Braen Stone Industry’s “Van Orden Sand & Gravel”

An Industrial Quarry Operation’s Impact

on Stonetown Residents

January 2010

 

“... the Court must also bear in mind that one who buys a quarry in an area zoned against quarry use and with homes nearby does not wear blinders. Plaintiff undoubtedly realized when it purchased the quarry that its mining operations would be subject to careful, stringent and changing restrictions in order to protect the public interest.” (emphasis added) Judge Humphreys, December 20, 2000

 

Braen Stone Industries of Haledon has operated its Saddle Mtn., L.P. quarry in Ringwood since 1990, under the name “Van Orden Sand and Gravel”.  After nearly 20 years, significant issues persist, in terms of the negative impact of this industrial operation on the Stonetown neighborhood, and the operator’s resistance to regulation.  Residents are getting quite weary of the many problems that remain unresolved.  It is time now for the Borough to take comprehensive and decisive action, as it did ten years ago. 

 

 

Depth of Excavation

Right now, the issue getting all the attention is the 370’ limit of depth of excavation, or extraction.

 

As a point of reference, keep in mind that 370’ is the elevation of West Brook Road; the quarry has already excavated as much as 43 feet below the level of West Brook Road.

 

Even if the quarry changes its public stance and says ‘okay, we’ll do all the studies that the Borough’s consultant, H2M, requires’, the quarry should not be allowed to operate below 370’ unless and until (1) such studies prove that there is indeed actual need for a ‘water feature’ (and the specific – and minimum - size, location and depth required, if so proven); (2) the studies and their conclusions have been reviewed and recommended for approval by Borough professionals and consultants - including specialists in the requisite fields; (3) the studies are translated into a detailed and comprehensive reclamation plan; (4) the studies prove that such a water feature needs to be constructed prior to the end of the extraction life of the quarry – otherwise, construction of the feature – i.e., excavation below 370’ – should not be allowed until the end of the quarry’s life; (5) the studies and proposed reclamation plan are approved, after public hearings, by the proper municipal bodies.  

 

The course of action of these studies being undertaken, reviewed, and taken through the public process, could take many, many months.  Until that sequence is completed, it is not known what depth, if any, below 370’ is warranted.  For this reason alone, the quarry must not be allowed to continue to operate below 370’.  Once the excavation – that is, the damage, as the saying goes – is done, it cannot be undone.  

 

Any agreement with the quarry - prior to the above conditions being met - to allow them to continue working below 370’ (which both Borough professionals see as a clear violation) would be surrender and capitulation by Ringwood of its court-sustained responsibilities and authority to regulate the quarry operation so as to protect the property values and quality of life of area residents. 

 

 

Distractions: there are other issues, too

Please also keep in mind that there is more to the issue of properly regulating this industrial operation, than just the depth of excavation.

 

Back in 2007, the protracted arguing over how much of the Borough’s expenses (incurred as a result of the re-licensing process) was going to be covered by the quarry (as per the ordinance), put the question of depth of excavation on the back burner.  It never got addressed head on.  As we now clearly see, the quarry took this as a green light to go below 370’.

 

Residents are very concerned that the current, protracted arguing over the depth of excavation below 370’, will likewise distract the Borough from the various other issues, that residents have been asking for action on for years now.  These other important issue are summarized below.

 

In addition, one cannot understand or act properly on issues relating to the quarry without being aware of at least the basic history of the operation.  That, too, is summarized, in a separate document.

 

 

Reluctance to Litigate

Addressing the reluctance of some Councilpersons to engage in litigation with the quarry over the 370’ depth issue, due to the legal expense, please note the following fundamental points:

·      A review of the quarry history makes it all too evident that nothing significant has ever been achieved, in terms of regulating this operation, without court intervention.  Despite their repeated rhetoric about wanting to ‘be a good neighbor’ and ‘work things out’, the record shows that the quarry has consistently challenged Ringwood’s authority to regulate them, and has fought every major measure to regulate them.  This was true in 1990, and it remains true in 2010; the 20-year record speaks for itself.

 

·      Surely Ringwood, as the authority that chose to license this industrial operation, and was granted regulatory authority by the court, has both a moral and legal obligation to make every effort to protect residents’ wells, safety, overall quality of life, and property values, from the impact of this industrial operation.  Sometimes this requires legal action and expense - as the Borough has undertaken in the past and which residents certainly appreciate; clearly, now is one of those times.

 

·      Considering that there are other, outstanding issues (summarized below) that need to be addressed, and regarding which the quarry has not demonstrated willingness to cooperate, it makes strategic and economic sense to deal with all the issues at once, in court - rather than having to continue to engage in time-consuming and frustrating struggles with the quarry operator.  We are not talking about carelessly spending money on legal and other fees, but rather putting an end to the expensive and endless challenges, by the quarry, of the Borough’s authority to regulate this industrial operation.

 

 

Other Issues

Importation

Many big trucks bring in a lot of material to the quarry – no one knows how much material is being brought in, or what it consists of.  The Quarry takes the position that the Borough cannot regulate importation; however, when rejecting the Borough’s total ban on importation in 1999, the court left the door wide open for the Borough to regulate importation, and even to re-consider a ban should circumstances change. 

 

Rock importation should be prohibited – it only artificially extends the life of the quarry, and in no way relates to the importation of dredged reservoir silt that the judge referred to as a reason to reject Ringwood’s total ban on importation (and with regard to the reservoir silt, circumstances now – some 11 years later – may be very different.  Also, any silt that does get brought in should be analyzed).

