Dec 16, 2014 3 min read

Cecil Township’s zoning board filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in hopes that a judge will side with their decision to deny an application for a natural gas compressor station in 2011.

Zoning board solicitor Patricia McGrail said there is “no guarantee that the Supreme Court will take (the case),” which would appeal a Commonwealth Court judge’s decision three months ago that deemed the board’s denial of MarkWest’s application an “unreasonable interpretation” of township ordinance.

The decision ordered the board to approve MarkWest’s application for a compressor station near the intersection of Route 980 and Route 50 within 45 days, which is now on hold due to pending litigation. Prior to that decision, Washington County Court Judge John DiSalle in January 2013 affirmed the zoning board’s decision, which MarkWest then appealed.

The board denied the application in March 2011, stating it did not satisfy requirements in the Unified Development Ordinance’s requirements. The board argued the compressor station is not of the same general character as other permitted uses in the light industrial district and stated MarkWest did not meet its burden by proving its effect on the environment would have an equal or lesser impact than other uses. A MarkWest spokesman did not provide comment, but previously spoke in support of the Commonwealth Court decision.

During a November meeting, zoning board members unanimously voted to move forward with the appeal, with the exception of Chairman George Augustine, who abstained. Augustine did not immediately return a phone call Tuesday.

Vice Chairman Frank Zuzek said an earlier 3-2 vote by the township board of supervisors not to pursue an appeal played no role in the zoning board’s decision.

“I believe that we were correct in our decision originally,” Zuzek said Tuesday. “Washington County Common Pleas Court corroborated our decision that we were correct, and I believe that the state Commonwealth Court was not necessarily correct. We stand by our decision.”

The zoning board also filed a petition for reconsideration in Commonwealth Court, which was denied in mid-November for unstated reasons, according to zoning board attorney Jeffrey Ries.

As stated in the appeal, a zoning hearing board generally “does not have standing to file an appeal to an order reversing its decision, as the board is a disinterested party with no stake in the outcome of the appeal.”

However, the petitioners argued there is precedent in Commonwealth Court that a board may file an appeal if an order “impairs its ‘legislatively conferred functions, duties and responsibilities.'”

Petitioners argued the board was following “prescribed duties” outlined by the Unified Development Ordinance and Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code when it denied MarkWest’s application.