COURT HOUSE — Applicants presented one rebuttal witness and members of the public had an opportunity to speak in what might very well be the penultimate session of site plan hearings that have extended for a year and a half in a controversial development project planned in Burleigh.

Since April 2007, Albrecht and Heun and its subsidiary Future Mining and Recycling Inc. have been before the Middle Township Zoning Board of Adjustment attempting to gain approval for a recycling center and sand and gravel mining operation on a 253-acre site off Indian Trail Road.

The company was previously granted a use variance by the board. A mining license transfer from its existing operation on Goshen Road to its proposed site was approved by Township Committee.

On Sept. 11, company executive Victoria Heun contradicted earlier testimony by a former employee who told of unsafe and unethical business practices at Future Mining’s Goshen Road site.

Robert C. Hopkins worked for Future Mining for six months as a heavy equipment operator. At a May 15 hearing, he said the workers at the Goshen Road site routinely crushed contaminated materials including asbestos pipes, failed to water down dust on roads and equipment and didn’t wear goggles, hardhats or breathing apparatus. He also testified that trucks using the site often bypassed the vehicle weighing station leaving recycled material unaccounted for.

At that hearing, Future Mining’s attorney Steve Nehmad described Hopkins as a disgruntled employee who was bitter over being fired for missing too much time at work.

At last week’s hearing, Heun said company policies of checking incoming recycling truckloads ensured that no contaminated material makes it onto the site to be crushed. She said roads are regularly watered down to reduce dust and personnel are required to wear safety equipment and are disciplined if they do not.

She also said that the only reason trucks would bypass the scale would be if they were picking up material sold by the yard rather than by weight.

When asked by opposition attorney Carole Mattessich whether she ever completed the appropriate paperwork for a recycling drop-off after the truck had already departed, she said she hadn’t. She also denied any knowledge of trucks coming onto the site during off hours, when the loads would not be inspected by company employees.

Mattessich represents her husband, Township Tax Assessor Joseph Ravitz, and his business partner Lee Rohm who own a parcel of land adjacent to the proposed site.

When the public had its turn at the microphone, many residents spoke out against the proposal, but a few sided with Future Mining.

Rev. Rudy Sheptock, pastor of the Lighthouse Church, said Future Mining generously hauled away truckloads of tree stumps from the site of their church construction project in Burleigh. He said the donation was valued at $12,000.

Robert Haig, who lives next to the Goshen Road site, said he’s read a lot of negative things in the newspaper about the company’s proposal, but from his experience it’s actually not a bad place to live.

“We have no problem with noise or dust,” he said. “I have two young children…a dog, a cat, even a swing in the backyard.”

Of course, he can hear the site’s machinery when it’s running, but it’s never caused any problems, he said.

When asked by Mattessich if he discussed his testimony in advance with anyone from Future Mining, Haig said he had not.

Local farmer Edward Wuerker, who owns property on Indian Trail Road, said he didn’t understand what all the controversy surrounding this project was about. His comments suggested the company should be able to do whatever it wants with the property.

“I don’t see a house within 500 feet…it’s next to nowhere,” Wuerker said. “I don’t see that any of this is going to change the world.”

He said so many people move down the shore and then don’t understand why all the development that’s sprung up to support them is there.

“I have an old phone book for Cape May and Atlantic counties from 1945 at home,” he said. “Sometimes, I wish everyone who isn’t listed in it would leave.”

While those three spoke out for the company, nearly 20 residents opposed the project. Many of the opposition’s comments were met with applause from the audience, which board Chairman James McLaughlin admonished several times.

• Gerald Grant, of Indian Trail Road, wondered if the taxes from the surrounding properties were equal to the potential taxes from the proposed project. Originally from Gloucester, Grant said he couldn’t be frightened by threat of methadone clinics instead of the mining pit.

• William Kern, who owns property on Indian Trail but lives in Court House, said he was worried about water contamination from the old landfill across the street from the proposed site.

• Shelia McMillan Tejada, of Whitesboro, was concerned about the health of her sick mother and husband.

• Etta Washington, of Indian Trail, said the extra trucks from the facility would make the area’s traffic situation even worse. “It’s already hard to get out of the driveway,” she said.

• Sam Kelly, who grew up on his family’s farm near the proposed site, said the industrial use would not support the area’s tourist destination economy.

• Neighboring resident Rosie Jefferson read a lengthy statement that listed numerous reasons for the zoning board to disapprove the application.

• Vinid Kotecha, a brand new resident at the neighboring Ryan Homes development, said he worried about the environmental, economic and safety consequences of the project.

• Betty McGurk, of Court House, said she lives near the township maintenance garage where the noise of idling and reversing trucks can be deafening in the early morning hours. She said the noise would be similar if not worse at the mining site.

• Diane Kelly, of Del Haven, asked that the board and the applicant not insult the citizenry’s intelligence by suggesting this development would be better than the trees in the existing environment.

• Madeline Filipski, of the township taxpayers’ association, asked if the board needed the state’s permission to grant site plan approval for this project.

• Cindy Sowash, of Maryland, said she and her husband purchased property on Indian Trail a year and a half ago. She said she thought the area was the best-kept secret on the East Coast. “But we never would have thought it would become an industrial area. It’s hard to believe this board would choose to make this a place of industry rather than a place of natural beauty as it is.”

• Grace Bronson, who has friends and family near the proposed site, passed around pictures of the Goshen Road site.

• Neighbor Josephine Gurdegiel said she loves the pristine beauty of the area and worries about potential truck noise and health concerns.

• Deborah Baley, of Indian Trail, said he moved from the big city to enjoy life at the shore. She had concerns about air and water pollution.

• Betsy Haskin, of Court House, said Future Mining should reach out to the community and work on alleviating their concerns.

• Georgie Mellon, a 13-year-old girl from Indian Trail, asked about getting on the school bus in the morning with all the truck traffic from the site. She was also concerned with water. “When I get older I have to worry about my water too and I’m going to be here longer than them,” she said.

• Raymond Hoff, who lives on Route 47, said the traffic from the site would be a big problem.

• Rev. James Francis, of Indian Trail, said he wouldn’t be allowed to sleep with all the truck traffic. “I just retired, for what?” he said.

• Spencer Cohen, a 35-year resident of Green Creek, asked the board to reconsider its use variance approval. “Everybody makes mistakes,” he said of their earlier decision. “Look into your hearts and do the right thing.”

When the public comment portion was finished, McLaughlin confirmed that the hearing would be continued at the board’s Oct. 9 meeting. All that remains is the board engineer’s report and closing arguments from the attorneys.

Contact Hart at (609) 886-8600 Ext 35 or at: jhart@cmcherald.com