State Surface Mining Act Does Not Preempt Township Setback
The Commonwealth Court in Hoffman Mining Company v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adams, (958 A.2d 602) determined that the Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act, 52 P.S. 1396.1 et. seq. ("SMCRA"), does not preempt a Township setback requirement. The Township enacted an ordinance which established a 1000 foot setback for mining activity from residential structures. The Surface Mining Act establishes a 300 foot setback requirement. The Surface Mining Act at 52 P.S. Section 1396.17a incorporates a preemption relating to the regulation of surface mining activity and specifically provides:
Except with respect to ordinances adopted pursuant to the act of July 31, 1968 (P.L. 805, No. 247) known as the "Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code", all local ordinances and enactments purporting to regulate surface mining are hereby superseded.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.
The Court in Hoffman saw the issue as a question of whether the preemption related to all zoning regulations promulgated after the adoption of SMCRA. The Court held that the setback limitation of 1000 feet was a proper zoning requirement, which was not preempted by SMCRA. The Court distinguished the setback limitations at issue in Hoffman from the operational requirements at issue in Warner Co. v. ZHB of Tredyffrin Township, 612 A.2d 578 (Pa. Cmwth 1992). The ordinance at issue in Warner addressed, buffer and berms, storage of overburden and details regarding reclamation of a quarry. The Court in Hoffman viewed the setback limitation as a proper land use control connected to land use planning, rather addressing operational surface mining activity. The Court reasoned that if the Township could properly prohibit a use within a zoning district, it should properly be permitted to take the less onerous step of establishing setback requirements that are more than the 300 foot limit imposed by SMCRA.
