Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CHN Materials asks East Hempfield zoning board to cut 500‑foot quarry setback to 100 feet
Summary
CHN Materials requested a dimensional variance to reduce the township's 500‑foot mining setback to 100 feet at 929 Corey Road and asked a 24‑month extension to obtain state permits; an adjacent property owner opposed the reduction and the board took 45 days to decide.
CHN Materials asked the East Hempfield Township Zoning Hearing Board on June 15 to reduce the township's 500‑foot setback for mining to 100 feet at a proposed quarry on 929 Corey Road and to extend the board's approval window so the company can obtain required state permits.
Applicant witnesses described the site as having accessible limestone and presented a site plan showing the municipal boundary (a creek) between East Hempfield and Manheim townships. Project manager Rick Karantha told the board the applicant proposes a 100‑foot setback from the stream/municipal boundary and other property lines; he estimated the area usable for mining under the proposed 100‑foot setback at just under 30 acres and said the same site would yield just over two acres under a 500‑foot setback.
The applicant framed the request as a dimensional variance and walked the board through the five statutory variance criteria. Karantha and company principal Rob Bowman said the mineral is fixed in place and that mining at the scale needed to serve local construction markets would not be feasible under the existing 500‑foot requirement. "Rock really doesn't travel well," Bowman said, arguing a local source is necessary for the company's operations and customers.
Adjacent owner Matthew T. Elliott, who lives at 1999 Turnpike Road and owns about 26.5 acres immediately adjoining the ME‑zoned parcel, testified he purchased his property after reviewing the zoning and the 500‑foot setback. "I did not purchase this property expecting a 100‑foot setback when there's a 500 currently," Elliott said. He added that a 100‑foot setback would be "drastically different" from the condition he relied on when buying and would have a detrimental impact on his plans to build a house and a garage on his lot.
Opposing counsel argued the applicant had not met multiple variance criteria and emphasized that the company holds only an equitable interest in the property and could walk away from the purchase if the variance were denied. "This applicant will suffer no hardship…he has only an equitable interest in the property," opposing counsel said in closing, urging the board to deny the variance.
In addition to the setback variance, the applicant amended its request to seek a 24‑month extension of the board's time to act to allow for state permitting. The board voted to amend the application to include the 24‑month extension and approved that amendment. The board also took administrative notice of prior Case 2496 (the April proceeding) and entered the applicant's exhibit A1 into the record.
No final vote on the variance was taken at the meeting. The board voted unanimously to take the allowable 45 days to issue a written decision and said it expects to announce a decision at its July 20 meeting. Minutes and the application amendment vote were recorded as unanimous in favor during the hearing.
The record shows contested factual claims on whether the ordinance alone creates a unique hardship and whether an equitable purchaser can demonstrate the necessary hardship for a variance; the board's written decision will address those legal points and any conditions it attaches should it grant relief.
