Plumstead zoning decision poses environmental concerns
A recent zoning decision in Plumstead Township raises serious questions about how we approach environmental protection — and whether we are willing to stand behind the standards we have put in place.
Conditional approval was granted for a restaurant to use property along the canal in Point Pleasant as a parking lot, allowing encroachment into a riparian buffer. These buffers are not arbitrary lines on a map. They exist to protect waterways from pollution, runoff, and long-term environmental degradation — especially in areas that ultimately connect to the Delaware River.
In practical terms, this decision allows vehicles to park directly adjacent to a waterway. With that comes the well-known risks associated with oil, antifreeze, gasoline, and other contaminants, particularly during rain events when runoff carries pollutants into nearby water systems.
The conditions attached to this approval raise additional concerns. Oversight is limited to monitoring twice a year, with advance notice. That type of arrangement depends heavily on voluntary compliance and offers little assurance against routine, day-to-day impacts. Scheduled inspections may identify issues at a moment in time, but they do not prevent them from occurring in between.
We have seen in the past that when enforcement mechanisms are limited, violations are not hypothetical — they happen. That experience should have informed a more cautious approach in this case.
When this matter came before the Board of Supervisors, we believed it warranted a legal challenge. The question was not simply about one property, but about the integrity of the township’s environmental protections and the precedent that would be set moving forward. The board majority chose not to pursue that option and declined to seek input from the township’s Environmental Advisory Council — an advisory body specifically created to provide expertise on issues like this.
At a recent public meeting, the reasoning for that decision was explained: The township did not want to spend approximately $20,000 on litigation because of the possibility of an unfavorable outcome. That is certainly a consideration. However, it is only part of the equation. There was also the possibility of a successful challenge — one that could have clarified and reinforced the township’s commitment to protecting its riparian buffers.
Instead, the message that emerges is that defending these protections may not be worth the cost.
This raises a fundamental question: What are our priorities — and are our waterways really only worth $20,000 to the board majority?
The broader concern is the precedent this decision establishes. Land use decisions do not occur in isolation. Developers, property owners, and legal counsel pay close attention to how municipalities interpret and defend their ordinances. When exceptions are granted and left unchallenged, it signals a willingness to compromise on established protections.
Over time, that signal matters. It can lead to increased pressure to further encroach on areas that were once considered off-limits, gradually weakening the safeguards that protect our community’s natural resources.
Riparian buffers are widely recognized as effective tools for reducing pollution, managing stormwater, and preserving water quality. Their strength lies in consistent application. Once exceptions become more common, their effectiveness diminishes.
Protecting our waterways is not always the easiest or least expensive path. But it is a core responsibility of local government. It requires not only setting standards, but also being willing to defend them — especially when doing so involves uncertainty.
This was one of those moments.
The decisions we make today will shape the future of Plumstead Township. If we are not prepared to uphold our environmental protections when they are tested, we risk losing them over time.
Our waterways deserve more than that.
Greg Bankos (R) and Dan Hilferty (R) are Plumstead Township supervisors.
