Future Mining’s Site Plan Set for Final Hearing Dec. 11

COURT HOUSE — Despite the best efforts and apparent wishes of Middle Township Zoning Board members, a site plan application that has clogged the panel’s docket for a year and a half will continue for at least one more month.
One attorney involved in the hearings said the board has shown the “patience of Job” for dealing with this difficult application.
Albrecht and Heun and its subsidiary Future Mining and Recycling Inc. want to operate a sand/gravel mining pit and Class B recycling center on a 253-acre tract of land off Indian Trail Road in the Burleigh section of the township.
The board previously granted a use variance for the project and Township Committee has also approved a mining license transfer from the company’s current facility here on Goshen Road.
In numerous site plan hearings since April 2007, the applicant presented professionals that have testified regarding the company’s current operations, its plans for the proposed site and its potential impacts on the surrounding environment and communities.
Along the way, the applicants faced opposition from attorneys, individuals, citizen groups and conservationists. All cited reasons why the project would be a detriment.
Both sides produced rebuttal witnesses to contradict each other’s experts.
An hour before midnight at the close of the most recent hearing Nov. 13, board Chairman James McLaughlin polled members on whether to vote on the measure then or to consider additional information provided in the attorneys’ closing arguments.
In the end, members agreed, if somewhat reluctantly, to continue the hearing to the next regular meeting date on Dec. 11. They decided to begin that meeting a half-hour early, at 6:30 p.m., instead of the usual 7 p.m. start-time. The board agreed to consider only a few outstanding issues before their vote.
Before that decision, the latest hearing began with two rebuttal witnesses who were called by opposition attorneys.
Ralph Shuman, of the Friends of Indian Trail, a group opposed to the project, testified that he was given a key to Future Mining’s Goshen Road facility in the early 1990s in order to deliver clamshells to the site after normal business hours. That contradicted previous testimony from company executive Victoria Heun, who said the site never allowed deliveries after closing time.
Robert Hopkins, a former Future Mining employee, told the board that anyone with keys to Caterpillar construction equipment could open the site’s padlock. He also described other business practices at the site that did not fit with Heun’s earlier testimony.
Steve Nehmad, the applicant’s attorney, objected to other lines of testimony from the two witnesses noting, “this is wholly, wholly irrelevant” and “I can’t think of anything less germane than this.”
Nehmad also tried to discredit Hopkins as a disgruntled employee who was fired for cause and denied unemployment benefits.
After the witnesses, the board heard the long-awaited report from its engineer, Stephen J. Nardelli, of Bridgeton consulting firm Fralinger Engineering. Nardelli’s report contained a list of 21 detailed comments regarding the site plan.
Following the engineer’s report, the board received several additional conditions on the site plan regarding site enclosures, parking, buffers, removal of contaminated material, and water monitoring wells.
Opposition attorney Carole Mattessich questioned Nardelli regarding his report as well as his role as a conflict engineer on this application. When board member Arthur Cornell made a comment about her line of questioning, Mattessich said, “I’m sorry, but I didn’t mean to offend anyone.”
“Well you have,” replied Cornell, illustrating the drain on patience this prolonged application has had on all involved.
Next, the attorneys gave closing arguments.
Mattessich represented her husband, the township’s Tax Assessor Joseph Ravitz. He and an business associate own property adjacent to the proposed site on Indian Trail. Mattessich told the board that they have the power to consider many of the concerns expressed by concerned neighbors of the site and the duty to ensure the applicant’s plans won’t hurt them.
Shuman’s attorney Michael Malinsky urged the board to rely on testimony provided by his client’s expert witnesses, who described potential noise pollution and environmental impacts caused by the project.
Finally, Nehmad told the board his clients had followed the application process to the letter of the law. He said many of the residents’ concerns are addressed solely by other government agencies and are not within their jurisdiction. He asked that the board consider the record before them and approve the application.
What will the zoning board members decide?
The answer should be revealed at Township Hall next month.
If the board approves the project, the objectors have already announced that they plan to appeal the decision and fight the application at the state level.
Contact Hart at (609) 886-8600 Ext 35 or at: jhart@cmcherald.com