HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-17 Comments (3)Dear All,
This morning I spoke with Cliff Balderson of the VDOT region that serves Winchester. He
phoned me at the recent request of Delegate Christopher Collins to have VDOT look at the
current proffer. Mr. Balderson has reviewed a set of Carmeuse plans and noted the "proposed
tunnel" notation. His comments to me follow, and he gave me permission to quote him on these
explicit points:
1. VDOT like to be involved with planning early on, not at the last minute.
2. VDOT has told Carmeuse in the past that trucking their stone across Chapel road is not
an option and that stands.
3. VDOT has not had discussions with Carmeuse on the new proffer and was not aware of
the use of the phrase "conveyor belt."
4. VDOT would be unlikely to approve a typical conveyor belt structure carrying stone
overhead because of the risk to school buses, vehicles and people.
5. The Board of Supervisors should insert the phrase:
"contingent upon the approval of VDOT" into any action they take. (And we can push
for that.)
My personal fear on this is the reason that Carmeuse is not discussing the Chapel Road interface
is that it has viewscape consequences that we will find distasteful but will less able to affect
once the new proffer is approved
Either a one way or two way tunnel that large trucks would transit would require entry, exit and
possibly standby road shoulders if one way. Flashing lights to cue the trucks. A deep cutout
either side of the road if the roadbed is sunken. ETC.
This needs to see some daylight sooner rather than later or it remains a monster in the closet.
Robin Young
February 16. 2018
Submitted to BOS March 14, 2018
Rezoning Application #05-17
Subject
Message
My name is Edwin W. Streun and I reside at 276 Westernview Dr., Middletown VA. I am providing comments
concerning the revised proffers for Rezoning #05-17 (Carmeuse Lime and Stone) which will be reviewed at
the March 14, 2018 Board of Supervisors meeting. I have participated in multiple meetings among affected
community members and between community members and Carmeuse Lime & Stone staff and my
comments are based on those meetings.
The final revised proffer, while by no means perfect, provides a significant improvement over the original
(2008) proffer, especially with respect to the relocation of the berms to a position behind the existing tree
line and the push back of berm construction to a time frame closer to when mining operations will/may
actually take place. I strongly believe that the revised location of the berms will be a benefit to the
community as long as they are maintained at an (undulating) 20 to 30 foot height and not the lower height
described in the revised proffer. There are, however, many other community needs that have not been
addressed in the revised proffer and I respectfully urge you to provide for the needs of your constituents by
granting some sort of provisional acceptance pending additional discussion, or any other alternative
available within your administrative procedures that will prevent implementation of the original (2008)
proffer. Reversion to the 2008 proffer will be a completer and utter disservice to the community as a whole.
Thank you.
Edwin W. Streun
I would like to make The Board aware that we have been asked for input, regarding berm height, by Carmeuse, at a
meeting held 7:00 pm, Tuesday evening at Lord Fairfax Community College.
During the meeting we found out that once again, the meeting was concerning a last minute deadline that
Carmeuse had to submit revised proffers to The Board.
The community was not fully represented, because, AGAIN; Carmeuse has waited to the last minute to request
that we make our decision on the revised proffers to be submitted today.
People that wanted to attend were not there. We did not have time to collect the proxy votes, spread the word
and prepare a thorough review of the revised proffers given the undisclosed deadline.
We would like Carmeuse to be advised that this tactic is not in good faith and prevents your Board from receiving
all the quality and thought-out information that you are entitled too from the community.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul F. Kisak
Final update to the Carmeuse Proposed Proffers # 05-17.
I'm asking the planning Commission to deny this request as currently written
We as a community began attempting to work an agreement with Carmeuse since the day after the original
Frederick County meeting Mid -October. We as a community waisted NO time in getting this started.
Carmeuse delayed meeting with us as a community till January. All meetings and communication was as a
direct result of our community's tenacity.
The final meeting with Carmeuse was on 2-13 and they insisted final details must be made on the spot. Very
high pressure sales (like a time share presentation).
All that was verbally stated in the Meeting on 2/13, did not make it into the Proffers submitted to the
planning board.
If you read the words carefully, they left themselves a few legal loopholes that any first year law student
could later manipulate to not live up to the verbal ( and still weak) commitments they made at the 2/13
meeting.
Again, I'm asking the planning Commission to deny this request as currently written.
Thank you,
Kian D. Banks
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
Carmuse indicated verbally they would include some of the requests that
we provided them in writing. We would like to see these requests added in
the proffers for future residents and quarry owners.
Below is what we requested to be added to the proffers.
1. All 2008 proffers regarding planting of vegetation remain the same and
they will water and care for the vegetation until established.
2. Leave natural tree buffer along Westernview.
3. Limit hours of operation to day time shift north of Chapel Road.
4. No rock crushers or processing of any kind north of Chapel Road.
5. All quarry operations must be contained within the established berms.
6. Over burden piles or other waste shall not be higher than the berms.
7. All lighting will be mounted below berms and pointed down.
8. Permanent seismograph readers should be immediately installed for
homes that request them and have readings easily accessible to public.
9. Three wells that are in current proffers should be immediately installed
and have readings easily accessible to public.
10. Building of berms shall be completed 2 years before mining starts north
of Chapel Road.
11.Chapel Road shall not be crossed or used for dump trucks hauling
product.
12. Set times for blasting.
13. If berms do not protect view shed of homes, trees will be planted if
requested on homeowners property.
14. A berm shall be built on the south of Chapel for driver safety.
Provided by Paul Clevenger
02/21/18
276 Westernview Dr.
Middletown, VA 22645
November 9, 2017
County of Frederick
Department of Planning and Development
107 North Kent St., Suite 202
Winchester, VA 22601
Re: Rezoning Application #05-17
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Edwin W. Streun and I am the property owner of 276 Westernview Dr., Middletown, VA
22645. 1 have been advised that a request has been made, by Carmeuse Lime and Stone, to amend the
height and placement of the berm described in their existing proffer. My home is situated on an
elevated section of my property and overlooks, with direct line of sight, the topography in question.
My understanding of the proposed changes is as follows:
The berm described in the existing proffer will be moved (South) to a location beyond the
existing tree line. The current, existing field on which the original proffered berm was to be
built will remain clear and utilized for rural/farm purposes.
The height of the amended berm will be lowered so that it is out of view and not higher than
the existing tree line. The berm will be covered with vegetation/shrubbery with a planting of
trees on top.
- The field(s) on the far side of the tree line, which will be encompassed by the amended berm,
will be cleared and revert to pasture and/or rural farm use.
(2)
My understanding is that the actual mining operations, if undertaken, will begin some time after the
year 2028. These operations will take place below grade and may also include the movement of stone,
etc. by means of an eco -friendly conveyor system instead of trucks. If the changes previously described
are codified by specific, revised language in the amended proffer such as: "...the height of the amended
berm will be approximately 20-30 feet high, but not extend above the existing tree line, and be covered
with vegetation and topped with trees..." and "...the berm will be moved to a point beyond the existing
tree line...", etc., then I feel that the proposed changes will be much less intrusive than the original
proffered berm. I am therefore in favor of the proposed change, as described in the preceding
paragraphs, in place of the existing proffer.
Please be advised that my comments address only the proposed revision to the location and height of
the amended berm. There are many other revisions to the existing proffer that I have not had the time
to review and consider. At this point, I therefore neither support nor object to those other revisions.
Very truly yours,
Edwin W. Streun
cc. M. BAi s n -,r