Markwest Liberty Midstream & Resources, LLC v. Cecil Township Zoning Hearing Board
102 A.3d 549
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- MarkWest Liberty Midstream & Resources, LLC applied (Nov. 29, 2010) for a special exception under Cecil Township UDO §911.D.1 to build/operate a natural gas compressor station on a 71.5-acre parcel zoned I-1 Light Industrial; facility would occupy ~15 acres and be ≥1,000 ft from any residence. Board hearings occurred in Jan.–Feb. 2011.
- The Township’s UDO allows compressor stations by special exception (Ordinance 2-2010) but requires the Board to find the proposed use is of the “same general character as” and has “equal or lesser impact” than listed permitted or conditional uses in I-1.
- The Zoning Hearing Board denied the special exception, concluding MarkWest failed to show comparability/lesser impact and faulting MarkWest for not presenting studies/reports on noise, odor, emissions, traffic, and property-value impacts.
- MarkWest appealed; Range Resources intervened. The Common Pleas Court affirmed the Board in part. The Commonwealth Court reviewed de novo legal errors and substantial-evidence issues (no new evidence taken below).
- Court findings: (1) Board imposed requirements not in the UDO (comparative studies, expert reports, proof of direct transmission to end-user, proving no property-value effect); (2) substantial record evidence showed MarkWest met UDO objective criteria (area/bulk, noise/emissions controls, limited traffic, safety measures); (3) UDO is not facially exclusionary and state preemption claim failed after Robinson Township decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board erred by denying special exception | MarkWest: met §911.D.1 objective criteria; no UDO requirement to supply comparative studies or expert reports; proposed use is of same general character as Essential Service or allowed manufacturing | Board/Township: MarkWest failed burden — no comparative studies/reports; proposed facility not the “same” as essential service (not direct-to-end-user) and poses greater environmental impacts | Court: Reversed — Board unlawfully imposed extra requirements; record and Board findings show MarkWest satisfied UDO standards; remand with direction to grant within 45 days (subject to lawful conditions) |
| Whether UDO (as applied) unlawfully excludes compressor stations (exclusionary zoning) | MarkWest/Range: Board’s interpretation effectively excludes compressor stations from Township | Township: UDO permits compressor stations by special exception; Board decision was case-specific denial, not a blanket exclusion | Court: Affirmed — UDO does not facially or de facto exclude compressor stations; Ordinance 2-2010 and other districts permit such uses by special exception or in heavier-industrial zones |
| Whether UDO is preempted by state law (Act 13 / prior Oil & Gas Act) | MarkWest: state law preempts local regulation of oil/gas operations; UDO conflict should be displaced | Township: Act 13’s preemptive provisions were invalidated (Robinson Twp.), and UDO does not conflict as written or applied | Court: Affirmed — state preemption argument fails in light of Robinson Township; UDO not preempted here |
| Remedies and standard of review | MarkWest: no remand necessary; record supports direct grant of special exception | Township/Board: Board should be allowed to reconsider/clarify findings | Held: No remand for additional factfinding required; Court directed immediate remand to trial court then to Board to grant special exception within 45 days or specify lawful conditions and basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrell v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of the Borough of Shrewsbury, 17 A.3d 972 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (special-exception burden and presumption once applicant meets objective criteria)
- Freedom Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of the City of New Castle, 983 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (standards for objectors’ proof of detrimental effect)
- Greaton Props. v. Lower Merion Twp., 796 A.2d 1038 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (applicant’s burden to present evidence for special exception)
- Norate Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Upper Moreland Twp., 207 A.2d 890 (Pa. 1965) (zoning board authority arises exclusively from ordinance and enabling statute)
- Twp. of Exeter v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Exeter Twp., 962 A.2d 653 (Pa. 2009) (analysis of de jure and de facto exclusionary zoning)
- Robinson Twp. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm’n, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013) (striking certain Act 13 preemption provisions; state preemption analysis)