 

The Borough needs to create importation regulation, including quantification and controls over materials brought in, and add it to the quarry ordinance.

 

Well Water

The Quarry is supposed to do well studies to measure any impact on nearby wells (several wells have gone dry and others have begun to see sand or cloudiness).  The Quarry claims they did what they have to do and don’t have to do anything more.

 

Slope Stabilization

There have been several collapses that the Quarry was made to address in the last re-licensing.  Currently, other slopes are of concern, and this needs to be addressed.

 

Use of Residential Lot

The Borough’s consultant reports that a one-acre residentially-zoned lot (Lot 9) that lies within the Quarry acreage is being used for aspects of the Quarry operation, a use which is prohibited.  The Quarry denies this.  It needs to be ensured that no type of quarry or other business use of the site is allowed to take place.

 

Air Quality: Dust

Residents continue to complain of dust from the Quarry, even though strict controls are supposed to be in place.  Something isn’t working and needs to be remedied.  We have also been asking for years for some regular dust testing, to see if any naturally-occurring but harmful minerals or other substances are in that dust.

 

Air Quality: Diesel, Radon

Ringwood rests on the Reading Prong, and radon is a known issue here.  There needs to be a requirement for meaningful, state-of-the-art radon monitoring.  And since the quarry generates its own electricity, for its equipment, from diesel generators, air quality monitoring needs to be conducted by the Borough to ensure compliance with State law.  We have been asking for years for this and nothing has ever been done.

 

Trucks

While it is understood that the Borough has no jurisdiction over truck traffic, this is still a big safety issue for residents.  We ask that the Borough address, through other agencies, the issue of multiple quarry trucks being on West Brook Bridge at the same time (this should be limited), and trucks entering the bridge when a school bus is already on the bridge (they should have to wait for the school bus to pass through).  We understand that some preliminary discussion have been held with the County about this issue. 

 

And frequent complaints are still heard that many quarry trucks, because they are going too fast, go well over the center line on curves, thus imperiling oncoming traffic. 

 

Residents still report that trucks at times line up and idle on West Brook Road, early in the morning, waiting for the quarry gate to open at 7 a.m.  Interestingly, it’s also been said that the trucks disappear (to return shortly after) just before a police car ever arrives, suggesting that perhaps the drivers monitor the police radios.  This truck parking needs to be addressed.

 

Highlands Application

The quarry has applied to the State for a Highlands Exemption for the quarry pit (Block 101, Lot 3), yet no one knows what it is that they are planning to do, or why the quarry feels it needs a Highlands exemption.  This information needs to be obtained. 

 

In addition, the Highlands Exemption application includes Lot 2, an adjacent, .8595-acre lot.  If Lot 2 was not part of the quarry property at the time of first license in 1996, or was under a residence use, such an Exemption application should be challenged by the Borough.  Also, if an Exemption for the quarry proper (Lot 3) would allow the quarry to develop the site after quarry product was exhausted and the operation ended, rather than revert to the R40V zoning (under which very little or no development would be allowed under the Highlands Act due to the Borough being in the Preservation Area), then this too must be challenged.  Allowing developed use of the site - rather than a return to a semblance of a natural state – coming after years of enduring the quarry operation, would surely be adding insult to injury. 

 

Blasting: Structural Analysis

Issues persist, with some residents remaining convinced that the blasting is causing physical damage to their home.  Structural inspections, which were done some years ago, were considered by residents to be quite poorly conducted, yet the quarry currently represents that they met the ordinance requirement for structural testing.  Proper inspections by qualified individuals retained by the Borough need to be conducted (Note: According to the State inspector, the quarry could choose to lessen the impact of blasting by (a) reducing the size of the holes drilled for explosives, and (b) not blasting during weather conditions that are known to amplify and extend the impact.  The quarry would incur additional expense to do this).

 

Buffers & Berms

It needs to be determined if quarrying (excavation) is taking place within the 50’ buffer designed to protect adjoining residential properties.  Some trees planted on the berms, for visual screening and sound attenuation, died in the past, and may not have been completely replaced.

 

General

The Borough’s consultant, H2M, listed many specific items in the Quarry license application that are incomplete, in error, or missing.  The Quarry has corrected some items but contests others.

 

Jon Berry

Skylands CLEAN, Inc.

January 2010

 

                                  “The Court has also considered the great public importance of protecting the environment and preserving ecological values. Another consideration which the Court has considered is the right of a municipality to ‘endeavor in every legitimate way to secure the blessings of seclusion and to make available to its inhabitants the refreshment of repose and the tranquility of solitude.’” 

 

“The importance of these intangible benefits, the blessings of seclusion, refreshment of repose, the tranquility of solitude should not be undervalued. Ringwood’s a rural, secluded municipality. It is considered as being in an environmentally sensitive area. Such areas are “characterized by watersheds of pristine waters, trout streams and drinking water supply reservoirs, recharge areas for potable water aquifers, habitats of endangered or threatened species, coastal and fresh water wetlands, prime forested areas, scenic natural landscape and other significant topographical, geological or ecological factors” [State Development and Redevelopment Plan].   Many residents of Ringwood have undoubtedly chosen to live in that community in order to enjoy these benefits. They seek what United States Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, one of our greatest jurists, once described as a right most cherished by civilized persons; That is the right of privacy, the right to be left alone. We should not lightly deny this right to the residents of Ringwood.” 

 

Appellate Court of New Jersey, May 23, 2003

 

---