Note: The following is not a verbatim transcript of the Zoning Hearing Board meeting; it is simply one person’s summary of the major points made by those involved in the hearing process.  For that reason, quotation marks are not used unless a direct quote was recorded.  For information about obtaining an official ZHB transcript, contact the New Hanover Township office.

Bob Brant, attorney for New Hanover Township continued his cross-examination of Walter B. Satterthwaite, principal of Walter B. Satterthwaite Assocs., Inc.

Brant asked Satterthwaite for a list of the times he (Satterthwaite) had visited the proposed quarry site, as asked for on 11/28/01.  Satterthwaite provided him with a list (Exhibit 29).

After some questioning Satterthwaite mentioned that he was hired by Gibraltar Rock to look for sites suitable to operate a quarry.

There was next some questioning as to the timeframe of Satterthwaite’s visits to the site.  From Satterthwaite’s somewhat obfuscated reply, he completed the Phase 1 and 2 study (February 2000) before providing Silvis with the advice to purchase the land, which they did in 2001.

Brant next asked about the number of wells that are shown on the map within Exhibit 28.  Brant asked how many of the 14 wells on Church Road are owned by Gibraltar Rock. Satterthwaite replied that it was “one”.  Brant asked how many on Big Road and Satterthwaite answered “none”.  Brant next asked how many were monitored for the 72-Hour Aquifer Pump Test.  Satterthwaite replied that it was two on Church.  Brant said, so that leaves 12 wells that you failed to monitor on Church Road…and you failed to monitor 9 on Big Road.”  Satterthwaite did not care for the phrase “failed to monitor”.

Francis Recchuiti (representing land owner, Robert Connolly) began his cross-examination of Satterthwaite.

Mr. Recchuiti asked Satterthwaite to review the map with all the wells that were monitored or dug.  He asked if Satterthwaite knew what the effects of testing on well R17 were. Satterthwaite said there was no effect on R17, that there was no draw-down.  Recchuiti asked if he had gone on Mr. Connolly’s property to measure if it was within the 600 ft. area. Satterthwaite said he didn’t.  Recchuiti asked him if being outside the 600 ft. would matter---of course Satterthwaite said it would not.

Recchuiti next asked where Satterthwaite obtained the data about the site.  Satterthwaite said he received some of it from the previous owner of the land (who had tried to have it zoned for a land fill).  Satterthwaite said that the data on the land, it’s hydrology, and topography was from 1986 – 1990.  When Recchuiti asked him if that data was too old, Satterthwaite explained that the data was “weighted” (data is weighted when it is uncertain or out of date to bring it into mathematical line). Recchuiti asked him if there were differences in the data he found and that of the previous owner---he said there was.

Recchuiti next asked him if he believed that the quarry would serve as a source for road material for the township.  He said “yes”.  Recchuiti asked if there was a shortage of road materials. He again said “yes”.  When asked if going to an existing quarry (approximately 8 miles from New Hanover Township) would incur a significant cost, he once again said “yes”.  Recchuiti next asked him when the last time he represented a municipality was and he answered 15 years. Satterthwaite said that he has already testified that there would not be any effect on the surrounding property owner’s water supply. 

Through a number of questions Recchuiti found that there was data that did not make it into any of the reports that Satterthwaite had prepared for the New Hanover Township Zoning Hearing Board.  Recchuiti kept asking why Satterthwaite did not want to present these pieces of datum to the board.  Through body language and facial expressions Satterthwaite tried to present this as obvious---that he need not provide all the background information tables---only the summary.

Recchuiti next asked him about the incinerator on the site and what metallic waste contamination was found in the soil.  Recchuiti asked where the soil for the berms would come from. Satterthwaite said the topsoil from the site. Recchuiti tried to get him to say that they would move the soil with the metallic waste closer to the streets. Satterthwaite was too foxy and merely said that it would be placed within the center of these massive berms.  Recchuiti did get him to admit that the DEP would not monitor the moving of the soil---that it would be left to the honor of the Silvis to make sure that the berms are constructed properly.  Recchuiti also found out that the Silvis would NOT have to wait for DEP approval before moving the contaminated soil.

Recchuiti’s final line of questioning was about Satterthwaite contention that he did the 72-Hour Aquifer Pump Test during a time of drought, which proved that there would be no adverse effects of a quarry.  Recchuiti asked Satterthwaite to read the precipitation records for the months prior to the testing.  It appeared that there was approximately the average rainfall for that period, not really a drought condition.  However, Satterthwaite fired back that two of the months were heavy rains that probably ran off---not being a factor in replenishing the dry earth.  He’s got answers to all of the questions---I wish I were that sure of everything.

