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 meeting began with the cross examination of Mr. Thomas Comitta of Thomas Comitta Associates by Steve Harris, attorney for Gibraltar Rock.

Harris then questioned data about large truck accidents.   Data is of no significance, asserts Harris.  Harris questioned studies submitted by Comitta on changes in real estate value.  Later in the meeting Comitta acknowledged that he lacked an in-depth review of some of the findings cited.  This subject will be revisited.  The reader is referred to  Exhibit A-90.

Harris questioned data on 11% loss of property value. Harris used data to assert that Comitta’s conclusion was unjustified. Harris drew attention to a study that showed that properties next to a quarry were more valuable than properties in the interior of a housing development.  People would rather have a quarry for a neighbor than a neighbor for a neighbor, so it seems.  However, this favorable situation is very different from the Gibraltar Rock proposal.  In this “good” case, there was a 100 ft. barrier and an out of sight arrangement between the quarry and the surrounding environment, facts not highlighted by Harris.

Next, there were questions from the audience.  The questioner noted that there were 474 homes within one mile radius of the quarry.  But, there is no data on number of senior citizens.  The questioner estimated that 10% are senior citizens.  Some data was given on the number of neighbors with emphysema and/or asthma – subject about which Mr. Comitta has no expertise.

Mr. Brant brought up Document A83,  Exhibit 18 titled: Land Use and Reclamation Map.

The point was made that the Gibraltar Rock reclamation  proposal consist of two large holes filled with water and not protected by a fence.  Mr. Comitta stated that there are better reclamation alternatives.

Brant continued by citing exhibits T33 and T34 showing composite maps and overlays that take into consideration the township’s Open Space Plan. 

T14 and color coded land use exhibit.  See also T35 on types of buildings and land use.

There was some discussion of revised data as in T 35, T36, and T37.  The revision shows 438 houses and not 474 within one mile of the proposed quarry.

However, adjustments in the data did not change the original conclusions.  The effects of the quarry on the community as described today are the same as in the original testimony. 

Comitta believes that if the quarry mined more than the proposed 500,000 tons per year, that would require a new zoning approval  process.

Comitta expressed concern that berms would not hide the mining apparatus.

The hour being late and the small crowd weary, but too early for dismissal, Bob Brant put his expert Joe Casey on the stand

Casey made reference to the slope stability of the Gibraltar Rock proposal, citing. A47, A 48 and A59.  It was pointed out that Gibraltar Rock, in their most recent pit design, inched their way closer to Hoffmansville Road and had a slope angle that approximated a vertical wall.  But, behind this pit wall the rock has a 25 degree slope.  This data on slope angle points to a critical condition and the very high probability of a slope failure.

See Also:
Summary of the previous meeting (Sept. 23, 2003)