Pleasantville Transfer Station Fight Continues Despite Planning Board Rejection as Residents Demand Answers

Proposed facility could handle hundreds of tons of construction debris daily, while a legal dispute raises questions about whether the controversial project can still move forward.

PLEASANTVILLE, N.J. — A controversial proposal to establish a construction and demolition debris transfer station in Pleasantville remains unresolved more than a year after the city's Planning Board rejected the project, with residents continuing to challenge the development and demanding answers about its future.

The proposed ACRR Transfer Station would operate at the former Press of Atlantic City printing facility at 11 Devins Lane, near Washington Avenue.

Developer RGC3 LLC, associated with businessman James DiNatale, has proposed using the property to receive construction and demolition debris, separate recyclable materials and transport the remaining waste by rail to an out-of-state disposal facility.

The project has generated years of opposition from residents concerned about truck traffic, air quality, neighborhood conditions and the potential effect on property values.

Although the Planning Board voted overwhelmingly against the project on April 1, 2025, subsequent legal proceedings and previously approved redevelopment agreements have complicated efforts to bring the matter to a conclusion.

The controversy resurfaced during an October 5 City Council meeting, when residents pressed elected officials to explain the project's status and whether the city could take additional action to prevent the facility from opening.

Planning Board Rejected the Project in 2025

The Planning Board's April 2025 vote followed a contentious public hearing lasting approximately three and a half hours.

Residents questioned the project's environmental impact, traffic projections and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods.

Only one board member voted in favor of the proposed site plan.

The overwhelming rejection was celebrated by residents who had organized against the facility.

However, Planning Board Chairman Brian Vigue cautioned at the time that the decision might not end the dispute because the developer could challenge the rejection in court.

That warning proved significant as the project subsequently became entangled in legal proceedings.

During the October 5, 2026, City Council meeting, City Solicitor Tracey S. Cosby explained that the matter had been returned to the Planning Board for further consideration involving proposed conditions.

According to Cosby's explanation, the court-directed process called for Planning Board professionals to provide proposed conditions to the applicant.

The developer would then have an opportunity to accept or challenge those conditions, with unresolved disputes potentially returning to court.

The precise terms of the court's order and the ultimate status of the application remain important questions.

The October discussion did not establish that the facility had received all approvals necessary to begin operating.

Residents Say Their Opposition Has Not Changed

Residents attending the October City Council meeting made clear that their opposition remains strong.

"We vehemently do not want a transfer station in our city," one resident said during public comment, according to Atlantic City Focus.

Speakers raised concerns about heavy-truck traffic, possible deterioration of local roads, air pollution, rodents and the effect of an industrial waste-handling operation on nearby homes.

One resident questioned whether additional trucks could interfere with school bus routes.

Others challenged the transparency of the approval process and asked why the city had not taken a more definitive public position against the proposal.

Some residents also questioned whether the proposed facility had expanded beyond the scope of earlier plans.

Those assertions have not been independently established and would require examination of the developer's latest site plans.

Mayor Judy Ward acknowledged the residents' concerns.

"We know what the public wants and you made that very, very clear," Ward said during the October meeting, according to Atlantic City Focus. "We hear your concerns."

The mayor's comments reflected the continuing public opposition, although they did not resolve the legal questions surrounding the proposal.

What Would the Transfer Station Actually Do?

The proposed operation is not intended to function as a conventional municipal garbage dump.

According to the developer's description, the facility would primarily handle construction and demolition materials rather than ordinary household trash.

The company has described a process in which trucks deliver debris to an enclosed building, where materials are separated before the remaining waste is loaded into covered railroad cars.

The railroad would then transport the material to an out-of-state disposal destination.

During the April 2025 Planning Board hearing, DiNatale described an operation handling approximately 400 tons of debris per day.

He said roughly 100 trucks would travel through the facility daily, with the remaining material transported by rail.

The developer has promoted the project as a way to reduce the amount of construction debris placed in Atlantic County's landfill.

According to the project's website, the proposed operation would use an enclosed building with an air filtration system designed to limit dust emissions.

The company also maintains that its location near an existing railroad line makes the property suitable for the proposed operation.