David Makara, one of the attorneys representing the Paradise Watch Dogs questioned Satterthwaite next.  He asked about the number of wells and if there were any other tests that might have been done on the land.  Satterthwaite of course said “no, none as reliable.” Makara asked if Satterthwaite had checked to see if there were any wells at the Southern end of the study area that might have been better to study and he replied, “no”.

Mercifully, at this point Mr. Skypala, the zoning hearing board’s attorney called for the meeting to end.

The next meetings will be January 29, 2002. 

See also:
Summary of the previous meeting (11/28/01)

Additional Information
The following notes were supplied by another resident who attended the 12/19/01 meeting.

Exhibit A-29 which indicates the number of site visits by Satterthwaite and was completed by Satterthwaite in response to Brant's request at the last hearing on 11/28/01.   Although after questioning by Brant, Satterthwaite admitted the dates on A-29 included days when Satterthwaite worked on the project and did not actually visit.  The amount of time Satterthwaite spent on the days was not given, although Brant indicated since Satterthwaite's firm would bill by the hour the amount of time could be found in Satterthwaite's records. 1st site visit by Satterthwaite was on Feb 17, 2000.  April 4th was a 4-hour site inspection with owner. June 23 meet with staff at Marinari's attorney, Paul Callaghan. (325 Swede Street, Norristown, which is couple of doors down from Francis Recchuiti's office)      

According to Stephen Harris, Silvi's purchased the property (all but one parcel from James Marinari) on March 15, 2001.  Satterthwaite was asked by Brant, but Satterthwaite didn't know when Silvi's purchased the property.

According to Satterthwaite who referenced Exhibit A-28 (72-hour aquifer pump test), on November 21, 01 well pumping tests were made.  These tests were performed after Silvi's purchased the properties. (If Satterthwaite makes recommendation to Silvi's to purchase property as a quarry, you would think Satterthwaite would wait until after the pumping tests to make recommendation)   

Residential Wells:
(1) 14 on Church Road, 1 owned by G.R., 2 (R-6 & R-12 on A-28) were monitored & not owned by G.R., 12 residential wells were not monitored by G.R.
(2) 10 on Big Road, 1 was monitored by G.R., 9 were not.

Of the 24 wells only 3 were monitored by G.R.

March 2000 Satterthwaite received data from Marinari.  Joe Pfeiffer was one of Marinari's geologist.

July 2001 another date Satterthwaite did testing for 72-hour aquifer pump test.

Satterthwaite also mentioned he was aware of NHT zoning and knew zoning would need to be changed, but he realized the site meets D.E.P.'s regulations & thought D.E.P. requirements would supersede township zoning, i.e., light industrial & heavy industrial.

Satterthwaite thought the cost to haul from a quarry 3-8 miles away would be significant, but mentioned he didn't know if township (NHT) needs a quarry.

Whitpain Township was the township Satterthwaite represented for a quarry some 15 years ago.   

Satterthwaite met with D.E.P.about site.  Later Satterthwaite mentioned Sharon Hill who is a D.E.P. geologist.

Satterthwaite did not make any findings about the effect of blasting on neighboring properties.

Satterthwaite looked at other potential quarry properties for G.R., but none west of NHT.  Property he looked at in Salford township (100-140 acres) was not for sale.

Referencing A-28, 5 offsite wells were monitored.  R-31 (R-40 on site, near Hoffmansville Road), R-8 & R-12 (Church Road), R-25 & R-29.

Brant asked Satterthwaite who refused permission to monitor private wells.  Satterthwaite didn't know but that information is recorded although not submitted.   

Satterthwaite discussed TP1 to TP16 on an exhibit.  The area in feet is 1200' although the entire property is 163 acres, which the top layer would be used as part of the berm.  The berm would be set back 100' from 3 roads (Hoffmansville, Chuch & Big).

Recchuiti asked Satterthwaite about the current Draught Emergency.  Satterthwaite mentioned the last time he did work on private wells and their effect during a draught emergency was 6-7 years ago.

The Precipitation Table 2001 reported by D.E.P. but Satterthwaite did not submit:
Jan - down .3"; Feb - about even; March - up 1.9"; April - down 1.7"; June - about even; July - up 2.1"  Satterthwaite mentioned the current emergency draught would have no effect on his 72-hour aquifer pump test, because it was conducted during a pending draught.