Update:
Court Rules in Favor of Citizens, Bethlehem Township, St. Luke’s Hospital and D&L National Heritage Corridor, Upholds Claims to Preserve Conservation Easements Against Bethlehem Landfill Expansion
standing-order-from-Kassis-041625Court Hearings on the Declaratory Judgment Action Against Lower Saucon Township and Bethlehem Landfill Company – Proceedings to Restore and Enforce Scenic and Conservation Easements
For those who could not attend the recent court hearings on the lawsuit against Lower Saucon Township and Bethlehem Landfill Company to restore and enforce the scenic and conservation easements that prohibited expansion of the Bethlehem Landfill, here’s a detailed outline and summary of the key testimony and arguments. The page references are to the official court transcripts of the proceedings.
You’ll recall that the case (Petrie, et al. v. Lower Saucon Township, et al., CV-2023-6089)
was brought in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas by township residents and affected citizens against Lower Saucon Township, the Bethlehem Landfill Company, and IESI Pa. Landfill Corporation. St. Luke’s Hospital – Anderson Campus, the Township of Bethlehem, and the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, Inc. all intervened in the lawsuit to support the plaintiffs.
At the center of the dispute lies the township’s release of scenic and conservation easements, which currently protect vital forested areas near the Bethlehem Landfill. These easements were established to safeguard the environment, shield residents from adverse impacts, and preserve the natural beauty surrounding the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor and its popular D&L Trail.
Led by plaintiff Bruce Petrie, a local resident and horse farm owner, the plaintiffs argue that the township’s actions violate both legal and ethical obligations to protect the community and its natural resources. Supporting the plaintiffs are intervenors St. Luke’s Hospital – Anderson Campus, the Township of Bethlehem, and the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, Inc., who share a vested interest in the case’s outcome.
Central Issues in the Case
The legal dispute centers on the township’s decision to release scenic and conservation easements established to restrict development near the Bethlehem Landfill. Plaintiffs claim that this decision enables landfill expansion with adverse consequences, including:
- Increased Odors: Residents described landfill odors as “putrid,” forcing them to keep windows closed on certain days (Transcript, p. 47).
- Vulture Activity: Testimony highlighted an increase in vultures, disrupting nearby properties and posing risks to livestock (Transcript, p. 47).
- Stormwater Runoff Risks: Concerns were raised about pollution flowing into local waterways, particularly Bull Run Creek, and the potential for this to affect properties downhill from the landfill (Transcript, p. 49).
- Loss of Scenic Integrity: The removal of forested buffers threatens the natural landscape along the D&L Trail, a 165-mile recreational corridor used by over a million people annually (Transcript, pp. 18–35).
Claire Sadler, Executive Director of the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, testified about the broader implications for the trail, emphasizing the importance of conservation easements as natural and scenic barriers.
Hearings and Key Testimony
August 15, 2024: Standing and Procedural Focus
The first hearing addressed whether the plaintiffs and intervenors have legal standing to challenge the township’s actions. Key points included:
- Plaintiffs’ Argument on Standing: Attorney Gary Asteak argued that residency and taxpayer status grant standing under the Public Trust Doctrine, the Pennsylvania Donated or Dedicated Property Act (DDPA), and Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (Transcript, pp. 13–15).
- Defense’s Counterargument: Attorney Maryann Garber contended that the plaintiffs lack a direct legal interest in the easements, asserting that only the township can enforce or release them (Transcript, pp. 6–13).
Testimony Highlights: Bruce Petrie (Transcript, pp. 44–54)
- Petrie described owning a 200-acre horse farm located 600 yards from the landfill. He detailed existing landfill impacts, including odors, vulture activity, and concerns about stormwater runoff. He warned that removing the easements would exacerbate these issues, noting that landfill expansion would involve clearing an area equivalent to 88 football fields of forest (Transcript, p. 48).
The hearing also addressed procedural concerns. The court allowed testimony to establish a record but emphasized that the focus remained on the legal question of standing (Transcript, p. 40).
September 13, 2024: Conservation and Community Impact
The second hearing featured testimony from Claire Sadler and a detailed discussion of conservation easements.
Testimony Highlights: Claire Sadler (Transcript, pp. 8–91)
- Role and Background: Sadler explained the mission of the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, focusing on preserving historical, cultural, and natural resources (Transcript, pp. 8–13).
