Court Opinion

ID: 3215056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-21 02:14:09.20056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:26:09.508667
License: Public Domain

ORDER
  

  PER CURIAM.
 

  AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioners, are:
 

  (1) Does the Commonwealth Court’s decision below, that an industrial shale gas development is similar to and compatible with uses expressly permitted in a[n] R-A District, conflict with this Court’s decision in
  
   Robinson Township?
  

  (2) Did the Commonwealth Court commit an error of law in deciding that an industrial shale gas development is similar to and compatible with a “public service facility!’ in an R-A District when the Township made no factual finding or legal conclusion to that effect, the record contains no substantial evidence to support that deter
   
   *592
   
  mination, and the company’s own witness testified that shale gas development was
  
   not
  
  similar to a “public service facility” in an R-A District?
 

  (3) Did the Commonwealth Court improperly decide that
  
   MarkWest Liberty Midstream,
  
  wherein it held that a compressor station is similar to and compatible with a “public service facility” in a Light Industrial District, also compels the conclusion that an industrial shale gas development is similar to and compatible with a “public service facility” in an R-A District designed for quiet, residential development and not industrial land uses?
 

  (4) Did the Commonwealth Court commit an error of law by relying on prior conditional use approvals that the Township issued for uses not expressly permitted in the R-A District, in order to support its decision that an industrial shale gas development is similar to and compatible with uses expressly permitted in the R-A District?