Those representations have not eliminated residents' concerns about the effects of the facility on the surrounding community.

Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars in Potential Revenue

Supporters have pointed to the potential financial benefits for Pleasantville.

During the 2025 Planning Board hearing, project representatives described an anticipated annual host fee of approximately $600,000, along with an estimated $50,000 in property taxes.

Those figures represent projected benefits, not revenue currently being received from an operating transfer station.

The potential financial arrangement has been a major point of disagreement.

Some residents argue that the proposed payments would not adequately compensate the city for the possible environmental and quality-of-life consequences.

Others have questioned whether the facility would impose additional expenses for road maintenance, public safety or other municipal services.

The developer has maintained that the project would provide a needed service while generating revenue for the city.

Existing Redevelopment Agreements Complicate the Dispute

A central issue involves agreements the city approved years before the latest round of opposition.

During the October 5 meeting, Cosby explained that Pleasantville entered into a redevelopment agreement in 2019 and approved an amended agreement in 2021.

Those agreements are now part of the legal and procedural questions surrounding the proposal.

Cosby cautioned that terminating agreements after the parties have already begun performing their obligations is more complicated than simply rescinding a municipal resolution.

That distinction is significant because some residents have urged City Council to withdraw its support for the project.

While elected officials may have opportunities to express opposition, the city's contractual commitments and the ongoing court proceedings could affect what actions are legally available.

The precise obligations created by the redevelopment agreements would need to be determined by reviewing the documents themselves.

Atlantic County Utilities Authority Explains Approval Process

Matthew DeNafo, president of the Atlantic County Utilities Authority, attended the October 5 City Council meeting at the invitation of Council President Carla Thomas.

DeNafo explained the general process for including a proposed waste facility in Atlantic County's solid waste management plan.

He said the process requires a complete application and includes a letter from the affected municipality stating its position.

Additional review can involve the county's Solid Waste Advisory Council, the Atlantic County Board of County Commissioners and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

DeNafo emphasized that he was explaining the approval process rather than offering a legal opinion about Pleasantville's existing redevelopment agreements.

Cosby questioned how those general requirements applied to a project already involved in litigation.

The exchange highlighted a central unresolved issue: how the city's earlier agreements interact with the county and state approval processes.

Atlantic County already operates a waste management complex in Egg Harbor Township through the ACUA.

Environmental advocates have questioned whether another transfer station is necessary so close to the existing county facility.

Environmental Justice Concerns

The proposal has also attracted opposition from environmental organizations, including the Pinelands Alliance.

The organization has argued that the proposed facility would place additional environmental burdens on a community already facing significant environmental challenges.

Pleasantville has a history of industrial contamination, including the Price Landfill Superfund site, where improper waste disposal resulted in groundwater contamination.

Environmental advocates contend that additional truck traffic and waste-handling operations could worsen conditions for nearby residents.

The developer, meanwhile, maintains that the proposed facility would operate indoors with measures intended to control dust and contain debris.

Whether the proposal satisfies applicable environmental requirements remains a separate regulatory question.

The Planning Board's 2025 rejection and the subsequent court proceedings do not, by themselves, establish that the project violates environmental laws.

What Happens Next?

More than a year after the Planning Board rejected the proposal, Pleasantville residents are still waiting for a definitive answer about the facility's future.

The next steps depend on the court proceedings, the Planning Board's consideration of proposed conditions and any additional county or state approvals that may be required.

The project cannot be considered fully approved simply because the developer has existing redevelopment agreements with the city.

Likewise, the Planning Board's original rejection has not brought the controversy to a definitive conclusion.

For residents who have opposed the proposal for years, the central question remains whether a facility they believe would damage their community can ultimately move forward despite substantial public opposition.

For city officials, the challenge involves balancing those concerns against existing agreements, legal obligations and the proposed financial benefits.

And for the developer, the project remains a proposed investment whose future depends on navigating the remaining legal and regulatory requirements.

As the dispute continues, Pleasantville residents are demanding greater transparency and a clearer explanation of what authority local officials still have over the project's future.

South Jersey NewsBeat will continue following the legal proceedings and the Planning Board's consideration of the proposal as the controversy develops.