- Trail Integrity: Sadler emphasized the importance of easements as buffers, protecting the D&L Trail from visual and olfactory impacts of the landfill (Transcript, pp. 18–35). She highlighted the trail’s significance for community wellness, economic events like the D&L RaceFest, and environmental preservation.
- Trail significance: Sadler highlighted the Corridor’s focus on preserving historical, cultural, and natural resources, particularly the D&L Trail, which spans 165 miles. She testified that the trail sees significant community use, with over one million annual users. Trail traffic nearly tripled during the pandemic years (Pages 41–42). She further described the D&L Trail as a vital recreational and cultural asset. She emphasized the importance of maintaining buffers (like the conservation easements) to protect the trail experience and surrounding environment. Using photos she took (Exhibit SL/DL-15), she explained how the scenic and conservation easements helps protect environmental resources, maintain the integrity of the trail, and avoid “experiential gaps” for users. She used other exhibits to show the D&L Trail’s proximity to the conservation easements. Sadler explained how the easements are critical to preserving the trail’s natural landscape (Pages 20–23).
- Easement Clauses: Sadler interpreted clauses from the easements, including one establishing an eight-acre woodland protection area, which she described as critical to maintaining the trail’s scenic and ecological value (Transcript, pp. 51–57).
Legal and Community Implications
A major focus of the hearings was the plaintiffs’ standing to challenge the easements’ release. The plaintiffs argue that they have a legal and moral obligation to act as stewards of public trust, citing Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. They contend that this case is about more than legal technicalities—it’s about safeguarding public assets for future generations.
The landfill company claimed that the plaintiffs lack the legal right to enforce the easements, asserting that this authority rests solely with the township. They also argue that environmental concerns are irrelevant to the legal question of standing.
Broader Consequences for Lower Saucon Township
The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how scenic and conservation easements are treated in Pennsylvania. If the township’s actions are upheld, it could pave the way for further industrial development in protected areas. Conversely, a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would reinforce the importance of conservation easements as tools for environmental and community preservation.
Call to Action: Community Involvement
As Judge Abraham Kassis deliberates on the legal arguments, community members are encouraged to stay engaged. Public awareness and advocacy are crucial in shaping the township’s future. Whether by attending hearings, supporting environmental initiatives, or voicing concerns, citizens play a vital role in ensuring responsible development.
Conclusion
The ongoing legal battle in Petrie v. Lower Saucon Township underscores the importance of balancing development with conservation. It highlights the need for vigilance in protecting natural and cultural resources that define the community’s identity. This case is not just a fight for legal standing—it is a stand for the values that make Lower Saucon Township a place worth preserving.
New Court Filings in Litigation to Restore and Enforce Scenic and Conservation Easements Prohibiting Landfill Expansion
A flurry of new court filings has been made in litigation brought by Lower Saucon Residents and their allies (St. Luke’s Hospital, Bethlehem Township, and the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor) against Bethlehem Landfill Company and Lower Saucon Township.
The “declaratory judgment” case seeks a court order that upholds and enforces the scenic and conservation easements that had prohibited landfilling on property acquired by the Bethlehem Landfill Company from the City of Bethlehem. It also seeks a court order requiring the Township to rescind its rezoning that purported to allow landfilling on scenic and conservation property, thus preventing the landfill expansion on that land.
Copies of these recent court filings are below. They include: the residents’ and allies’ Amended Complaint to enforce the scenic and conservation easements; the landfill company “preliminary objections” seeking dismissal of the Amended Complaint; the residents and allies’ own preliminary objections to the landfill objections; and a brief with legal arguments in support of the residents and allies’ preliminary objections.
The most recent filing by the residents and their allies attack Bethlehem Landfill Company’s attempts to dismiss their claims by demonstrating that these attempts are procedurally incorrect. In their own preliminary objections, the residents and their allies raise the following deficiencies in the landfill’s filing:
- Misapplication of Preliminary Objections: The document highlights that the landfill company filed preliminary objections to the entire amended complaint, including parts not directly related to the landfill. Notably, they objected to Count II, which exclusively concerns actions by Lower Saucon Township regarding the conservation easements and zoning changes, and not the landfill company directly. The plaintiffs argue this is a procedural misstep, as the landfill company should not challenge claims not brought against it.
