Gorsline v. Bd of Sup. of Fairfield Twp

139 A.3d 178, 635 Pa. 591, 2016 Pa. LEXIS 1277, 2016 WL 3388369

Opinion

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 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?