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.

Thanks to a local resident for compiling this summary. 

This was the first hearing of the second application filed by Gibraltar Rock (informally called Gibraltar II). It opened with a detailed description of the property for which the application was filed and a description of the challenge to the ordinance and to the zoning officers ruling which is substantially the same as in the original. The size of the lot in the amended application is  220.67 acres.

The meeting then moved on to the entering of appearances by interested parties. At this point all individuals that wanted a chance to be able to speak filed their name with the board.

Then various initial items were entered into evidence including the application and various public notifications.

Harris then moved to join the two hearings Mr. Bob Brant, attorney for New Hanover Township, then made his case as to why he thought the applications should not be consolidated. Brant pointed out that there are now 21 new property owners that were not notified for the original hearing and should have an opportunity to cross examine witnesses. One of these new individuals had representation at the hearing and spoke in support of Brant pointing out that he would not be allowed to cross examine previous witnesses were the two merged. Brant also pointed out that the new application is substantially different since it covers more and different land than before and we couldn't possibly judge beforehand that the testimony of the previous witnesses would not change as a result.

The board then spoke together briefly during a recess and determined it was against the consolidation. It determined that quarrying north of Hoffmansville Rd. is a new and separate issue.

Harris accepted this and then requested to have the previous testimonies entered into evidence on the grounds that this testimony would not substantially change simply because the property outline changed. He agreed that some things would need to be re-testified, like hydrogeology, economics and planning. He added, however, that some things are not dependent on the outline or size of the quarry and these things should not need to be re-testified. These would include licensing, regulative, legal  issues and Mr. Silvi's testimony.

The board then asked if these prior testimonies would be allowed cross examination. Harris replied that they were already cross examined extensively (I believe he actually said ‘cross examined to death’ – but we would not be talking about bringing them back if that were the case) on the conditions of the original application. But the board wanted to know how that implied that they had been cross examined under the new circumstances. Harris finally said that they were thoroughly cross examined but he would be willing to bring them back for NEW questioners only.

Brant (and Mr. Francis Recchuiti, an attorney representing a local resident) pointed out that the original testimony of Mr. John Silvi included the fact the board would be notified prior to the acquisition of any new properties or changes to the application. In fact, however, they were notified only after the properties were purchased. In prior acquisitions the board was notified prior to the actual purchase but this time the Silvi's, once again showing their contempt for the township and its position, ignored their former promise and purchased the property without the notification. Brant had also noticed that Uday M. Patankar, who was originally an independent consultant when he testified in 2001, was now an employee of the Silvi's by his title on the application and since his role may have changed, pertinent questions should be asked.

Finally Brant said that he would like a witness by witness review to determine whether or not their testimony should be accepted without a re-examination. He added that simply inquiring if there ARE any differences is a question the answer to which should be offered by each of the individuals and would require a new cross examination. It was also pointed out that the testimony needs to be reviewed in order to make the decision on whether or not it is feasible to take each witness on a case by case basis and therefore a final determination could not be rendered immediately.

The board decided it needed a review before it could make a determination. That it was to difficult to recall all of the details of each witness on the spot in order to render a determination  The board may have additional questions but will allow the applicant, on a case by case basis, provided that the witnesses prior testimony is provided (along with sufficient copies for all attorneys and interested parties), to be entered into evidence in this hearing.

Harris then decided that, according to him (and probably only him) a new state zoning law meant that the township must provide enough resources to allow the completion of the entire hearing process within 100 days of the first hearing. The new law was then read aloud and it was fairly clear that Harris had conceptual difficulties with the plain English of the text worthy of the most ardent academic deconstructionist doing a PhD on a new meaning that he discovered in “Mary Had a Little Lamb.” The law, as laid plainly out, specified that the APPLICANT had 100 days to complete his testimony, during which the BOARD was to supply him with at least 7 hours and within which time the board was to render a decision. If the APPLICANT needed more time (than the 100 days) then he could request it. Otherwise the board would be required to simply rule on the evidence that HAD been presented in order to comply with its obligation to hand down a decision within the 100 days of the first hearing. That is, of course, if the applicant didn't request for more time.

There was a long and heated discussion about the meaning of this new law and many threats about going to Common Pleas Court. Since the law is new there is currently no case law to rely on. There were several recesses until finally they decided not to decide right now and move on with the initial testimony they had planned for that evening.

Mr. Uday M. Patankar then proceeded with his testimony. The first thing that was done was to qualify him as an expert witness. He is now the “VP of Environmental and Public Affairs.” A series of charts were then entered into evidence showing the new outline of the property in various mediums including aerial photography, conceptual line plan, tax lot map, etc. Then in painstaking detail Mr. Patankar described where the quarry will be and where all of the processing plants, parking, buildings, and other facilities will go that will produce the Silvi wrought environmental disaster in our township.

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