Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rockhill Quarry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press East Rockhill supervisors to challenge court ruling that shifts Rockhill Quarry oversight to DEP
Summary
At the March 26, 2019 East Rockhill Township meeting, residents urged supervisors to appeal a federal court decision that placed mining activities at Rockhill Quarry under Pennsylvania DEP jurisdiction; the solicitor said an appeal window was closing and grounds for appeal would be narrow.
At its March 26 meeting, the East Rockhill Township Board of Supervisors heard extended public comment after Township Solicitor John B. Rice, Esq. summarized a federal court ruling that places mining activities at the Rockhill Quarry under the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and remanded asphalt‑plant issues to county court. Rice told the board the appeal period would expire the following week and that “grounds of appeal would be narrow.”
Residents described health, safety and property impacts they say accompany renewed quarry activity. Jeannine Gravel, who said she has filed dozens of complaints with DEP, criticized the judge’s reasoning and called part of the decision “ridiculous,” saying she might sell her home if operations continue. Resident Ryan Gottshall supplied the board with a spreadsheet of DEP activity from 1981–2017 and urged the Township to “rise up and challenge DEP,” saying there were already active appeals and that DEP oversight has been inconsistent.
Speakers raised specific concerns about blasting in the mining area, naturally occurring asbestos, the annual 500‑ton product‑removal regulatory threshold under DEP review, storage of railroad cars near the site, and potential pipeline proximity. Representative Brian Fitzpatrick was reported to have sent a letter to DEP questioning the 500‑ton requirement. Solicitor Rice noted some minor changes to DEP’s mapped support (surface mining) area and that an asbestos mitigation plan had not been received.
Not all commenters supported an appeal. Dan Soliday told the board he did not back a full appeal and urged a more limited brief to clarify specific issues, arguing the Township may have more to lose than gain if it pursues litigation. Mary Schulberger suggested seeking clarification of the federal ruling rather than an appeal. The board did not take a formal vote on whether to appeal during the meeting; Rice also noted a separate civil suit naming the board and the Township Manager remains active and is being defended by the Township’s insurance carrier.
Board members and staff clarified limits on Township authority: zoning matters are within Township purview, while mining regulation and permitting fall to DEP. Supervisor Jim Nietupski asked whether failure to remove the annual 500 tons would trigger new permitting and Rice said zoning remains separate but that DEP public hearings would be the venue for permit review and public input.
The board scheduled an executive session after the meeting to discuss litigation and real estate. The appeal window identified by the solicitor was described as closing soon; any decision by the Board about legal action or appeals would be a future agenda item or discussed in closed session.
