Fred Weber Inc. recently singled out Oakville residents who attended a hearing in May regarding asphalt stockpiling violations at the company’s south quarry.

Cambridge Point Subdivision residents, who live within sight of two asphalt pilings in Fred Weber’s quarry at Heintz and Baumgartner roads, attended a May 19 St. Louis County Board of Zoning Adjustment hearing at which attorney Lester Stuckmeyer spoke on their behalf, raising environmental concerns.

Nearly two months later, those same residents found themselves signing for certified letters sent to them from Fred Weber because of their attendance at that hearing — a tactic recipients contend was used as a form of intimidation for speaking out against the company.

Upon Public Works Director Garry Earls’ citations at the quarry for violating the site’s conditional-use permit with the presence of the asphalt piles, Fred Weber appealed the decision to the Board of Zoning Adjustment.

Stuckmeyer voiced the residents’ concerns over the stockpilings during the appeal hearing, noting the asphalt is releasing harmful toxins and poisons into the environment.

The board’s decision to uphold the citations is being challenged in St. Louis County Circuit Court by Fred Weber.

In a petition filed June 17, Fred Weber asked the court to overturn the board’s decision when it deemed the asphalt pilings in violation of current zoning. While the litigation ensues, two asphalt stockpiles still remain at Fred Weber’s south quarry.

Stuckmeyer and at least 30 other residents who attended that hearing recently received certified letters from a Fred Weber attorney, informing them of Fred Weber’s petition.

“Our records indicate that you are a party who received notice of the BZA hearing and/or attended the hearing and/or spoke at the hearing or provided the BZA with written comment,” the July 7 letter stated, signed by Gary Feder of Husch & Eppenberger, an attorney who represents Fred Weber.

The letter is informative in nature, stating that Judge Kenneth Romines will preside over the case and adds that Fred Weber is entitled to appeal the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment.

The letter concludes by referring anyone interested in additional information “regarding the nature of this letter” to contact Assistant County Counselor David Arthur and lists his telephone number.

Contacted by the Call, Arthur said that all inquiries should be referred to Feder.

Arthur also noted that while he is working on Fred Weber’s appeal in court to overturn the county’s decision to reject the company’s application for a license to construct a trash-transfer station at 5219 Baumgartner Road, he is not handling the case involving the citations for the asphalt pilings.

Lorena Merklin Von Kaenel, the county attorney who is handling the case, deferred all comments regarding the letter to Feder, but added that, in her experience, she did not believe Feder’s actions were common.

Feder was out of the country and unavailable for comment before the Call went to press. Fred Weber spokesman Thomas Barta was unavailable for comment before the Call went to press.

Oakville resident Joe Guelbert thought he was being sued when he signed for a certified letter from the company July 9.

He has spoken with numerous neighbors in the Cambridge Point Subdivision who also have received the letter. And they’re worried, he said.

“Nobody knows what this is all about. Many of them thought they were being sued,” Guelbert said. “… The elderly people in our neighborhood are scared to death.”

Fred Weber filed suit Feb. 20 in St. Louis County Circuit Court against Tom Diehl, who publicly opposed the company’s efforts to establish a trash-transfer station in south county, and is seeking $5 million in punitive damages and at least $25,000 in actual damages.

Diehl faces counts of slander, libel, civil conspiracy and business defamation for his alleged association with fliers that were distributed last December identifying Fred Weber Inc. as “trash terrorists,” according to claims made by the company in the lawsuit.

The original petition also accused John Does or other unknown “co-conspirators” of the same counts that Diehl faces.

People who received letters from Fred Weber after attending the May hearing, Guelbert said, are afraid that now they are on some sort of list Fred Weber is keeping and they may end up being named as a John Doe.

“I think they’re trying to intimidate and bully and put a little fear into people they know are probably their biggest opponents, people that want to try to combat the trash-transfer station and oppose what is going on down here,” he said. “They are purposefully trying to scare us … Is it working? I hate to admit this, but I think in some cases, yes. Older people who were participating before are not anymore because they don’t want to be sued.”

Mark Knapp, who also received the letter, said he had to read it three or four times to see what the purpose was.

“I was like, should I sell my house now?” Knapp told the Call, noting that he would continue to fight Fred Weber’s efforts in south county — whatever the letter’s purpose.

“It’s going to inspire me to go to more hearings. I don’t know what they’re trying to do with this. Why did they send this?”

The attorney who represented the subdivision residents during the May 19 hearing told the Call he believed the letter had a specific purpose and was highly unusual.

“I did some research, and there is no requirement that this notice be sent to individuals,” Stuckmeyer said. “They don’t even do this much for a zoning hearing. This is pretty extraordinary.”

He said he never had seen any attorney single out residents in such a way and contends the letters specifically were sent in certified mail to intimidate the recipients.

“I would like to see a straight-faced argument otherwise,” he said, noting he could imagine Fred Weber’s attorneys may argue they sent the letters as a point of information for those interested in the outcome of the asphalt matter. But the people who attended the meeting are very informed citizens, he said, and sending them letters almost two months after a meeting does not tell them anything they already don’t know.

“Basically, this letter was sent to do one thing, to tell them: I know who you are and I know where you live,” he said. “These letters have upset these folks. And these people have a right to be upset because … this makes them nervous … I have never seen anyone take this extraordinary measure to get the word out …

“Only bad news comes in certified letters.”