Judge: Quarry case to stay in Bucks County Court

Residents, township wanted case returned to zoning hearing board

EAST ROCKHILL >> A one-sentence order by a Bucks County judge received earlier that day was still being reviewed, but it appears the legal battle regarding Rockhill Quarry will not be returned to the East Rockhill Township Zoning Hearing Board, Patrick Armstrong, the township’s solicitor, said at the East Rockhill Township Board of Supervisors June 25 meeting.

Instead, the case will move forward in Bucks County after Judge Robert Mellon issued his order that the county court retain jurisdiction.

In answer to resident Josh Scheiderer’s question at the township meeting about a possible appeal of the order, Armstrong said there is no automatic right to appeal, but the township could ask to have it reconsidered and will review its options.

Having the case heard by the zoning hearing board would give residents at least some say indirectly in the decision through local officials, Scheiderer said.

“I think that all the residents think that decision should be made by the East Rockhill Zoning Hearing Board, and not a judge in Doylestown, with all due respect to him,” Scheiderer said, receiving applause from residents at the meeting.

“I don’t disagree,” supervisors board Chairman Gary Volovnik said.

“I don’t think anybody here disagrees,” board member David Nyman said.

“And we’re doing everything we possibly can to the letter of the law,” board member Jim Nietupski said.

A conference call with the judge to discuss the order is scheduled in July, John Rice, one of the township’s attorneys handling the court case, said the following day. Both Armstrong and Rice are attorneys with the Grim, Biehn & Thatcher law firm.

There has been a quarry at the site on North Rockhill Road since the 1800s, but it has been dormant since the 1980s, according to information given earlier in the case. Richard E. Pierson Materials Corp., which is leasing the quarry from owner Hanson Aggregates Pennsylvania, has applied to resume quarrying at the site. The quarry says it has maintained required mining permits. Neighboring residents have raised concerns including noise, blasting, air and water pollution,

and safety concerns with increased truck traffic.

When the quarry applied to East Rockhill in 2018 for an annual zoning permit, it was told it would have to first go to the zoning hearing board for special exception approval under changes made to the township zoning code in 1987. There was no zoning ordinance in the municipality when quarrying began on the property.

The zoning hearing board case was started, but has been on hold since a federal court ruling in March that sided with the quarry in saying the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, not local municipalities, are in charge of quarrying.

“In practical terms, this conflict here is in some respects a historical accident. The quarry has been dormant while a residential community has grown around it. But the quarry, though quiet, remained a quarry and remained where it was zoned to be. And for present purposes, pending further inquiry by state authorities, it has been deemed active and therefore entitled to operate by DEP,” U.S. District Court Judge Gerald McHugh wrote in the federal court decision.

That decision, however, did not settle the question of whether an asphalt plant is allowed at the quarry. The federal decision sent that back to county court, which could have sent it back to the zoning hearing board.

East Rockhill’s zoning laws allow asphalt plants in the industrial zoning district but not at the quarry site, which is zoned for extraction. The quarry says the asphalt plant should be a permitted accessory use to the quarry.

Questions have also been raised about whether the quarry removed enough stone each year during the past four decades to meet state requirements to be considered an active quarry and retain permits.

“I don’t think there’s any

question about whether that’s a quarry or not. The question is whether it’s an active quarry,” Nyman said in answer to a resident question at the June 25 meeting. “That is still under review by DEP.”

If the quarry has not been active, an updated permit would be required, he said.

As has happened at previous meetings, residents asked for more information and said the quarry should be on the meeting agenda each month.

“This item is never on the agenda,” resident Jim Pascale said. “It’s like you’re putting your head in the sand. These people, myself included, we’re not going away. This is our home.”

“Mr. Pascale, I don’t think anyone’s putting their head in the sand. I think there’s nothing actionable before the board tonight with respect to the quarry, which is why there’s nothing on the agenda,” Armstrong said.

The residents also said they would like to have a representative of the Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox law firm, the special counsel hired by the township to handle appeals to the DEP in the case, come to the township meetings to answer resident questions.

Although there may be some work currently happening at the quarry, no quarrying or removal of stone is currently allowed, the board members reminded the residents. Naturally occurring asbestos was found in the quarry in December, after which the DEP ordered quarrying operations to be stopped until a plan to deal with the asbestos is approved.

Information about the quarry is posted on the township website to help keep residents informed, Volovnik said.

Residents also had questions about a recent meeting the board took part in with the DEP and state and federal officials including U.S. Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick, R-1; state Sen.

Steve Santarsiero, D-10; state Sen. Bob Mensch, R-24; and state Rep. Craig Staats, R-145.

The information on the township website includes notes from the board on the meeting and a follow-up letter from Santarsiero.

Resident Ryan Gottshall said the township should be hiring experts to do studies on the impact of the quarry plans in order to protect residents.

“What is the township going to do to protect the people’s health, their water and their air they breathe?” he asked.

“We’re here to support everyone. We’re here to help you. We’ll do whatever it takes to take care of business,” Volovnik said, “but I will not go over-reacting and emotions and upset and not have any facts to my decisions.”

The township has hired the best professionals to help with the case, he said.

“We’re gonna do the right thing and we’re not backing off, but we have to follow our legal counsel,” Volovnik said, “and when our legal counsel says yes, it’s yes; if it’s no, it’s no.”

He said he shares the residents concerns.

“I hear the same noise that all you folks hear when that quarry runs. I get the same dust from the quarry that you get,” he said.

“We’re fighting what we can,” Nietupski told the residents.

“If we hadn’t done anything, they’d be operating right now and you’d be even more furious,” he said. “So would I.”