mile or less the higher likelihood you will develop cancer nervous system problems mucous lining irritation of the eyes respiratory and digestive tracks and that list goes on as well i believe there are safer that council can consider such as the previously suggested southeast corner of the township which may provide safety or distances to homes than the light industrial option and perhaps there's options that haven't even been thought of i'm not a lawyer but allowing any kind of drilling activity or industry within the light industrial zone given its close proximity to the homes is against our constitutional rights to clean air water as well as the right to enjoy our property from a municipal planning co perspective how can you have industrial activity in the light industrial zone the industrial activity is not compatible with the no order noise vibration accent or a standards that are in light industrial so where are you going to put it where it's  without this spot zoning issue that is so hard to work around i don't know is there enough safe space to put an industrial zone in the southeast corner of the township if there is no safes distance from peter's township homes that preserves their constitutional rights anywhere in the township and why do we have to fit in a percent claire mount lebanon they have no physical space to rezone yes peter's township has more physical space than those communities but there may be no safe place for industry in the areas that are being considered so why the mystical playing code six o three b challenge based upon constitutional rights as well as the health and safety concerns so i'd like you to please advise counsel to keep looking for safer options challenge to for various points of rumson or challenge in that standard gets itself worked out perhaps we'll have a better idea as to what can be done in terms of providing for drilling and zoning we cannot ban this particular activity it's not is it something we can strictly eliminate or say that it's not compatible with the use of the current zoning i mean is that something that it's a good question i don't believe that just our right banning it entirely is the best approach in that i think that if it's not feasible that oil and gas development just like any other industrial activity has a location where it can be done in that you necessarily need industrial uses whether it's a steel mill or a concrete plan or oil and gas or whatever it may be there is a place for that the the future of the the peters ordinances and it added mentioned earlier is the catch all provision in the light industrial that in the it's on the chart on page  four in the if you go to number seventy one of all other uses fresh no exception in the light industrial so to some degree that ties ties  hands with respect to it's a catchall it's a special exception it could arguably be done in that manner i think it is correct that the analysis districts that we have the development scheme that we have has to govern what we do just the same as any other type of views you know you don't put do you you know it's the old adage  then adult entertainment establishments all together and run the risk that someone challenges and says look what's the reason that you ban it i just need a small business to do whatever i want to do just using madison example  fast food restaurants where you say there is ridiculous cation where that use and intensity of use and type of use is compatible with other uses whether it be a fast food restaurant or some type of other building i think that really is the  the analysis that has to be done in that you know gas development is it's likely not going to be going away so it really comes back to the whole comprehensive plan of of where does the township see itself going with its development character and then from there taking a look at the districts taking a look at the use of land and trying to determine this particular rise industrial use where is compatible and like i said earlier question the industrial uses that are already in the township were specifically identified really don't come to the type and character of this particular views  we have a light industrial use light industrial district it is industrial use really the only other way that i think would pass constitutional muster would be a lot more intensive and perhaps controversial in reopening not necessarily reopening but taking a look at the township entirely and saying well this area over here there's not a whole heck of a lot of residential is not alike and there's there's nothing there you know what if we make that a heavy industrial district that really is the only other alternative that you have that is different than placing this in not perfect but at least it's an industrial use and industrial district verses say in the middle of a residential district where you're surrounded entirely by houses it's just it it's just a circumstance of the way the townships develop that a lot of things are necessarily going to close to residential because you've got a residential municipality ingenue can know right then i don't recommend outright banning any particular use i think that if you have the ability to provide for a use somewhere that you can do  it but it kind of goes to my earlier comment that i don't think that there's an obligation to create districts or or to create districts or fashion them around every particularized use that may come up you know for example if you wan or z it's permitted but do you have enough land that's up to you in terms of your development whether you're looking to put in a sports arena or a warehouse or an oil and gas site to say well there's just not enough land in this particular municipality or look somewhere else because it's just not feasible you know i think he's right i think the other issue is if we weren't outright ban it and were challenged were sued we have the burden of proof establishing that we can't do it that it's not feasible and i don't know how we do that i think we're in a worse position if we do that because someone comes in your books you have all these big forty eight  of land certainly is feasible for it to be done so then it goes back to your argument of well can it be done under robinson and i think it puts us in a much worse position than what we're looking at now in terms of this ordinance even though i don't think this ordinance is the ideal resolution i think it's the best we can do at this point know i person rather issued by the gas company does i think it's our job to protect the residents your motion for recommendation i'll make the motion that we recommend that council approve the draft ordinance in its current form