JACKSON TWP — At a meeting that packed the municipal building, the township’s planning commission voted not to recommend an amendment to its oil and gas ordinance that would have tightened the development of oil and gas well sites.

Under the township’s current ordinance, oil and gas well site development is a permitted use in all zoning districts with no exceptions.

However, under the terms of the proposed amendment, oil and gas well site development would have been reduced to a conditional use only. In addition, minimum setbacks for “unconventional” gas wells (wells typically used for hydraulic fracturing) would have been extended from 500 feet to 1,200 feet, or 3,500 feet from a school.

Other restrictions would have included implementing a maximum of three well heads for well sites in the residential zoning district, as well as making conditional-use approvals expire after two years — meaning that permit holders have two years to construct their wells and get them running.

According to township solicitor Anthony Cosgrove, the current oil and gas regulations have been a topic of discussion in Jackson Township for months, which led to the ordinance that was proposed — and ultimately voted down — on Wednesday night.

“A number of residents had expressed concerns regarding the existing regulations for oil and gas development in the township,” Cosgrove said. “(The township) had a town-hall meeting in early December and invited everybody who was a stakeholder in this, and we had a sit-down meeting where everybody expressed their thoughts and concerns.”

At Wednesday night’s meeting, the crowd — which flowed into the hallway — was sharply divided on whether the township should go forward with implementing the amendment to the ordinance, or keep regulations the way they are. The former camp was generally made up of people who recently moved to the township and brought up concerns about the possible health impacts of new wells.

Fermin Calderon, who lives at Foxwood Trail, wanted the amendment to go even further and impose an outright ban on wells in residential areas. He was disappointed with the planning commission’s decision.

“It seems to me that the township is very adverse to change,” Calderon said. “It seems they prefer the people who have been here longer, even though there's many dozens of people who are moving in and trying to make this place a better place now and are concerned for their families.”

Others, such as Leroy Drushel, are longtime landowners in Jackson Township who maintain gas wells on their land and collect royalties off them. Residents in this camp expressed concerns about the effect the proposed amendment would have on their income.

“If it hadn't been for this gas industry development, I guarantee you any farmers in this room wouldn’t be in business today,” said Drushel, who has five wells on his property. “The country can go starve to death if we go out of business. We don’t care. There’s people in here who think we ain’t allowed to make a profit off of our property we pay taxes on. … You’re restricting my livelihood and my retirement.”

Numerous figures from the oil and gas industry and the local business community showed up to the meeting as well, mainly to advocate against the amendment. One of them was Jordan Grady, president of the Butler County Chamber of Commerce.

“I would like to see private property owners have the right to develop their land how they see fit,” Grady said. “I would like oil and gas exploration to continue. It's our key to prosperity, not only in Butler County and Pennsylvania, but really, the whole nation. We need to encourage more exploration of natural gas, not hinder it in any way.”

Although the public opinion phase went smoothly at first, tensions boiled over and heated arguments broke out between hard-liners on both sides of the debate, which had to be mediated by Cosgrove.

One such argument involved former Jackson Township supervisor Ron Lutz, one of the harshest critics of the proposed amendment, which he derided as an example of “fascism.”

“The Founding Fathers of this country said you’re not free unless you can own and control your own property,” Lutz said. “If private property ownership takes place in government control, that is fascism.”