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.

The hearing was called to order and Mr. Bob Brant, New Hanover Township’s attorney continued his cross-examination of Mr. Uday M. Patankar (an independent consulting engineer from Phoenixville).

Brant began by asking Patankar if he knew the exact number of acres there are in the HI district.  Patankar said he did not and Mr. Stephen Harris, the attorney for the applicant said this was never calculated.  Brant asked if it could be provided.

Brant continued by asking if the permit area was equal to the tract boundary. Patankar said it was equal to or less than the boundary.

Brant asked if Patankar had submitted permits yet. Patankar said that it would be done in the next six-months.

Brant next asked if Patankar had ever drafted a zoning ordinance or sub-division ordinance. Patankar answered no to both.

Brant asked if exhibit A12, the Non-Coal Mining Act regulates the depth of surface mining.  Patankar remarked that it is “indirectly regulated”.  Brant asked him to be more specific---to identify the section in the regulations.  Patankar commented that if you had the regulations online and could do a keyword search on the word “depth” that he could be more specific.  Then he said that section 77.404 mentions depth as does 77.457 under Hydrologic Balance”.  Brant next asked if there are no limitations as to the depth of a quarry in the regulations.  Patankar said that in Section 77.504 there are specific distances data---but with respect to depth China is the limit.

Brant asked how many quarries Patankar had permitted. He responded saying 30. Brant asked in that 30 what was the deepest? Patankar said 750 feet.

Brant moved on to the topic of noise.  He asked Patankar about noise regulations. Brant mentioned that Section 1501 of the New Hanover Township Zoning Ordinances has specific standards for noise. He asked what the specific section in the Non-Coal Act relates to noise.  Patankar said there is a whole section on nuisance, which includes noise.  Brant asked if that section gave a standard as clear as stated in the New Hanover Township Zoning Ordinance.  Patankar said, “no it does not, it’s capable of having a regulation” [that’s some clear answer, isn’t it?].  Brant asked if standards exist in the Non-Coal Act.  He had to ask a second time, this time asking, “Is there an ordinance in existence on noise, yes or no?”  Patankar answered “No.”

Brant finished by asking if Patankar knows if the New Hanover Township Zoning Ordinance permits more than one use of a property.  Patankar said he believes it does.

The next person to question Patankar was a local resident, Mr. Roger Buchanan.

Buchanan asked questions regarding a resident’s recourse concerning wells.  Patankar told him that the Non-Coal Act was very specific about what the owner must do.  He said that in most cases the owner of the quarry would be a “good neighbor” and provide water for the homeowner.  The term “good neighbor” got a chuckle from the audience.

Buchanan asked what the specific sections are concerning water.  Patankar answered that 77.533 is about water rights and replacement and a corresponding section in the law.

Buchanan next asked if the regulations stipulate a distance from the quarry to the well.  Patankar answered that it was more a cause and effect relationship. Buchanan asked how that cause and effect were established.  Patankar said you complain to the DEP and the quarry owner and both of them look at the situation.  Buchanan said that doing this might take some time---being as though it was a government organization and the owner of the quarry.  Patankar said that the owner is “more than likely will probably do something” for the owner. [‘more than likely will probably’…this sure sounds like weasel words to us]. 

Buchanan next asked about other regulations concerning asphalt fumes.  Patankar said the regulations were in exhibit A18 Federal regulations that govern hot-mix.  Buchanan asked who regulates this.  Patankar said DEP

The next resident was Lou Farrell, who asked about the spread of dust. He asked if Patankar had seen other quarries where they are always trying to keep the streets clean with water trucks and other places where residents have to keep their windows closed. Patankar said no.

The next resident was Evan Detrick who asked if Patankar has testified that the quarry would have to shut down if emissions were shown to be leaving the quarry.  Patankar answered yes.

Detrick next asked if the DEP would allow a quarry right on a stream corridor.  Patankar said yes, if you can show the environmental impact will be made up of discharge from the quarry.  Detrick said the DEP regulates wetlands—does it also look at wetland impact downstream.  Patankar said yes.

Detrick next asked how blasting effects are monitored.  Patankar explained that there is a pre-blast survey that looks at structures within 1000 feet of the quarry, to form a baseline to compare structures before and after blasts.

Detrick also asked if there were any public regulations to protect the visual impact.  Patankar said no, the berms would protect the view.

The next person to cross examine Patankar was David Makara, of Davis & Bocco, attorneys representing the local residents who sponsor this website. 

Mr. Makara asked if Patankar had looked into migratory birds when he compiled the information.  Patankar said yes. Makara asked how this is done and who does it.  Patankar said through an ecological study and the applicant does that it.  Makara asked if that had been done.  Patankar said not to his knowledge.

Makara asked if there has been a study done as to the effect of blasting and its effects on the area outside the quarry area, and will DEP regulate the environmental impact of this.  Patankar said no.

Makara asked if the applicant has to submit any environmental impact studies for how the quarry will impact the land outside the quarry. Patankar said no.  He next asked if the environmental information will need to be submitted to the DEP before permit is granted.  Patankar said yes.

At this point there were no further questions for Mr. Patankar.  And, while we’re all sad to see him go, the next witness was called.

The next witness was Mr. Paul White, geologist for Walter B. Satherwaite, 720 Old Fern Hill Road, West Chester, PA 19380. Harris explained that White would be called twice during these hearings, once as an expert to discuss environmental issues and once more when hydrogeology is discussed. 

Harris entered exhibit A24, White’s Resume, and A25 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment.

Harris began by discussing White’s voluminous “resume”, actually his curriculum vitae. Highlights are his BS from Allegany College, his postgraduate seminars and workshops, and the “over 200 environmental assessments” he had “personally conducted”.

Mr. Francis Recchuiti, an attorney representing a local citizen asked a series of questions about White’s ‘resume’ and background.  Besides identifying some of the spelling errors in White’s professional ‘resume’, he also questioned why White had not listed the names of some of his clients.  White said they were confidential. Recchuiti asked why, if we are trying to determine if he is a qualified expert would White not provide us with the names and phone numbers of people who were to validate his expertise.  This line of questioning was followed by comments about whether or not he should be considered a qualified expert on environmental issues since he was a geologist with no degrees or training (either undergraduate or postgraduate) in that area.  Recchuiti, Brant, and Makara all agreed that the NH Zoning Hearing Board should not allow the testimony of this witness because he was obviously not an expert in this area.

The board recessed for five minutes. When they reconvened they said that they would get back together before the next meeting and discuss the criteria for what constitutes an “expert witness” and then review the transcript of White’s testimony in light of that.  At the next zoning hearing board meeting they would announce their decision.

The meeting ended.

The next ZHB meeting is October 24, at 7:00 PM Boyertown Jr. High East.

See also:
Summary of the previous meeting (9/6/01)