Hoffman Mining Co. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Adams Twp.

Decision Date23 November 2011
Citation32 A.3d 587
PartiesHOFFMAN MINING COMPANY, INC., Appellant v. ZONING HEARING BOARD OF ADAMS TOWNSHIP, CAMBRIA COUNTY, and Township of Adams, Appellees.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Michael W. Sahlaney, Sahlaney & Dudeck Law Office, Johnstown, for Hoffman Mining Company, Inc. Kevin J. Garber, Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir, P.C., Pittsburgh, for Appellant Amicus Curiae, the PA Coal Assoc. & the PA Aggregates & Concrete Assoc.

William Gleason Barbin, Gleason, McQuillan, Barbin & Markovitz, L.L.P., Johnstown, for Township of Adams.Gary Lee Costlow, Ebensburg, for Zoning Hearing Board of Adams Township.BEFORE: CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, ORIE MELVIN, JJ.

OPINION

Justice McCAFFERY.

In this appeal, the question presented is whether the Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act 1 (hereinafter the Surface Mining Act) preempts a provision in a local zoning ordinance that establishes a setback for mining activities from all residential structures. We hold that the local zoning provision is not preempted, and so affirm the order of the Commonwealth Court.

The zoning ordinance at issue, which was enacted by Adams Township in Cambria County after the effective date of the Surface Mining Act, permits mining activities in a district known as the Conservancy (S) District only by special exception. Adams Township Zoning Ordinance § 1413. In addition, the zoning ordinance requires [a]ll mining, excavating, and blasting activities” in the Conservancy (S) District to maintain a setback of at least 1,000 feet from all residential structures. Id. § 1413.5(a).2

Hoffman Mining Company, Inc. (hereinafter Hoffman Mining) sought to engage in surface coal mining on a 182.1–acre tract of land within the Adams Township Conservancy (S) District adjacent to the Village of Mine 42.3 In pursuit of this effort, on or about November 20, 2006, Hoffman Mining filed an application with the Adams Township Zoning Hearing Board (hereinafter the Zoning Board) requesting a special exception to conduct surface mining. In addition, based on the determination that 88% of the coal contained in the tract was within 1,000 feet of Village residences,4 Hoffman Mining requested a variance from the zoning ordinance's 1,000–foot setback provision, subsection 1413.5(a). In the alternative, Hoffman Mining asserted that the setback provision of subsection 1413.5(a) was preempted by the Surface Mining Act. Hoffman Mining argued that there was a conflict between the zoning ordinance's setback provision and the Surface Mining Act's setback clause, under which no “surface mining operations” are permitted within 300 feet of any “occupied dwelling.” 5 52 P.S. §§ 1396.4b(c) and 1396.4e(h)(5). Hoffman Mining also cited the Surface Mining Act's preemption clause, which is as follows:

Local ordinances

Except with respect to ordinances adopted pursuant to the ... “Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code,” [53 P.S. § 10101 et seq.,] all local ordinances and enactments purporting to regulate surface mining are hereby superseded. The Commonwealth by this enactment hereby preempts the regulation of surface mining as herein defined.

52 P.S. § 1396.17a (footnote incorporated into text).

The Zoning Board held public hearings on December 15, 2006, and January 11, 2007, at which time extensive testimony was received from Village residents who lived adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed mining site. The Zoning Board found credible the residents' testimony regarding the following hazards of the proposed mining: debris and dust descending into the Village, due to the steep elevation of the proposed mining site; danger to children from open holding ponds 12–14 feet deep, adjacent to areas where they play; the residents' health-related issues, including asthma and other respiratory problems.

On February 1, 2007, the Zoning Board granted Hoffman Mining's request for a special exception to permit mining on the tract, subject to the condition that any holding pond must be surrounded by a five-foot fence. However, based on the Zoning Board's finding of “substantial health, safety and welfare issues,” the Zoning Board denied Hoffman Mining's request for a variance from the zoning ordinance's 1,000 foot residential setback provision.6 Zoning Board Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, dated 2/1/07, at 3. In addition, relying on a distinction between regulation of mining activities and traditional zoning prerogatives, the Zoning Board concluded that the zoning ordinance's 1,000 foot residential setback provision was not preempted by the Surface Mining Act. Id.

Hoffman Mining appealed the Zoning Board's decision to the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County. The trial court affirmed, concluding, inter alia, that the zoning ordinance's 1000–foot residential setback provision was a traditional land use regulation, not a surface mining regulation, and thus, pursuant to the plain language of the Surface Mining Act's preemption clause, was not preempted. Trial Court Opinion and Order, dated 10/29/07, at 5–7. 7

Hoffman Mining then appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which also affirmed. The Commonwealth Court held that the “challenged [residential setback] provision of the Zoning Ordinance is a quintessential land use control logically connected to land use planning and is, therefore, not preempted by [the Surface Mining Act's preemption clause].” Hoffman Mining Company, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adams Township, 958 A.2d 602, 611 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008).

Hoffman Mining sought review in this Court, which we granted on the following issue, as formulated by Hoffman Mining:

Did the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania commit an error of law by affirming the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, which affirmed the Adams Township Zoning Hearing Board's ruling that the Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act [ ], 52 P.S. § 1396.1 to 1396.31, does not preempt Section 1413, Paragraph 5, of the Adams Township Zoning Ordinance barring mining activities within 1,000 feet of a residential structure?

