Hoffman Mining Company, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adams Township, 958 A.2d 602 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
Hoffman Mining Co. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 958 A.2d 602 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009), aff’d Hoffman Mining Co., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. Of Adams Twp., 32 A.3d 587 (Pa. 2011).
Municipality not preempted by the Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act from having setback requirements in the zoning ordinance for surface coal mining.
Hoffman leased an 182 acre tract of land and submitted an application for a variance to allow surface mining within 300 feet of residences. The applicable zoning ordinance required a 1000 foot setback from residences for surface mining. Hoffman claimed that the ordinance was preempted by the Surface Mining Conversation and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), which required only a 300 foot setback from residences. Three separate hearings were held before the Board. At these hearings, an engineer testified that there would be sufficient erosion control and storm water management, that the noise and lights would be kept to a minimum and that no drilling or blasting would take place in the evenings. Engineers also testified that after the mining was complete, the property would be restored, and that the entire process of mining and restoring would take about four years. The business manager of Hoffman testified that without the Township setback, $9 million worth of coal could be mined; however, if the setback was imposed, only $900,000 worth of coal could be mined. Many residents expressed concern over the safety of children playing in the area, blasting related damages to the homes, noise and storm water problems.
The Board found that the ordinance was not preempted by the SMCRA. The Board also found that there was substantial health, safety, and welfare issues which weigh against a 300 foot setback. Therefore, the Board denied the request for a variance. Hoffman appealed to the trial court, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Board’s decision. Hoffman then appealed to the Commonwealth Court. Hoffman argued that the SMCRA preempts the ordinance and pointed out the provision in the SMRCA that provides “[t]he Commonwealth by this enactment hereby preempts the regulation of surface mining as herein.” Therefore, Hoffman argued that the ordinance is specifically preempted.
To determine if a state statute preempts local regulation, it must be clearly shown that the General Assembly intended to preempt the field by its legislation. There is a presumption against preemption because what may be preempted is the ability of the municipality to address the needs of its citizens. The Commonwealth Court specifically examined whether the SMCRA expressly preempted all zoning regulations enacted after the adoption of the SMCRA because Hoffman argued that only zoning ordinances adopted prior to the SMCRA were not preempted. The Commonwealth Court also reviewed other cases involving preemption and found that the zoning ordinances that regulate traditional zoning subjects are not preempted. Therefore, the Commonwealth Court found that the ordinance at issue here was not preempted because it contains a regulation of distance from which surface mining may be conducted next to a residential structure, and that this is land use control that should not be preempted.
Alternatively, Hoffman argued that it is entitled to a variance because without it, the zoning regulation would amount to a confiscation and the variance is necessary to permit reasonable use of the land. However, Hoffman did not present any other evidence that the property could not be used for anything else if it could not be used to mine coal. Further, the potential effect on the health, safety and welfare would weigh against the reduction of the 1000 foot setback. Thus, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the denial of the variance.
Hoffman Mining Company, Inc.’s application for a variance to conduct surface coal mining within 300 feet of residences was denied because the Township’s zoning ordinance required a 1,000-foot setback for mining operations from residences. Hoffman argued that the zoning ordinance was preempted by the Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act. The Commonwealth Court determined, though, that the Act did not preempt the zoning ordinance because the legislature specifically excluded ordinances passed under the Municipalities Planning Code from preemption. Moreover, the Commonwealth Court reasoned “[i]f a municipality can create a use zone excluding surface mining altogether, then it must surely be able to impose the lesser burden of requiring setbacks for such use in zones in which it is permitted.” Accordingly, the zoning ordinance was determined to be valid.
No liability is assumed with respect to the use of information contained in this website. Laws may be amended or court rulings made that could affect a particular procedure, issue, or interpretation. The Department of Community & Economic Development assumes no responsibility for errors and omissions nor any liability for damages resulting from the use of information contained herin. Please contact your local solicitor for legal advice.