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.

Summary of March 3 and March 5

The meeting began with Mr. Dave Davis, attorney for the Paradise Watchdogs continuing his cross-examination of Mr. Alan K. Stagg, expert witness on “Economic Geology” and President/CEO of “Stagg Resource Consultants.  Mr. Davis began his cross-examination in January.

Davis asked him about the number of quarries he had experience with in SE PA. Stagg relied that it was three.  When Davis asked him if he had checked pricing information for the past year, he replied that he used five year old pricing information, which he said was adequate.

Davis next asked Stagg about the comment he made about quarries using independent blasters. Stagg said this was what the Silvis would do, but that he didn’t remember who the blasters were that he talked to.

Davis asked if he did a cost comparison between new and used equipment. He said no, that the prices were the same. He said that the high cost of repair of old trucks offsets the price of new trucks.

Davis asked how Stagg had received detailed cost information on the production of ready-mix. He said that Silvi’s operations manager had mailed it to him and it was in a standard cost statement format.  He also mentioned that they had provided him with prices of sand. Davis asked if he verified the prices and he said he did not.

Davis asked him if he used Mr. H. Lyn Kemper's (President of Kemper Equipment) testimony from August 2002 and September 2002. Stagg said that he accepted Kemper’s figures. Davis asked that if there were changes or mistakes in Kemper’s figures, wouldn’t it affect the costs he calculated. He said it would.

Davis next asked why the cost calculations were for quarry only and quarry with asphalt, concrete, and crushing plants.  Why not quarry and asphalt, or quarry and concrete plants, etc. He said that wasn’t in the scope of the work he was contracted to do.

Davis continued by asking him about parts of his testimony that dealt with set-backs---the earthen berms that will surround the quarry site---specifically the distance limitations. Davis asked if on both plans (Township and Silvi’s) if the set backs are on the very edge of what is unsuitable. He said it was. Davis then asked “what about storage (of stone, concrete, etc.) ---is storage relevant?” Stagg said it was.  Davis then asked why he did not include storage if it’s relevant and if it was relevant did you have any independent study done to validate it. Stagg said he walked the property and that was adequate. Stagg also mentioned that the costs for the storage are already in the plan.

Davis again asked him, “if Mr. Kemper’s figures are wrong then you’re wrong?” Stagg said, “I wouldn’t say “wrong”, I’d just have to change some figures.”

Davis next asked about terminology. Some places in Stagg’s exhibits he uses the words, “impoundment”, “pond”, and “basin”. Davis asked if these were all the same. Stagg, of course, said that they are all slightly different, but that they can be considered all terms for places to hold runoff water. [For your information, in the Non Coal Mining regulations for Pennsylvania, “impoundment” is defined as a “closed basin, naturally formed or artificially built, which is dammed or excavated for the retention of water, sediment or waste” Click here for more information on mining regulations in Pennsylvania.

Davis asked him why he did not include costs for these in his cost analysis. He said it’s in there. Davis asked him, “do you think that some of these impoundments can have an impact on the health and safety of the local residents”. He said “yes”. Davis then asked him why he did not think to include things that have a potential impact on the health and safety of the residents. Stagg said that these things were not important to what he was doing (e.g. a cost analysis of a proposed quarry site for the Silvi Brothers).

Davis next asked him if Stagg covered impoundments in his plan. Stagg said he did not. Davis next asked him why he did not cover that if it is in Kemper’s plan. Stagg said he didn’t know. Davis then asked him again, “if his costs are based on Kemper’s plan” and Stagg said they were.

Davis then moved on to contingency plans. He asked Stagg if he had created a contingency plan. Stagg said he did not. Davis then asked him if he expected everything to go as planned and Stagg said it should. Davis asked if water rights and replacement were in his plan and he said it was not. Davis asked him if this was not the type of quarry that could affect water in the area. Stagg said, “yes it could”. Davis then asked why he did not develop a contingency plan if water could be impacted by quarrying---he said, “could it not be serious?” He said “yes”.