- Violation of Legal Procedure Rules: The landfill company’s broad objections, containing some 287 paragraphs, violate Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to adhere to requirements that each objection should address only one material allegation. They suggest that the landfill strategy is intended to overwhelm the court system.
- Standing and Capacity to Sue: The landfill company lacks standing to object to Count II of the amended complaint. Since Count II is directed only at the township and involves legal questions about the applicability of certain conservation and zoning laws that do not directly involve the landfill company, the plaintiffs argue that the landfill company has no substantial, direct, and immediate interest in the outcome of this specific count.
- Request to Strike Objections: Based on these arguments, the plaintiffs request the court to strike the landfill company’s preliminary objections regarding Count II. They argue that the landfill company’s objections to this count do not conform to law or court rules, as they address claims not made against the company and involve issues where the company lacks standing.
St. Luke’s Hospital – Anderson Campus has filed its own appeal from Lower Saucon Township’s approval of the Bethlehem Landfill land development plan. It filed its Land Use Appeal with the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County on January 4th. This court filing brings the number of legal proceedings currently pending against the landfill expansion to five.
St. Luke’s appeal attacks the township’s approval of a preliminary land development and lot consolidation plan, the granting of waivers from ordinance requirements, and approving the plan despite the illegality of the underlying rezoning of the land. The hospital argues that these decisions were flawed both procedurally and substantively, violated conservation easements, were contrary to the Township’s own land development ordinance and its comprehensive plan, and violated other legal requirements. It notes that the hospital was denied the opportunity to make statements or present any evidence in opposition to the landfill’s land development plan, thus denying the hospital due process and violating the state Municipalities Planning Code. St. Luke’s also contends that the decisions lacked substantial evidence and were made without adequate public participation. The appeal aims to reverse the township’s decision and calls for a reassessment of the application’s environmental and community impact and for the matter to be remanded to the Township for proper proceedings.
The case is likely to be consolidated with other pending legal challenges, with hearings to be scheduled by the Court. We’ll post additional information as it becomes available.
On September 19, 2023 residents filed a procedural due process challenged to the zoning ordinance adopted by Lower Saucon Township on August 30th. Lower Saucon Township violated the due process requirements of the municipalities planning code when council majority limited hearing comments to 3 minutes, and refused hearing comments from any affected individuals, municipalities, or organizations that do not live or pay taxes in Lower Saucon Township. The hearing also did not begin at 9am as advertised, and the procedures and conduct created a hostile environment for those attending.
CRD-LST strongly supports these courageous residents in their fight to protect the rights of all!
In response to Lower Saucon Township’s adoption of a new ordinance allowing landfilling “as of right” on conserved land, residents filed a substantive challenge arguing the rezoning amounts to unlawful zoning including spot zoning, contract zoning, and violations against the PA Constitution. These are just some of the arguments that residents claim should void the zoning ordinance.
BREAKING CITIZENS FILE SUIT TO PROTECT THE FOREST FROM LANDFILL DESTRUCTION
MAY 8, 2023 COURT DECISION GRANTING PROCEDURAL CHALLENGE AND INVALIDATING LANDFILL EXPANSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.
Order-and-Statement-of-Reasons-FILED-5.8.23Substantive Zoning Board Hearing Appeal
The complete Zoning Hearing Board Validity Appeal filed on January 17, 2023 can be downloaded at the link above.
Zoning Changes Approved by Township on 12/21/22
- Make landfills a Conditional Use instead of a Special Exception. This means the Landfill doesn’t need Zoning Hearing Board approval for landfill use.
- All previous environmental protections would be removed. Allows the Landfill to pay money in exchange for expanding rather than dedicate other land of equivalent environmental value for Open Space.
- Eliminate the Township’s site plan approval process for landfill uses.
Final Zoning Ordinance Amendment
The full text of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Ordinance 2022-2, as adopted by the Township is linked at: https://ecode360.com/laws/LO1675 under the heading Ord. No. 2022-02.
Land Use Appeal
On Friday, January 13, 2023, citizens of Lower Saucon Township filed an appeal against Lower Saucon’s rezoning of 275 acres of land. You can download the file here and read it. Click the Download button below.