Petition). DRN also indicates that Sunoco admitted that the location of the pump stations was based on the entire capacity of the Mariner East project. DRN asserts that, if Sunoco was basing the siting of the pump stations on the production profile of its segmented intrastate transportation throughput, the physical location and number of pump stations would be radically different from what is depicted in Exhibit E. DRN R. Exc. at 9. Additionally, DRN avers that a finding that the siting of the buildings in this case is reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public, would result in “which the displacement of all local development guidelines and permit oil and gas infrastructure development and operation in every type of zoning is contrary to the holding in district,” and Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Robinson Township, supra, DRN R. Exc. at 11. CCWGT In its Replies to Exceptions, CCWGT first notes that Sunoco fails to include two of Preliminary Objections in its listing of Preliminary Objections. CCWGT’s CCWGT R. Exc. at 12. CCWGT avers that it objected to the insufficient specificity of the Amended Petition based on failure to identify (1) the specific property for Sunoco’s which Sunoco sought a zoning exemption; and (2) the specific zoning or land use ordinances from which Sunoco sought an exemption. at 12, 13. As such, CCWGT Id. states that Exception is incomplete and inaccurate, and the Commission should Sunoco’s not rule on the remaining Preliminary Objections at this time. at 13. Id. Second, CCWGT avers that, if the Commission determines it has jurisdiction, this matter should be remanded to the OALJ for rulings on the remaining Preliminary Objections and all further proceedings. at 14. CCWGT asserts that the Id. Regulations require preliminary objections to be decided by a presiding Commission’s officer. at 13 (citing 52 Pa. Code § 5.101(g)). CCWGT states that the Id. Commission’s
Petition). DRN also indicates that Sunoco admitted that the location of the pump stations was based on the entire capacity of the Mariner East project. DRN asserts that, if Sunoco was basing the siting of the pump stations on the production profile of its segmented intrastate transportation throughput, the physical location and number of pump stations would be radically different from what is depicted in Exhibit E. DRN R. Exc. at 9. Additionally, DRN avers that a finding that the siting of the buildings in this case is reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public, “which would result in the displacement of all local development guidelines and permit oil and gas infrastructure development and operation in every type of zoning district,” is contrary to the holding in Robinson Township, supra, and Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. DRN R. Exc. at 11. CCWGT In its Replies to Exceptions, CCWGT first notes that Sunoco fails to include two of CCWGT’s Preliminary Objections in its listing of Preliminary Objections. CCWGT R. Exc. at 12. CCWGT avers that it objected to the insufficient specificity of the Amended Petition based on Sunoco’s failure to identify (1) the specific property for which Sunoco sought a zoning exemption; and (2) the specific zoning or land use ordinances from which Sunoco sought an exemption. Id. at 12, 13. As such, CCWGT states that Sunoco’s Exception is incomplete and inaccurate, and the Commission should not rule on the remaining Preliminary Objections at this time. Id. at 13. Second, CCWGT avers that, if the Commission determines it has jurisdiction, this matter should be remanded to the OALJ for rulings on the remaining Preliminary Objections and all further proceedings. Id. at 14. CCWGT asserts that the Commission’s Regulations require preliminary objections to be decided by a presiding officer. Id. at 13 (citing 52 Pa. Code § 5.101(g)). CCWGT states that the Commission’s