The Marlborough Planning Commission continued its discussion of a proposed ordinance amending the heavy industrial zoning district as it applies to the Highway Materials (HMI), Inc. quarry expansion in Perkiomenville, but the commission failed to move the proposal forward.

            Three sticking points between a couple of planning commission members and representatives of the quarry were voiced during the meeting: a change in ordinance wording that went from "clean fill landfills" to "mined reclamation fill;" property setbacks; and noise from quarry activity.

            At the Marlborough supervisors meeting, on March 9, the wording change had prompted one Marlborough resident to raise concerns about the quarry being used as "a dump."

             The PA Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) defines clean fill as "uncontaminated, nonwater-soluble, nondecomposable, inert solid material used to level an area or bring an area to grade."

            The parameters of clean fill include "regulated and historic fill that is soil, rock, stone, gravel, used asphalt, brick, block or concrete from construction and demolition activities that is separate from other waste and recognizable as such."

            Reclamation fill broadens the number of acceptable materials if "a demonstration has been made that the material is uncontaminated, non-water-soluble, nondecomposable, inert and recognizable as such."

            Planning Commission member Hugh Brewster asked a Highway Materials (HMI) employee if it was the quarry or the DEP that had asked for the classification change.

            "We did not ask for that at this point," said Alan Stotz, Highway Materials operations manager. "In a general discussion, they brought it up and said it may be something you want to think about. That's it. We have not petitioned them."

            "They're not encouraging you to do it?" Brewster asked.

            "It was a discussion," Stotz retorted.

            Earlier in the meeting there had been another testy exchange between Brewster, whose property abuts the quarry, and the HMI representatives regarding setbacks and the building of new berms.

            HMI objects to the stipulation that there be a 300-foot setback from residential property lines. Company lawyer Steve Harris called the provision "totally unreasonable and unnecessary." The attorney pointed out that the state requires only a 100-foot setback, Marlborough's zoning ordinance now in effect requires only 100 feet, and DEP requires 300 feet from a house, not a property line.

            An exasperated Harris recalled an incident where Brewster tried to stop a blast near his property but was ordered back 300 feet by a DEP representative.

             "You were trying to create a dangerous situation for yourself," Harris said.

            "I was on my property," Brewster shot back. He argued that the 100-foot criterion is no longer sufficient because development around the quarry, including Unami Circle, has taken place since the ordinance was written some 18 years ago.

             Brewster alleged that trucks, including blasting trucks, drive along his property line. Harris disagreed, averring that only trucks involved in the maintenance of the berm pass near Brewster's property line.

            "We're not mining next to [Brewster's property] right now," Stotz said.

            Harris stated that there would be no haul roads outside of the berm and that all mining activity would be inside the setbacks.

            Brewster also questioned the enforcement of the quarry's stated hours of operation, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. charging that those times are being stretched with trucks lining up well before seven in the morning.

            Harris said the gates are opened early to get the trucks off the road, but quarrying activities do not begin until 7.

           "It's a practical problem," Harris said.

            "We're not starting crushing rock until 7 a.m.," Stotz added.

            "Anyway it's a lot of noise you're creating inside that corridor," Brewster said. "There's all kind of activity going on before seven o'clock. [It] might not be blasting and crushing, but there is a lot of noise before seven o'clock."

           The vote to move the proposal forward for professional review was defeated when the commission members in attendance voted 2-2. Bill Kelso and Brian Doremus voted in the affirmative. Brewster and Eric Tielmans voted against the proposal. Chairman Fran Hanney and Member Karen Reiter were not in attendance. The seventh slot on the board remains vacant.

            The proposal must once again come before the planning commission for more discussion.

            In the other item of business last week, the commission began work on updates to the zoning ordinance regarding accessory buildings which includes greenhouses, barns, swimming pools and garages among a myriad of items.