Hoffman Mining Co. v. Zoning Hearing Board
32 A.3d 587
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Hoffman seeks to mine in Adams Township Conservancy District; setback rule requires 1,000 feet from residences.
- Surface Mining Act prohibits mining within 300 feet of occupied dwellings; Act contains preemption clause.
- Adams Township enacted 1,000-foot setback post-Act; Hoffman sought special exception and variance.
- Zoning Board granted exception for mining with pond fencing; denied 1,000-foot setback variance.
- Commonwealth Court and PA Supreme Court agree zoning setback is traditional land-use regulation not preempted by Act.
- Court must assess express, conflict, and field preemption, and whether preemption is implicit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the 1,000-foot setback preempted by the Surface Mining Act? | Hoffman: setback is preempted as surface-mining regulation. | Adams Township: setback is traditional land-use regulation not preempted. | No express preemption; setback not preempted. |
| Does the Act implicitly preempt the setback via field or conflict preemption? | Act preempts local regulation of surface mining; implicit preemption should apply. | Local zoning can coexist with Act; no irreconcilable conflict. | No conflict or field preemption; coexistence allowed. |
| Does the Act intend to preclude MPC-enabled zoning regulations? | Act preemption extends to MPC-adopted ordinances. | MPC zoning remains valid; Act respects local land-use planning. | Act does not expressly or implicitly bar MPC-based zoning. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller & Son Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Twp., 499 Pa. 80 (1982) (preemption relates to pre-Act zoning ordinances; not all post-Act regulations)
- Huntley v. Borough of Oakmont, 964 A.2d 855 (Pa. 2009) (setbacks and land-use regulation coexist with Oil and Gas Act)
- Cellucci v. General Motors Corp., 706 A.2d 806 (Pa. 1998) (express preemption does not bar implied preemption analysis)
- H Holt's Cigar Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 10 A.3d 902 (Pa. 2011) (preemption analysis includes conflict/field distinctions)
- Mars Emergency Medical Services, Inc. v. Township of Adams, 740 A.2d 193 (Pa. 1999) (discusses preemption standards)
- United Tavern Owners of Philadelphia v. School District of Philadelphia, 272 A.2d 868 (Pa. 1971) (conflict preemption principles in local vs state regulation)
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Township of Conemaugh, 612 A.2d 1090 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (distinguishes zoning from mining regulation)