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 Mr. Francis Recchuiti, an attorney representing a local resident cross-examining Mr. Ken Amey, Land Planner, hired zoning consultant,  and author of the best sound bite of the week---when he said that the quarry would "improve the quality of life of the residents of New Hanover Township"

Mr. Recchuiti questioned Mr. Amey on his (Amey's) opinion that developing a quarry within 1/2 mile of three schools would be "appropriate." He also asked if developing an asphalt plant and concrete plant would be appropriate. Amey, as he did for the rest of the evening, either said, "yes, it is appropriate," or said that that's what the zoning allows.

Recchuiti asked a number of questions about Amey's making pronouncements about appropriate land use based on the findings of others, like the traffic expert. Recchuiti kept asking him if his findings would be incorrect if the other experts testimony was incorrect.  Amey answered each time that errors in others testimony would not effect his belief that this is an appropriate site for a quarry. [What else would you expect Silvi's hired "expert" to say?]

Recchuiti asked him to list the other allowed uses for this land, based on the zoning ordinances.  With a lot of arm twisting Recchuiti got him to say that nurseries, farming, and a golf course would all be allowed on this land. Recchuiti asked him if quarrying was a better use than farming. Amey said, "I can't say that it is better." [Of course he couldn't, John Silvi was giving him the evil eye.]

Recchuiti next asked him what he had to show for a special exception. Amey said that the use of the land must be "in the best interest and convenience of the community." Recchuiti asked if a quarry would be in the best interest of the community---you can guess his answer.

Recchuiti next questioned him on the term "adequate." Amey had used the term to describe the berm (proposed 20' high earthen buffer surrounding the quarry). Recchuiti asked if that was adequate to shield the noise, dust, etc. Amey said it was.

Recchuiti finally asked him if the if New Hanover was rural. He said it was and that a quarry would be "in harmony with the general surroundings."

Mr. Robert Brant, attorney for New Hanover Township was next to cross-examine Mr. Amey. [Let's just say, before we begin, Brant was on his game Wednesday night---he was red hot.]

[You should understand that part of Gibralter Rock's (Harris and Silvi) case is that NH township (at the time of their original application) did not allow quarrying in the ordinances.  Brant began his questioning by trying to show that, while some mention of quarrying had been omitted from the NH zoning ordinances, that it had not been completely removed.]

Brant introduced Exhibit T1 (the first Township exhibit), which was the New Hanover Township Zoning Ordinances as Amended.  Brant asked Amey if this was the copy of the ordinances Amey had reviewed. Amey said they were. Brant directed him to a chart under Section 307 "Table of Regulations".  Without going into the details of Brant's questions, he had Amey read a section that proved that quarrying was indeed mentioned in the ordinances. Amey, however, said that this didn't matter. That he believed that it was removed (on purpose) from the rest of the ordinance. Brant asked him if he had tried to determine if there was a conspiracy? Amey said he had talked to one of the Township staff members and the former Zoning Officer and had read the Supervisors minutes, but was unable to find anything that said they consciously left out quarrying.

Brant next questioned him on a term called a "savings clause". Basically a savings clause says that anything not specially changed (from on version of the ordinances to another) is saved. Brant asked if the ordinances had a savings clause and Amey said it did.

Brant next asked about parks, schools, and historic buildings within the 1 mile circle on his map exhibit. (See the first map here).  Brant asked if the quarry would have an "adverse effects" on the Perkiomen Valley Academy (PVA), New Hanover Elementary School, Pleasant Run Park, and the historic buildings within the one mile.  Amey, of course, parroted "NO".  When asked if the quarry or asphalt plant would have any adverse effects on the students of PVA or NH elementary he said he didn't think so.

Brant then quizzed him on alternative uses of the land. Brant said that it was the same question that Recchuiti had asked. He got Amey to say that "there might be uses the community feels is better than a quarry." Brant was relentless---he said, "OK, tell me one...what would be better?" Amey said the land might allow a golf course or a truck terminal, but that in his opinion, "it might appear that there might be a better use of the land than a quarry," but he stated that he disagrees.

Brant next questioned him on the zoning term "accessory use," which was defined as the accessory use of a unit for gainful employment which is clearly incidental and subordinate to the use of the dwelling unit. Brant wanted to know what the main function of the property would be. Amey said the quarry. Brant asked if an asphalt plant and concrete plant were accessory uses. Amey said yes. Brant asked him if the other 41 quarries he reviewed had all three uses. Amey said it wasn't common to have all three on a site, but (again the looks from Silvi and Harris) of course, it's not uncommon.

Brant finished up by quizzing Amey about how he decided that a quarry was appropriate for this property. Amey said he based his judgment on sound standards. Brant got him to say that those standards were his own opinion, that they really aren't based on scientific facts, laws, rules, or any legal terms.

The Zoning Board mentioned that a portion of the ordinance that Amey said did not exist in the ordinances did indeed exist, it was only out of order in the book. 

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

The next meetings will be May 15, 2003, 7:00 at the TOWNSHIP BUILDING

See Also:
Summary of the previous meeting (March 3 and 5, 2003)