OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 1 of 3

COALEX STATE COMPARISON REPORT - 240

December 1992 (Revised: February 1993)

Benny Wampler

Deputy Director for Mining 

Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy

P.O. Drawer U

Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219

TOPIC: PROTECTION OF MINERAL RESOURCES: LOCAL ZONING ORDINANCES

INQUIRY: Virginia is contemplating promulgating rules which would require localities to 

consider the economic viability and possible future mining of mineral resources when 

passing local zoning ordinances. Please conduct a survey of IMCC member states, 

requesting the following information:

1. Does your state currently have any such mineral resource protection provisions? 

2. If your state has these regulations, please send a copy.

SEARCH RESULTS: Twelve states, including two non-coal states, responded to the 

questionnaire. Of these twelve, only Maryland responded that it has regulations to 

protect mineral resources; the name of the state contact person is provided below. 

Arkansas indicated that the City of Little Rock has a zoning ordinance which recognizes 

the importance of the mineral resources; a copy of the ordinance is attached. The 

summary of the results of the survey follows. Also attached are Pennsylvania state 

cases and a Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) decision that discuss 

state provisions vs local zoning ordinances.

TABLE OF RESPONSES

STATE DOES YOUR STATE HAVE MINERAL RESOURCE 

PROTECTION PROVISIONS?

ALABAMA No 

ARKANSAS There are no state-wide regulations protecting mineral 

resources. However, the City of Little Rock has implemented a 

"Mining District" zoning ordinance that recognizes the 

importance of mining operations and mineral reserves. There 

are large bauxite pits and granite quarries adjacent to or within 

the city limits. (See attached ordinance.)

ILLINOIS No 

INDIANA No 

KENTUCKY No 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 2 of 3

MARYLAND Yes. (See attached sections of COMAR.)

Contact: Office of State Planning; Mike Nortrup (410) 225-4550 

MISSOURI No 

OHIO No 

NORTH CAROLINA Mining does not supercede local zoning regulations 

PENNSYLVANIA Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (PMPC) establishes 

authority for municipal land use controls. PMPC currently does 

not contain such provisions.

Contact: Stephen Fehr 

Bureau of Community Planning

Pa. Dept. of Community Affairs 

(717) 783-2459 

SOUTH CAROLINA No 

VIRGINIA No 

PENNSYLVANIA STATE CASES

MILLER & SON PAVING, INC. v WRIGHTSTOWN TOWNSHIP, 499 Pa 80, 451 A 2d 

1002 (Pa 1982).

The court affirmed that the local 200 foot setback requirement for quarries was not 

superseded by SMCRA's less stringent setback requirements because the ordinance 

became effective before SMCRA.

MCCLIMANS ET AL. v BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SHENANGO TOWNSHIP, 

107 Pa Commw Ct 542, 529 A 2d 562 (Pa Commw Ct 1987). 

The court, relying on MILLER & SON, determined that SMCRA did not supersede the 

challenged township zoning ordinance that regulated surface mining because the 

township enacted the ordinance before the effective date of SMCRA. NOTE: In BOARD 

OF SUPERVISORS OF SHENANGO TOWNSHIP V MCCLIMANS et al., 142 Pa 

Commw 470, 597 A 2d 738 (Pa Commw Ct 1991), the court affirmed the decision from 

Common Pleas (on remand) which found that the zoning ordinance prevented 

McClimans from gaining access to their subsurface property, "thus rendering the 

ordinance invalid as a taking without just compensation." The court noted that 

Shenango Township amended its zoning ordinance to allow surface mining on the 

subject property.

NALBONE v BOROUGH OF YOUNGSVILLE, 104 Pa Commonw Ct 623, 522 A 2d 

1173 (Pa Commw Ct 1987).

A landowner challenged two amendments to existing ordinances that designated a 

district in the borough where oil and gas wells could be drilled and operated, asserting 

that these local efforts were preempted by the state's Oil and Gas Act. The court ruled 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 3 of 3

that both ordinances regulated land use, one of the primary purposes of zoning 

regulations.

WARNER CO. v ZONING HEARING BOARD OF TREDYFFRIN TOWNSHIP, 612 A 

2d 578 (Pa Commw Ct 1992).

In this challenge of amendments, regulating quarrying operations, to existing zoning 

ordinances, the court ruled that the local setback requirements and "the designation of 

uses permitted by special exception are traditional land use regulations, those sections 

are not preempted by the [Noncoal] Act."

PENNSYLVANIA EHB DECISION

HILLTOWN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS v COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENN. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES (DER) AND BUX-MONT 

REFUSE SERVICES, INC., 1988 Pa Envirn LEXIS 152, EHB Docket No. 87-201-W 

(1988).

From "Synopsis": DER "did not abuse its discretion by issuing a solid waste 

management permit for a trash transfer station where there were allegations that the 

facility did not comply with applicable municipal zoning and land development 

ordinances."

ATTACHMENTS

A. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, CODE Sec. 36-339 M mining district. 

B. MILLER & SON PAVING, INC. v WRIGHTSTOWN TOWNSHIP, 499 Pa 80, 451 

A 2d 1002 (Pa 1982). 

C. MCCLIMANS ET AL. v BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SHENANGO 

TOWNSHIP, 107 Pa Commw Ct 542, 529 A 2d 562 (Pa Commw Ct 1987). 

D. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SHENANGO TOWNSHIP v MCCLIMANS et al., 

142 Pa Commw 470, 597 A 2d 738 (Pa Commw Ct 1991). 

E. NALBONE v BOROUGH OF YOUNGSVILLE, 104 Pa Commonw Ct 623, 522 A 

2d 1173 (Pa Commw Ct 1987). 

F. WARNER CO. v ZONING HEARING BOARD OF TREDYFFRIN TOWNSHIP, 

612 A 2d 578 (Pa Commw Ct 1992). 

G. HILLTOWN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS v COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENN. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES (DER) AND BUX-MONT 

REFUSE SERVICES, INC., 1988 Pa Envirn LEXIS 152, EHB Docket No. 87-201-

W (1988). 

H. COMAR Art. 66B Secs. 3.05, 3.06, 3.07 and 3.08.