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.

Note 2: Mr Walter B. Satterthwaite, principal of Walter B. Satterthwaite Assocs., Inc. was unable to attend this zoning hearing board meeting. Satterthwaite has recently undergone knee surgery. He may or may not attend the next meeting.  

Note 3: There were approximately 120 local residents in the audience. Many people who we called said they would be unable to attend since it was a Wednesday night during Lent.

Stephen Harris, attorney for Gibraltar Rock introduced his next witness, Mr. George R. Sengpiel of 214 N. Pine Street, Langhorne, PA.  Sengpiel is a certified real estate appraiser. Harris introduced Exhibit A30, which was Sengpiel’s curriculum vitae (CV). 

[During the course of the evening, attorneys on both sides spared over the term “curriculum vitae” versus the term “resume”.  To learn the difference see this brief article. 

Harris asked about Sengpiel’s background. Sengpiel has a MAI (MAI is a designation provided by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers as "Member, Appraisal Institute." In North America, the Society of Real Estate Appraisers (SREA) also provides recognition of its members for their professional qualifications.) Sengpiel was characterized as having a “Masters Degree” in appraisal.  He was also shown to be accredited as an SRA (Senior Residential Appraiser).  He also teaches at Bucks County Community College and is a member of the Appraisal Institute.

Sengpiel has also testified at zoning hearing boards, to boards of supervisors, at Federal District Court, and Federal Bankruptcy Court. Sengpiel noted that he did a residential study for the Silvis. 

Bob Brant, attorney for New Hanover Township began an examination of Sengpiel’s credentials. Brant asked what percentage of Sengpiel’s business was appraisal and Sengpiel said 98%.  Brant asked about postgraduate courses in real estate and Sengpiel said he had none.  Brant asked if he were published in the field of real estate appraisals and he responded that he was not.  Brant next asked what percent of his clients were from Montgomery County and he said 5%. Brant asked what percentage of his experience was with appraisals around quarries and he said 2 ½%. 

Francis Recchuiti (representing land owner, Robert Connolly) began his examination of Sengpiel. Recchuiti asked if Sengpiel generally represents homeowners, municipalities, or business owners. Sengpiel hedged a bit, so Recchuiti asked who he represented in the Pottstown Land Fill, which was listed on his CV.  Sengpiel said that he represented Waste Management, Inc.  

Recchuiti next asked when the last time Sengpiel did a quarry study and he responded 12 years ago. Recchuiti asked who he was engaged by on that job and he replied the quarry owners. Recchuiti then asked if he had ever represented a citizen’s group. He replied that there were none on his CV.  Recchuiti asked if there were any projects not on his CV where he represented a community and he said that he did not remember. Recchuiti asked him if he didn’t think representing a community group was prominent enough to include on his curriculum vitae. Sengpiel replied that his CV was meant to show the “breadth and scope” of his project experience. Recchuiti then asked if he remembered doing any community work. Sengpiel said yes he did, last year for a group fighting a cell phone tower.

David Makara, one of the attorneys representing the Paradise Watch Dogs questioned Sengpiel next.  Makara asked when the CV was last updated. Sengpiel replied that it was January 2000. Makara asked if that was the last time he testified and he said no.

Makara next questioned Sengpiel about the percent of commercial versus residential work he does. Sengpiel replied that commercial work was 75-80% of his work.

Makara asked if he had testified in the Pottstown Landfill case. Sengpiel said he did not recall. Makara asked if he testified in the Plumstead Township quarry case. He said yes, to the zoning hearing board.

Makara asked if there were any quarry work that was not on his CV. Sengpiel said no, he was involved with only one quarry. Makara asked if that was the extent of his experience and he replied that it was.

The New Hanover Zoning Hearing Board asked if the attorneys wanted to challenge Sengpiel’s expert status. There was no challenge.  The board asked an additional question and then ruled that Sengpiel was to be accepted as an expert witness in these proceedings.

Harris then began presenting his case. He asked if Sengpiel conducted a study as to the effect that the proposed quarry would have on the existing land values. Sengpiel said he did.

Harris asked him to explain what he did. Sengpiel said he inspected the property, drove around the streets, and looked at New Hanover Township.  He also mentioned that he developed demographic data. (Sengpiel later defined “demographic data” as statistics such as: dwelling units, population, average sale and list price for homes, average days a home stays on the market, the land area, and population density.  

