Mining Company Calls Rebuttal Witnesses; Only Public Comment Remains

COURT HOUSE — Is that a light at the end of the mining tunnel?
At the Middle Township Zoning Board meeting July 10, Albrecht and Heun and its subsidiary Future Mining and Recycling Inc. inched closer to the end of the site plan application process, which began in April 2007.
The hearing marked the ninth four-hour session for this application.
Future Mining wants to construct a 100-acre sand and gravel mining pit as well as a recycling operation and retail store on a 253-acre site on Indian Trail Road in Burleigh.
The mining company was previously granted a use variance by the board and a mining license transfer by the township governing body.
Two opposition groups have retained attorneys to fight the project. The Friends of Indian Trail are represented by Michael Malinsky and Township Tax Assessor Joseph Ravitz, who owns a property adjacent to the proposed site, is represented by his wife, Carole Mattessich.
Over the months-long process, numerous neighbors, citizens and conservationists have voiced opposition to the project citing concerns over a variety of potential impacts to the environment including the groundwater table. A standing-room-only group of nearly 100 crowded into the July 10 meeting.
In an effort to address those environmental concerns, the applicant called two rebuttal witnesses — a water expert and a former employee of the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
David Monie, president of a Cherry Hill water-engineering firm, continued an appearance he began at the previous May 15 hearing, when he stated that the proposed project would not adversely affect the quality or quantity of well water in the surrounding area.
Monie said if the project was approved by the board the mining company would institute a water-monitoring program to help alleviate residents concerns over water.
On Thursday, Monie fielded questions from the public.
Neighbor Betty McGurk asked Monie if he could confirm 100 percent that well water would remain unaffected by the project.
Monie conceded that he could not guarantee the safety of the water table, but could say with a “reasonable degree of engineering certainty and probability” that water quality and quantity would not be affected.
Future Mining’s attorney Steve Nehmad said that was the standard that applies to professional witnesses and experts.
Another neighbor Rosie Jefferson wasn’t swayed by Monie’s answers.
“I appreciate your education and knowledge on this, but as a resident who thrives on my well water, I don’t believe you,” she said.
“If I were you, I wouldn’t believe me either,” Monie responded noting that residents should rely on the proposed water-monitoring program.
Following Monie, the applicant called Karl Braun, a former DEP worker with more than 30 years experience in the agency’s Land Use Regulation Program.
Throughout the site plan process, the opposition has faulted the applicant for not addressing environmental issues. At a Nov. 8 meeting last year, Mattessich called Future Mining’s environmental impact statement “inadequate by any professional standard.”
Braun testified to the zoning board that Future Mining’s application process of attaining local approvals before applying to the state was the preferred method.
“New Jersey is a home rule state,” he said referring to the power granted to municipal governments to handle a range of governmental activities – including land use issues – under their own authority.
Under the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (CAFRA), Braun said the DEP regulates a variety of environmental issues including endangered species, water quality, wetland buffers and others.
When asked by Malinsky if local boards should consider environmental issues in their deliberations, Braun said although it was up to them, they could rely on the DEP to do its job.
Braun said that even though the DEP looks for a local stamp of approval in CAFRA applications, the state would not relax its review procedures.
In his experience on this application, Braun said Future Mining has shown a willingness to cooperate with the state as well as its neighbors. He said the proposed water-monitoring program was “unique and generous” and the company was also taking into consideration the needs of the Cape May National Wildlife Refuge, which adjoins the site.
Braun said residents that live within 200 feet of the proposed site will be notified when their CAFRA application is submitted and when the public comment period begins.
“The DEP always encourages public comment on CAFRA applications,” he said.
Resident Maureen Cohen noted that even if the zoning board eventually approves this application, she wanted the DEP to know that “we are not giving local endorsement.”
As the hearing came to an end, board Chairman James McLaughlin asked for a show of hands of those who intended to make comments during the public portion that is expected to begin at the board’s Sept. 11 meeting.
Over 20 hands flew up and according to Ralph Shuman, one of the Friends of Indian Trail, many of the residents who left because of the meeting’s late hour would also be making comments.
With that many potential comments, the lengthy application process may not even conclude in September and if the board approves the site plan Shuman has said his group intends on appealing the decision and fighting the application at the state level.
Contact Hart at (609) 886-8600 Ext 35 or at: jhart@cmcherald.com