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.

Mr. Brant’s witness Mr. Thomas J. Comitta, was not able to attend the meeting at the beginning, so Brant introduced his next witness, Mr. Joseph G. Casey, a geologist employed by Mignatti Company. He is director of land approvals and acquisition and responsible for directing land development activities and acquisitions.  He interfaces with DEP and EPA. Before Mignatti, worked as consulting geologist. VP of Geosciences.

He has experience with quarry geology and was involved in three quarry projects: Metroplex land redevelopment 250,000 cubic yard quarry. Oversaw hydrogeology activities and soil.  Second project did an overburden study because of doing a pit expansion.  The third is the Ivy Rock quarry in Conshohocken.  Development group wanted to evaluate because it had reached its maximum depth. Evaluate hydrogeology and DEP regulations. 

His experience as a Geologist: 1983 graduate. Joined Earthtect in LA. and worked on DOE project to evaluate geophysical data.   Involved with environmental aspects to evaluate water quality and aquifer conditions. Hydrogeology experience from 1991-1997, which included ground water hydrology in the clean water and dirty water business. Engineering geology experience in fault investigations and sink whole failures in SE PA. HE has a degree in geology from Cal State Chico.  Has taken classes at University of California Berkeley, specifically an intensive course in landslide.  Also registered in Delaware and NJ. 

Stephen Harris questioned Casey.

For Gilmore time spent on residential work or dirty water.  Harris asks if the three examples are his only times as an expert witness. Quarry related experience, 1. pumped out water to fill; 2. Review historical ground water data and review of regulations to reclaim; 3. Asked to use Terratest device. Harris tries to minimize his experience in filing permit, designing a mining plan. Casey says he's not offered in permitting or operations. 

Ivy Rock evaluation. Responding to an RFP, but we lost the bid.  Mignatti company has interest in two separate quarries: Bryn Athen and Naceville Quarry.  Walter B. Satterthwaite, principal of  Walter B. Satterthwaite Assocs., Inc. is actually the geologist retained by Mignatti for 20 years.

Harris objects to Casey as an expert because he has no experience in this area—in quarry operations and permitting.  Brant, I’ve heard your witnesses Satterthwaite--- analyze data from Satterthwaite. 

Harris is overruled.  He has the appropriate qualifications; it should go to the weight of his testimony.

Brant begins presenting Casey.  New Hanover Township has engaged you to provide testimony and review geologic data.  Casey began Feb. 2001 looking at drilling data, hydrologic data from Satterthwaite.  He looked at borehole logs, evaluation of 72 hour pumping tests.  First evaluation was to look at seven drill rock core samples.  He also attended hearings listed to testimony and reviewed transcripts of Mr. Redanko, and from Mr. Alan Stagg.  He believes that a lot of Stagg’s conclusions are based on Satterthwaite’s data.  He also reviewed the mining application to DEP. 

He evaluated 3000 feet of rock core.  Met with Satterthwaite’s geologist---bore hole by bore hole.  Noted that a section of the rock was repeated.  Showed a total depth of 369 feet but the boxes were labeled so that one 10ft. section was repeated.  That was the only well that was repeated.  We checked the RQD (rock quality designation)---the quality or intactness of the rock.  Township Exhibit T13, ASTM standard for testing.  T13 is a description of a procedure for testing and evaluating rock. 

Brant asks him the finding based on his review. Upon reviewing the logs…typical procedure on borehole log written on core sample and in the log. None of the information was on the logs.  Could not calculate it based on the logs.  AQDs were not accurate in some cases---variances 5% to 20% off.  This is important because it’s the basis of all the testimony as other Earth Scientists evaluate the data. How many were inaccurate---a dozen or so.  Did that call into question the Satterthwaite data---to some degree?  

You reviewed the rest of the data and the boreholes. Yes. 

Casey took Satterthwaite's data and used borehole logs to look at lithologic descriptions.  Found a number of discrepancies in the sample, logs, and Satterthwaite’s exhibit.

Brant asked what is importance of your finding these mistakes. The RQD is important for the value of the material. The accuracy of the competency of this rock is in question.

At this point the board had a ten minute break  Then after the break Casey was excused for the time being while Brant brought back Mr. Thomas J. Comitta, President of Thomas J. Comitta Associates, Inc., a township planner and landscape architect.

Brant.  You reviewed Ken Amey’s one-mile circle.  Describe T14.  11 x 17 color map existing land use with one-mile radius.  T14 portrays (based on A82) A82 shows one-mile from edge of quarry.  Depicts one-mile radius from edge, updates existing land use information, and clears up poor printing.  Gives a breakdown of land uses, recreation, institutional, commercial , vacant, residential in color format.  T14 shows quarry in blue stripped line pattern.  Breakdown of land uses.  There are actually 423 full properties in the one-mile surrounding. 

Brant asked if there were any conclusions based on T15?  Comitta said that the predominant land use is residential.  What about impact of quarry on surrounding properties? Yes.

T16 is a 11 x 17 map titled historic structures with one-mile.  Found 18 historic structures within the one-mile radius.  It shows 16 additional historic structures not found on Amey’s testimony.  In the comprehensive plan it shows other historic structures.  T17 shows sources of historic testimony.

Impact opinion.  T21. One residence is on the National Register. Schools and parks are most at issue due to increased truck traffic.  Residences could be adversely impacted water losses, blasting, and dust.  Comitta's exhibits also show the Heritage Development Group and the town homes, new YMCA. 

It is Comitta's opinion is that there are two places in zoning ordinances that are relevant. HI purpose states that adverse impacts (traffic and environmental) and special exception criteria says that the ZHB shall require any proposed use be in accordance with comprehensive plan.  Other sections talk about the best interest of the township and suitable and safe streets.  H12 extractive use, plan requires that we weigh the criteria very well.

Brant asked if the proposed use consistent with the spirit and use of the plan? Comitta said that Amey said that the proposal was in accordance, except that the 18 historic sites.  Applicant ignored 16 of those historic sites. Mr. Amey failed to address these sites.  The proposed plan also does not does not meet the New Hanover township spirit of the Comprehensive Plan.  No the quarry is not in the best interest of the Township, the convenience of the community, or the public welfare. Site is zoned HI and quarry use is permitted in HI. If that is only thing proposed then I can’t say the quarry use can’t go into the HI because it’s zoned that way…with special exception.

If all uses are built, there is nothing in GRI’s plan that says it will all be buffered.

The biggest gap in the information is their failure to address the 400+ homes in the area.  Is it suitable from subdivision? No- berms and planting is not detailed in the information.

Regarding the acute angle of the driveway we have a weakness here.

Brant asked if he found intent by the Township to change the zoning ordinances. Harris objected, but was overrulled.  Comitta said "No."

See Also:
Summary of the previous meeting (June 30, 2003)