Davis then asked him to clarify a point. Davis asked him if only Kemper had created a plan. He said yes. When Davis asked him if Kemper was experienced in creating these plans he said yes. Davis then asked him why he (Stagg) had made minor changes to the plan (like moving the berm) and if he contacted Kemper. He said he did. Davis said, “…you changed a plan, that by your own testimony was developed by a person more qualified than you, did you not?” Stagg said it was his engineer that changed it.  Davis asked him who is more qualified to design the plan, him or Kemper. Stagg said he was qualified. Davis asked him why is equally qualified? Stagg said he had “extensive experience”. Davis then asked him “…so his plan (Kemper’s) wasn’t a good plan…” Stagg said “I wouldn’t say that.”  Davis then asked him who the Zoning Hearing Board and the residents should listen to if you (Stagg) disagree with Mr. Kemper?”  Stagg responded by saying that the berm isn’t a “big deal”---it has no impact.  Davis then asked him which plan the Silvis would use---his plan or Kemper’s? Stagg said he wasn’t sure.

Davis next asked about the changes impact on wetlands.  Davis asked if Kemper’s plan impacted on wetlands. Stagg said it did. Davis closed his cross-examination.

Rebecca Bell, the attorney for the zoning board next called each person’s name who had signed up (back in the early hearings) to be allowed to question witnesses. As she called them individually (and butchered the pronunciation of pretty much all of them) she made it a part of the record who of these interested parties was present and who was not. After calling a name, if the person was not present, she replied with "No Response". One local resident, overtaken with the sheer monotony, responded when his name was called, “No Response".  Cracked up some of the audience. He also got a shot in the ribs by his wife.

Two residents asked Stagg questions.

Evan Detrick asked about the size of the berm and if it were larger than required and if it will only be in the HI area. Stagg said it was and it would. Detrick went on to question him about the concept of “swell.” Swell is the any material removed that has bulk (i.e. rock, sand, etc.) Detrick asked about the 25-35% swell factor and its impact on cost. Stagg gave a long-winded technical answer and basically said he has no impact.

The zoning hearing board asked a question about why there were no costs in 2003 associated with the quarry. The board member wondered aloud what all of these meetings was costing and why that wasn’t included.

The board asked a final question about whether Stagg had factored in resale value. Stagg said he did not.

The March 3 meeting ended.

March 5, 2003

The meeting began with Mr. Harris, attorney for Gibraltar Rock, introducing Mr. Ken Amey, Land Planner, Building Permits and Zoning officer for Hatfield Township, building inspector, and hired zoning consultant for big business interests in SE Pennsylvania.

Harris introduced Amey's resume and reviewed the pertinent information. BS degree from Temple and associated with a few professional organizations.  When asked about his qualifications for working with zoning issues, Amey mentioned that, "I have been involved in cases with truck traffic, noise and dust."  When asked by Harris to name the projects, he mentioned:

• $50,000,000 Ford Visteon manufacturing facility project

• The redevelopment of an industrial park

• Etna Health facility - "with parking lot issues"

• Unisys Corporation - Heliport

Aside: Isn't it interesting that all of the examples he mentioned would never produce the quantity of truck traffic, noise, and dust that a 239 acre quarry will produce? But, it sounds good when he says "I have been involved in cases with truck traffic, noise and dust," and then mentions projects with big numbers like $50 Ford Visteon---give us a break Amey, we're all not the gullible hicks you think we are. [end of aside]

Harris, uncharacteristically summarized Amey's resume quickly.

Francis Recchuiti, an attorney for a local resident began his cross-examination of Amey's qualifications to be accepted as an "expert" witness.

Recchuiti spent some time questioning Amey on his degree, the span of time from when he gradusted high school until he graduated college (24 years), and his professional organizations and affiliations.  He next questioned him on how he makes his living and receives his pay---as a professional consultant. Recchuiti was unusually subdued in his cross. Later in the evening he did provide some entertainment for the group of about 45 residents.

New Hanover Township Solicitor Mr. Loren Szczesny, next cross-examined Amey. He asked questions to determine how Amey received his information about the quarry. When asked if he has any other quarry experience he replied that he did not.

