Oct 10, 2014 3 min read

Cecil Township’s zoning hearing board took steps to appeal a recent Commonwealth Court decision that ordered the board to approve an application for a natural gas compressor station.

The application for reargument, filed Friday by zoning board solicitor Patricia McGrail, came just four days after a motion by the board of supervisors to appeal the decision failed with a 3-2 vote.

Nevertheless, the township is still a party in the case against MarkWest and Range Resources.

The zoning board is asking Commonwealth Court to reargue the matter en banc, meaning all judges of the court would weigh in on the case. If that is denied, the board could take matters to Pennsylvania Supreme Court, pending approval.

Commonwealth Court Judge Anne E. Covey ruled Sept. 26 the zoning board erred when it denied MarkWest’s application for a natural gas compressor station in March 2011. She ordered the board approve the application within 45 days.

About a dozen township residents expressed concerns about the proposed facility during Monday’s meeting. The station would remove water from the gas, compress it and transport it through pipelines to Markwest’s Houston facility, where hydrocarbon liquids would be removed to create the processed gas that is supplied to consumers.

In its appeal, the zoning board argued the court overlooked relevant case law, inserted its own opinion regarding the sufficiency of evidence, and misinterpreted “well-settled zoning law” regarding conditions on MarkWest’s application.

According to Cecil Township’s 2010 ordinance, natural gas compressor stations can be approved by special exception if they comply with the township’s Unified Development Ordinance. That ordinance states the use must be comparable to other permitted uses in the district, and its impact on the environment and adjacent properties must be “equal to or less than any use specifically listed in the district.”

The board alleged MarkWest failed to meets its “burden of proof” demonstrating the compressor station would not adversely impact the environment, and the board “had no choice under the law but to deny the special exception” application.

“MarkWest did not present any empirical data on the environmental impact of its proposed use, and actually admitted that it had no idea of such impact, and as such, it failed to meet the burden set by the UDO and its application was denied,” read the court document.

The board argued MarkWest’s failure to conduct studies on the impact of its proposed compressor station runs contrary to last year’s Act 13 decision by the state Supreme Court that held environmental values “must be tailored to local conditions.”