Nov 16, 2017 4 min read

CECIL – Cecil Township zoning hearing board put off a vote Monday on whether to drop some requirements – including annual air testing – imposed on a natural-gas processor looking to build a compressor station in the township.

Board members voted 3-0 to table a “stipulation and settlement” offered by MarkWest Energy Partners in a case before Commonwealth Court. The case arose from an application for a special exception that MarkWest first submitted late in 2010 to build a compressor station on Route 980 on land zoned light industrial, a little more than a mile north of Route 50.

Under the terms of the proposed agreement, the board would agree to strike two of the 26 conditions it imposed when it granted a special exception to MarkWest to build the plant in 2015.

One is a requirement the company perform baseline air testing before starting operations and then every year thereafter.

Another limits the facility to “no more than five electric or eight gas compressor engines.” Under that condition, MarkWest must use electric engines. If the facility couldn’t operate that way, the company would be allowed to “present evidence of the unavailablility of electricity” to the zoning hearing board, “who shall then determine whether gas compressor engines shall be permitted.”

Zoning hearing board solicitor Jeffrey Ries said the board hasn’t scheduled another vote on the proposed settlement. The board would have to give 24-hour notice before doing so.

Prior to the 2015 approval, the board had denied the application MarkWest first submitted in late 2010. That move sparked a land-use appeal that wound up before Commonwealth Court. In 2014, that court reversed that decision and remanded it back to the zoning board, with instructions to render approval, subject to any conditions needed to ensure the project conforms to the local land-use ordinance.

MarkWest filed a second land-use appeal following the board’s 2015 decision. Washington County Judge John F. DiSalle denied that appeal in October 2016, finding all 26 conditions “reasonable and supported by the record.” MarkWest appealed his ruling to Commonwealth Court.

Court records show Commonwealth Court stayed MarkWest’s appeal Oct. 12 and referred it to mediation in response to a joint request. from MarkWest and the board.

A MarkWest representative referred questions to Marathon Petroleum Corp., whose spinoff MPLX bought MarkWest two years ago.

“It is unfortunate that despite the township’s invitation to finally settle the matter on terms proposed by MarkWest over six years ago, the township changed course and the matter has been tabled once again, resulting in more uncertainty,” Marathon spokesman Jamal Kheiry said in an email.

About 30 people attended the hearing. Two locals pressed board members about the action they considered taking. One of them, Michelle Stonemark of North DePaoli Road, said the board’s previous decision signing off on the plans with conditions was a “compromise” that still allowed MarkWest to build the facility.

“So why would you take away from the safety of the residents?” she said. “That’s what it’s all about – welcoming industry into the community while still protecting the residents.” She urged the board to keep the two conditions in place.

Ries declined to offer an opinion on whether the facility could operate safely without the condition requiring air testing. Kheiry said MarkWest’s “facilities are designed in compliance with all applicable regulations, and to ensure the safety of MarkWest personnel, the public, and the environment.”

Dwight Ferguson, a lawyer representing several residents in their bid to intervene in the case, told the board he was prepared to challenge any decision it made on the proposed settlement. Ferguson represents residents Doug and Megan Warzinski and Jessica Adamski in an appeal they filed when DiSalle denied their bids to intervene in the case when it was before him. That matter is pending in Commonwealth Court.

“You can’t render a decision, affirmed by the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, and then, outside any due process of all those people who have a right to notice, decide that you’re changing those conditions,” Ferguson said. “I don’t think the (Municipalities Planning Code) allows that to occur at all.”