The zoning hearing board agreed to accept Amey as an expert witness in land planning. Recchuiti objected to him being considered an expert "Land Use Planner", but ok'ed him being an expert "Land Planner". 

Amey then began testimony by telling that he would spend the next few meetings explaining 

• the demographics of the area

• the New Hanover Comprehensive Plan

• the history of zoning

• the history of ordinances as they apply

• opinion of extractive mining permitted

• special exceptions (some real exciting stuff)

Harris asked a series of questions. Amey said he was familiar with the property and had met with Gibraltar Rock, Inc. (GRI) first in April 2001. He was given information and asked to research township ordinances. He said he reviewed exhibits and testimony.

Amey presented a new exhibit, a map that shows the 239 acre area of the proposed quarry site, marked in yellow. It also has a one mile circle around the 239 acres.  He called the area within the circle his "study zone".  He mentioned that he also had marked (by blue dotted line) the area owned by the Heritage Building Group, which would include a retirement community, single family homes, and a commercial area.

When Harris asked him to describe the area within the one mile circle, he said it was "rural". He also said that the current population of New Hanover Township was 7,360 people.  He said he had reviewed all of the plans.  He mentioned mining North of Hoffmansville Rd. and the fact that to get stone to the crushing plant, which would be to the South would take excavation of a tunnel under Hoffmansville Road. He also mentioned that the criteria for selecting the site was because of:

• Rock accessibility (Geology_

• Access to roads (Access)

• Shape and size (Geometry)

Recchuiti objected that Amey is a land planner not a traffic expert. Amey said his comments are based on reading Mr. David Horner of Horner and Canter, whose firm conducted the traffic study. (See ZHB Summary of July 2001) In Horner's testimony he said that the roads are arterial highways and are adequate for the amount of projected traffic.  Recchuiti would come back to this on his cross-examination.

Amey then talked about the geometry of the property, stating that it it's important to get as rectangular as possible. and, this property fits the bill.  He then said that he took Geology, Geometry, and Access into account, as well as factors like sufficient buffers and environmental sensitivity---none of which the site had (except, in his testimony, "a small part of the property is within 100 year floodplain.  

During the next part of his testimony, Harris walked Amey through the New Hanover Comprehensive Plan and our zoning ordinances.  Harris's major assertion (and legal strategy) is that New Hanover Township's ordinances do not fairly allow quarrying. Harris walked Amey through the NH ordinances and plans and the Montgomery County plans to make his assertion. He stepped through revisions to the NH ordinances from 1983-1998 showing how it was negligent. 

Amey identified that the NH Comprehensive Plan lists 6 historic sites and that 2 of them, one in Layfield and the other near New Hanover Elementary School. 

Harris then made him discuss a Park and Recreation requirement in the zoning ordinances that requires the land owner to pay $75,000/acre for recreation (for those who will use the land). Here Harris mentioned that the entire operation would employ a mere 18 people. At $75,000/acre that fee would be $6,000,000.  $6M for 18 people. Harris was obviously trying to show how unfair this is. 

Finally, Harris asked him if the site met all the requirements for a special exception to the zoning ordinances. Amey replied "Yes". (did you think it was going to be "no?").

Harris ended his presentation. Mr. Recchuiti began his cross-examination by asking questions about his responsibilities as a "consultant".  He spent a good amount of time asking about State and County Arterial Roads---talking about the number of lanes and amount of traffic. Recchuiti obviously trying to make the point that our rural county roads are not up to the task, and the fact that NH Elementary and Boyertown Jr. High East (not to mention Perk Valley Academy) are within the "study area".

The best moment of the night was when Recchuiti asked Amey if his (Amey's) testimony that having a quarry would improve the quality of life in NH township. Amey said (and we quote here), "Yes, it (the quarry) would increase the quality of life between the two schools."  That actually got a round of laughter from the residents.

This was a great place to stop, and fortunately we did.

The next meetings will be April 2, 2003, 7:00 at Boyertown Jr. High East

See Also:
Summary of the previous meeting (January 2003)