County lists reasons for denying recycling plant Edgeboro Road proposal goes back to Superior Court BY VINCENT TODARO Staff Writer Middlesex County officials have once again rejected a controversial application to build a recycling center in East Brunswick. This time, however, the Board of Chosen Freeholders listed its reasons for the action, as per a court order. The county cited environmental and quality-of-life issues, among other reasons, for denying the application from Triple M Sanitation to locate at 21 Edgeboro Road. Triple M is expected to make its case in court to win approval for the recycling facility, which would mostly process paper products and some co-mingled materials. The East Brunswick Planning Board denied an initial recycling plant proposal in 1996, and in 2005 the township Zoning Board of Adjustment ruled against hearing the application, saying it had already been decided. The matter has been in court since the freeholders voted in December 2006 against Triple M's application to be included in the county's solid waste management plan. A Superior Court judge recently remanded the matter to the freeholders, saying they failed to provide reasons for their decision. During their Feb. 7 meeting, the freeholders approved a resolution rejecting the proposal again and setting forth reasons why. Those reasons are now being forwarded to the judge. The freeholders said the environmental impact statement submitted by Triple M did not give "the status and disposition of any required permits from various governmental agencies." The application also lacked soil and ground-water studies, according to the county. Also, a 2006 site inspection revealed that there were automotive fluids on the ground from existing operations at the site, the freeholders said. "The spillage was being covered by fresh gravel during the time of the visit," according to an attachment to the board's resolution. Triple M did not address storm-water management issues, nor did it obtain a letter from the state Department of Environmental Protection about the presence or absence of freshwater wetlands, according to the freeholders. The attachment also listed noise as a factor for the rejection. While Triple M did provide a noise study, the freeholders found that the comparisons the firm used included too many variables. For instance, a facility's size and processing capacity, nature of operation, and topography could all play a role in how much noise is generated. "It is the residents of the surrounding areas who are the best gauge for determining 'unwanted noise,' " the attachment said. "The residents residing in the area of the proposed facility are subject to a number of adverse conditions, including traffic, noise and odors. Thus, each resident's perception of noise will vary, and thus any increase in noise-generating operations will be opposed by them." A traffic study performed and submitted by Triple M only took into account issues right next to the site, according to the freeholders, and did not include the effect of traffic near Route 18 "and the substantial increase in vehicular traffic in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site." The freeholders did not state why they failed to provide reasons the first time they rejected the application. Many residents in the nearby Pine Ridge neighborhood have long opposed the recycling plant proposal, with concerns about noise, odors and traffic. Mary McGuire, a resident who lives near Edgeboro Road, thanked the freeholders for rejecting the application. She said residents are "maxed out" in terms of noise and dumping, and do not need another facility like the one proposed. Joseph Butrica, East Brunswick's solid waste and recycling coordinator, said residents in the area already deal with enough traffic and congestion, and that the county has enough Class A recycling centers. Triple M's attorney, Harry Starrett, has stressed that the proposal is only to recycle household items like paper, aluminum and glass, and has nothing to do with garbage, unlike the existing landfill that is nearby. He said the entire operation would be indoors, set back 300 feet from the road, and that there would be no noise or odor issues associated with the plant. Starrett has said the location "on a heavily industrial road" is perfect for this proposal. He said prior to last week's freeholders meeting that the appeal would continue in court.