|
|
|
Note:
The following is not a verbatim transcript of the Zoning Hearing Board
meeting; it is simply one person’s summary of the major points made by
those involved in the hearing process.
For that reason, quotation marks are not used unless a direct quote
was recorded. For information
about obtaining an official ZHB transcript, contact the New Hanover Township
office.
What
is GR 2?
Mr.
Stephen Harris, attorney for Gibraltar Rock began by continuing Mr. Alan K.
Stagg testimony as an expert witness on “Economic Geology” in GR1.
Alan
Stagg was on the stand, first cross examined by Lawrence Sagar, attorney
representing Atomic Industries.
Questioning
established that:
- Stagg
is not an appraiser, and his reports are not to be viewed as that of an
appraiser. (This does not appear to be consistent with previous
testimony).
- Stagg
did his analysis based on the selling price of crushed rock.
Selling price is not the same a value. Value in this context needs
to be defined, as in value to whom.
- There
is not likely to be a change in the economic model with new technology.
Minor technological refinements can be anticipated in quarry trucks and
equipment, but nothing so great as to change the economic equations.
- There
is no room to expand the present site plan for quarry operations
Westward in the HI area North of Hoffmansville Rd. for either processing
or extraction because of liability associated with alleged soil
contamination.
- Stagg
did not do an economic analysis for a mining plan that included all of
the available HI both South and North of Hoffmansville Rd. However,
when he looked at the two pits separately, neither pit was viable.
(Remarkable, since the economic extraction of minerals is what the
argument is all about).
- The
significant difference between Stagg and Dr. Rose with respect to the HI
area North of Hoffmansville Rd. is in the area set aside for processing.
In the Stagg plan it takes about 18 acres for processing and desired
stockpiling, and hence less land available for mineral extraction.
In Dr. Rose’s testimony (see document T-79) processing is confined to
8.5 acres and hence more land is available for extraction.
- There
was no explanation as to why the processing areas were so different.
The
next meeting is August 18.
|
