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 INQUIRY REPORT - 264

March 1993

Ted Biggs, Esquire

Indiana Department of Natural Resources

Division of Reclamation

402 West Washington Street

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

TOPIC: MINING WITHIN 300 FEET OF A PUBLIC BUILDING

INQUIRY: Does the prohibition against mining within 300 feet of a public building refer 

to the building itself or the property line? Please locate any materials that discuss this 

issue. 

SEARCH RESULTS: Research was conducted using the COALEX Library and other 

materials available in LEXIS. No materials were identified that specifically discussed the 

issue in question. A few items were retrieved that have some relevance to the topic. 

These are listed below and copies are attached.

REGULATION HISTORY

REGULATION OF SURFACE MINING: HEARINGS on H.R. 3 Before Subcommittee 

on the Environment and Subcommittee on Mines and Mining of the House 

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 838 (April 9, 

1973)(Statement of Penn. Rep. John P. Saylor).

From H.R. 5988. Section-by-Section-Analysis. Section 214 Permit Approval. "This 

section lists the eight findings which the regulatory authority must make before it can 

grant a surface mining and reclamation permit. Among the findings which shall be made 

are .... (3) that the land affected is not within 300 feet of the outside property line of an 

occupied dwelling; within 300 feet of a public building, park or cemetery; nor within 100 

feet of the outside line of any public road right-of-way".

INTERIOR ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

DONALD B. PETERSON v OSM, Docket No. DV 7-1-PR (1987).

Peterson contended that the permit boundary for Palmer Coking Coal Co.'s McKay 

Preparation Plant was within 300 feet of a public building (a grocery store) and several 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 2 of 3

houses along a state road. The ALJ ruled that "there [was] no evidence to support his 

allegation since no measurements [had] been made."

L & E TRUCKING, INC. v OSM, Docket Nos. CH 1-160-R, CH 2-24-P, CH 2-25-R 

(1981).

The ALJ affirmed the issuance of the violation for conducting surface coal mining within 

300 feet of a public park finding that L & E should have known the "true ownership of 

the adjoining land". However, only the minimum number of points were assigned for 

extent of potential or actual damage as the ALJ found that work the applicant performed 

for the landowner "resulted in the removal of many physical hazards and will...ultimately 

improve the area."

PENNSYLVANIA ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

KERRY COAL CO. v COMMONWEALTH OF PENN., DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

RESOURCES, 425 A 2d 46 (PA Commw Ct 1981).

In discussing the construction of 52 P.S. Sec. 1396.4b(c) which states, in part,

"No operator shall open any pit for surface mining operations...within three hundred feet 

of any occupied dwelling house, unless released by the owner thereof, or any public 

building, school, park or community or institutional building...." * the court agreed with 

Kerry Coal that the word "park" be read as an adjective modifying the word "building", 

providing statutory protection to "park buildings".

"We believe that the legislature has shown its intention in this section to apply the 

restriction limitation of 100 feet when it refers to property or geographic lines, i.e., right 

of way of public highway, cemetery, or bank of any stream. On the other hand, the 

restriction is 300 feet when applied to structures, i.e., occupied dwelling house, any 

public building, school, park or community or institutional building. It is of further 

significance that the structures are grouped together."

*NOTE: The language of this section was subsequently changed. Refer to the revised 

statute section attached to this decision.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHARTIERS TOWNSHIP v QUARTURE AND 

T/D/B/A VICTOR DOSSE CONTRACTING, 603 A 2d 295 (PA Commw Ct 1992).

The issue on appeal was whether the common pleas court had jurisdiction to modify an 

earlier order. The facts of the case relate to which set of conditions were to be imposed 

on a strip mine permit: no mining closer that 300 feet of any building or structure versus 

no mining closer than 300 feet of any property line.

MISC.
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 3 of 3

Excerpts from a variety of materials that mention the 300 feet rule are enclosed for 

review.

ATTACHMENTS

A. REGULATION OF SURFACE MINING: HEARINGS on H.R. 3 Before 

Subcommittee on the Environment and Subcommittee on Mines and Mining of 

the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 838 

(April 9, 1973)(Statement of Penn. Rep. John P. Saylor). 

B. DONALD B. PETERSON v OSM, Docket No. DV 7-1-PR (1987). 

C. L & E TRUCKING, INC. v OSM, Docket Nos. CH 1-160-R, CH 2-24-P, CH 2-25-

R (1981). 

D. KERRY COAL CO. v COMMONWEALTH OF PENN., DEPT. OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, 425 A 2d 46 (PA Commw Ct 1981). 

E. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHARTIERS TOWNSHIP v QUARTURE AND 

T/D/B/A VICTOR DOSSE CONTRACTING, 603 A 2d 295 (PA Commw Ct 1992). 

F. Misc. Excerpts from a variety of materials that mention the 300 feet rule.