| |
As those who have followed
this matter on these pages and in the press will remember, the resumption of
hearings comes on the heels of a three-year-long litigation brought by HYK
against the Township. Initial results of that process in the Monroe County
Court of Common Pleas had the Smithfield Supervisors removed from
jurisdiction and a Special Master appointed to hear the case. The judge in
that matter (Judge Ronald Vican) also ruled that the Township Environmental
Advisory Council (EAC) would not be admitted as a formal party to the case,
but could act in an advisory capacity. The Township filed an appeal to Judge
Vican’s ruling, and the matter went before the Commonwealth Court, where the
first ruling was overturned with prejudice. That Court found that Vican’s
order was in error, and that all parties to the case be reinstated at once,
including the EAC. A last appeal was made to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
by HYK, but it was refused.
As mentioned in our previous posting, Smithfield Solicitor Ron Karasek has
informed us that the burden of proof will soon shift to those opposed to the
concrete plant’s proposed location. This burden involves showing the Board
of Supervisors, who serve as a judicial body in the case, that no conditions
applied to the installation of a concrete batching plant on the property
adjacent to the airport could ever really mitigate the adverse effects of
such an installation on the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding
properties, businesses or residents. In short, we the objectors would have
to show with a reasonable level of proof that the dust, traffic, noise,
light and congestion caused by such an operation would directly harm our
health, hurt our property values, undermine our access to local
thoroughfares, and thereby cause the Board to reject the application by HYK.
In this, we and others (including the Township EAC) would have to amass a
body of hard evidence showing a level of harm “beyond that which would be
considered normal for a (permitted) use of this sort.” As Attorney Karasek
said by way of amplification, “this is a very high standard of proof.”
Note that the Environmental Advisory Council’s attorney, Mr. Charles Eliot,
has not been present at recent meetings of the Board, nor has the EAC’s
chairman, Dr. David Rimberg. Still, one would think that, when the time
comes, the Council will present some or several expert witnesses to testify
as to the adverse environmental impacts of such a use in the proposed
location. One would expect such testimony to include the spread of cement
and aggregate dust upon the wetlands surrounding and permeating the site,
the transmission by wind and moving water of alkaline contaminants and
particles toxic to plants, animals and humans, adverse effects of cement
dust on aircraft components, measurements of intrusive noise and bright
light, and impacts of heavy truck traffic on local roadways.
It is still possible that negotiations to provide an alternative site will
lead to a solution to this matter, though it seems clear that the Board of
Supervisors must remain unbiased and removed due to their “judicial” status.
Should any signed party to the case (including HYK) wish to present such a
solution, then the matter would be referred to the Township for new
hearings.
--The Editor
THIS THING IS NOT OVER. AND REMEMBER, IT’S YOUR TOWN. WATCH THIS SPACE FOR
NEWS; STAY UP ON NOTICES IN THE PAPER. WRITE OR EMAIL YOUR SUPERVISORS. GET
INVOLVED!
--The Editor |
|