Sengpiel said he also used real estate transaction data from Plumstead Township, where a quarry was constructed.  He analyzed the homes near the quarry.  Harris introduced Exhibit A31, which was Sengpiel’s report.

Harris next asked Sengpiel to explain the report. Sengpiel said that he examined the sales of properties from 1997-2001 surrounding the Plumstead quarry.  He investigated each one to determine if the selling price paid was positive or negative. He also talked with one of the sale participants.  

Harris asked if he compared the demographics of Plumstead and New Hanover Townships. Sengpiel said he did, and his conclusion is that they are similar and that since there was no impact to Plumstead Township that “…it will not have an impact on property values…” in New Hanover Township.

Bob Brant, attorney for New Hanover Township began a cross-examination of Sengpiel. 

Brant asked if Sengpiel met with anyone from Gibraltar Rock. He said he met with John Silvi on three occasions with one visit to the site. He said he made two site visits, the first in January 2002 and the second in the second week of February 2002.  He said he spent four (4) hours visiting the site with two of those hours spent talking with Silvi.  

Brant asked id he looked at quarries and land values in Montgomery County. He aid he did not. Brant asked if it wasn’t important to compare values closer to the actual site. Sengpiel said he was looking at a quarries influence on values---so proximity is not important.

Brant asked if Plumstead is similar to New Hanover. Sengpiel said he compared Plumstead Township “pre-quarry” to New Hanover now.  Brant asked if he was familiar with how New Hanover has changed in the time period he studied.  He said it was not “relative”. Brant corrected him asking “Do you mean “relevant”?  He agreed.

Brant next asked if he knows the zoning ordinances of Plumstead Township.  He said he did not, that he would have to refer to them.

Brant asked if Sengpiel had talked to any resident homeowners of the tracts around the Plumstead quarry.  Sengpiel said that the realtors were able to give him the information he needed---he didn’t speak to the purchasers.

Brant asked about the road frontage at Plumstead quarry and at the proposed NH quarry. Sengpiel said there was one road frontage at Plumstead and three at NH.

Brant asked how many properties abutted the Plumstead quarry and the proposed NH quarry. Sengpiel said 20 at Plumstead and 28-30 at New Hanover.  Brant asked the average acreage of residences and he said five.

Brant asked a series of questions about comparison of tract size, property value, and median income between the tow areas.  For tract size he did not remember, for property value and median income Plumstead is higher.

Brant asked specifically about track 19-1. He said it was purchased in 2001 but he didn’t know if there was a house there. Brant asked if there might not be a house because there is a quarry. Sengpiel said he didn’t think so.

Brant asked if Sengpiel tried to visit or ask to visit any properties around the Plumstead quarry. Sengpiel said, no, you don’t need to visit a property to garner a good idea of how the quarry will effect the property value.

Brant asked if Sengpiel is able to gauge the “enjoyment value” of a property abutting a quarry. Sengpiel replied that a quarry wouldn’t effect the price---Brant replied, “I’m talking about enjoyment”---Sengpiel, a true salesman said, “Better value connotes better enjoyment”.  

Francis Recchuiti began his cross-examination of Sengpiel.

Recchuiti asked Sengpiel about his background work. He asked if Sengpiel had compared earned income for the two townships. Sengpiel said he couldn’t get that knid of data. Recchuiti spent a period of time trying to convince Sengpiel that that type of data could be gathered.

Recchuiti said that “with a reasonable degree of professional expertise” you believe that there will be no negative impact of a quarry in NH Township. Sengpiel said yes, there would not be a negative impact.

Recchuiti spent about five minutes ‘discussing’ with Sengpiel the fact that he included a project on his CV (Pottstown Landfill), where the findings are confidential, yet he lists it on the CV as something he points to that he expects will show the zoning hearing board his experience and qualifications as expert witness.  Recchuiti asked how we’re to believe his findings if he is not willing to discuss specific cases that he has worked on.

Recchuiti asked if he had given us any information on the impact of a quarry to agricultural land, not just residential. He said he did not, that his findings were based on residential---that crops, cows, and people on agricultural land aren’t impacted.

Recchuiti asked if he looked at any traffic studies, and he said no. Recchuiti asked if increased traffic would impact property values. Sengpiel answered, “No”.

The meeting ended.

See Also:
Summary of the previous meeting (1/29/02)