Hoffman Mining Co., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adams Township, 603 Pa. 68, 981 A.2d 1284 (2009).

Thus, the issue before us is whether the zoning ordinance's provision requiring all mining, excavating, and blasting activities to maintain a 1,000 foot setback from residential structures is preempted by the Surface Mining Act, which bars surface mining operations within 300 feet of an occupied dwelling. Resolving this question involves statutory interpretation, a question of law, for which our standard of review is de novo, and our scope is plenary. Holt's Cigar Company, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 608 Pa. 146, 10 A.3d 902, 906 (2011); Nutter v. Dougherty, 595 Pa. 340, 938 A.2d 401, 412 n. 20 (2007). We have recently summarized the relevant principles of statutory interpretation as follows:

The object of interpretation and construction of all statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the General Assembly. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a). When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, their plain language is generally the best indication of legislative intent. A reviewing court should resort to other considerations to determine legislative intent only when the words of the statute are not explicit. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b).

* * *

Moreover, it is axiomatic that in determining legislative intent, all sections of a statute must be read together and in conjunction with each other, and construed with reference to the entire statute.

E.D.B. v. Clair, 605 Pa. 73, 987 A.2d 681, 684 (2009) (internal citations omitted).

We begin by reiterating the statutory basis for a municipality's exercise of zoning power. As creatures of the state, municipalities have no inherent powers, but rather “possess only such powers of government as are expressly granted to them and as are necessary to carry the same into effect.” Huntley & Huntley, Inc. v. Borough Council of Oakmont, 600 Pa. 207, 964 A.2d 855, 862 (2009) (quoting City of Philadelphia v. Schweiker, 579 Pa. 591, 858 A.2d 75, 84 (2004)). Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code [hereinafter the “MPC”], the governing body of a municipality “may enact, amend and repeal zoning ordinances to implement comprehensive plans and to accomplish any of the purposes of [the MPC].” 53 P.S. § 10601. Purposes of the MPC include the following: “to protect and promote safety, health and morals; to accomplish coordinated development; to provide for the general welfare by guiding and protecting amenity, convenience, future governmental, economic, practical, and social and cultural facilities, development and growth, ...; to guide uses of land and structures, type and location of streets, public ground and other facilities; ... and to permit municipalities to minimize such problems as may presently exist or which may be foreseen.” 53 P.S. § 10105. Setback requirements are a well-established aspect of zoning ordinances. See, e.g., Miller & Son Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Township, 499 Pa. 80, 451 A.2d 1002, 1005–06 (1982); Scholl v. Borough of Yeadon, 148 Pa.Super. 601, 26 A.2d 135, 136 (1942) (“Set-back ordinances generally have received judicial sanction as lawful exercise of the police power, where the restriction has a substantial bearing on the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public.”).

We turn next to the law of preemption, recognizing that, even in areas over which municipalities have been granted power to act, the state may bar local governing bodies from legislating in a particular field. Huntley, 964 A.2d at 862 (citing United Tavern Owners of Philadelphia v. School District of Philadelphia, 441 Pa. 274, 272 A.2d 868, 870 (1971)). However, the mere fact that the General Assembly has enacted legislation in a field does not lead to the presumption that the state has precluded all local enactments in that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 cases
  • Bennett v. Superintendent Graterford SCI
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • March 26, 2018
    ... ... After a capital sentencing hearing, the jury returned a sentence of life ... ...
  • Hapco v. City of Phila.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • August 27, 2020
    ...Therefore, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would likely reach the same conclusion.114 Hoffman Min. Co. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Adams Twp., Cambria Cnty. , 612 Pa. 598, 32 A.3d 587, 593–94 (2011) (citations omitted).115 Pl.’s Omnibus Reply Mem. in Further Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. [Doc.......
  • Robinson Twp. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • December 19, 2013
    ...zoning claim involves a constitutional challenge cannot be resolved in the abstract. Id. at 18–19 (citing Hoffman Mining Co. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 612 Pa. 598, 32 A.3d 587, 590 (2011) (Surface Mining Act does not preempt setback provision of local ordinance)). Moreover, the Commonwealth st......
  • In re Charlestown Outdoor, LLC
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • August 16, 2022
    ...enactment "stands as an obstacle to the execution of the full purposes of the statute." Hoffman Mining Co., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Adams Twp., Cambria Cnty. , 612 Pa. 598, 32 A.3d 587, 594 (2011). Indeed, "[t]he [conflict] preemption doctrine establishes a priority between potentiall......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • State Preemption of Local Government: The Philadelphia Story
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 49-8, August 2019
    • August 1, 2019
    ...City in making it the best historically preserved city in the 41. 53 P.S. §15971. 42. See, e.g. , Hofman Min. Co. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 32 A.3d 587, 600 (Pa. 2011). 43. Philadelphia, Pa., Code §14-513(1). 44. See, e.g. , Philadelphia, Pa., Code §§14-502(4)(a), 14-504(5)(b)(.1), 14-701(3) (......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT