Consultant: No Harm to Indian Trail From Mining

COURT HOUSE –– Did you ever hear that song from the old children’s show Lamb Chop’s Play Around called “The song that never ends”?
It goes:
“This is the song that never ends,
Yes, it goes on and on my friends.
Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was,
And they’ll continue singing it forever just because…”
The song can continue like this ad infinitum.
In what seems like the application that never ends, Albrecht and Heun and its subsidiary Future Mining Inc. was before the Middle Township Zoning Board Nov. 8 seeking site plan approval and was again unable to finish.
After its fourth hearing since April and with several opposition witnesses yet to testify, there is no end in clear sight for the application.
Last week, board members heard testimony from Future Mining’s environmental consultant, Michael Logan, of Compliance Plus Services. Logan, who has a background in waste management, testified that operations of the proposed 100-acre sand mining pit and recycling facility would not cause any negative impact to the surrounding Burleigh community near Indian Trail Road.
He also said clear-cutting much of the 265-acre tract of land would not be detrimental to the area’s drinking water supply.
“In regards to aquifer recharge, this use is more beneficial than leaving the existing forest,” Logan said. He contended that more water is lost through use by the trees than by evaporation in open sand pits.
His testimony directly contradicts that of expert witnesses for the opposition that says the surrounding area will be greatly impacted by the project.
The Friends of Indian Trail, a group opposed to the project, cite a study by Pierre Lacombe of the United States Geological Survey that points to the spine of the county (which includes the proposed site) as the best place for new wells in an area where water is an increasingly rare commodity.
The opposition also cites air and noise pollution, traffic problems, and wildlife issues as other possible negative impacts to their community.
In developing the environmental impact statement for the project, Logan said he considered the possible impacts from approved uses for the Indian Trail site and compared them to the impacts from the proposed recycling operation.
Carol Mattessich, an attorney for a group of property owners adjacent to the site, said that method of developing an impact statement is inadequate by any professional standard.
Jeffrey April, who has represented Future Mining in this application thus far, allowed Steve Nemad, a noted land use attorney, to handle most of the questioning.
Mattessich’s attempts at questioning Logan were frequently squashed by the applicant’s new attorney, who cited state jurisdiction on many environmental issues.
Mattessich told the Herald, however, that whether Nemad allows Logan to answer or not, the people still intends to bring up the environmental issues in public portion of the proceedings.
She said an earlier ruling by Board Solicitor Victoria Steffan would allow her and other members of the public to present evidence in the “negative criteria” to bring up environmental impacts.
In addition to questioning the witness, Mattessich also submitted a letter to the board asking members to join in a declaratory judgment action on the application.
Mattessich contends that the applicant did not request the proper use variances from the board from the outset and should have to start the process over from the beginning.
She said they failed to ask for use variances for: the number of permitted principal uses; number of permitted buildings; buffer areas for resource extraction; parking spaces; and outdoor business activities.
The board did not rule on the use variance questions at the Nov. 8 meeting, but directed Steffan to review and report back on the issues.
Contact Hart at (609) 886-8600 Ext 35 or at: jhart@cmcherald.com