Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout003-06 O-N Minerals (Chemstone) - 639.13 Acres RA to EM - Back Creek - Backfile (2)DATE ! �� RECEIVED )FROM L•�-�, A RESS ` `1 LG �ti tr ('ICE J FOR RENT qq JFOR AMT OF ACCOUNT CASH AMT. PAID �� CHECK BALANCE MONEY DUE ORDER NO. 9178 a5a^(,5 7 DOLLARS $ BY 14. m O o m N o � '^ 0 LL � O VJ U y 10� 0 v In U b11 �i, �n 2��fl DATE '� �F NO. += RECEIVED FROM ( - C 1 .tic �. C L, ADDRESSv�-' ��LLARS S F O R D AMT OF ACCOUNT CASH I BY ��i U � " • 2 {, n AMT. PAID 7 CHECK BALANCE MONEY DUE ORDER �HONING TRACKING SHOT Check List: Fee & Sign Deposit Applicatior, Form Deed Proffer Si ,tement Plat/Survey Impact Ar:alysis 1- - Taxes Paid Statement Adjoiner'List - ' Impact Model Run L DATE Sb-� a Application received/file opened S .3 a Reference manual updated/number assigned 3 3 D-base updated ,3 Copy of adjoiner list given to staff member for verification 3 Id D Four sets of adjoiner labels ordered from data processing r 3 0 0 e R14" v 1 1 ° black and __��*� location map ordered from Mapping 3 • /3 • Q(�� File given to office manager to update Application Action Summary ,,CPC public hearing date ACTION:[` r• (� g Cz' b �(p is •ea ing• (ate, ACTION: Signed -copy -of resolution-for-amendmentofordinance, with conditions proffered [if applicable], received from County Administrator's office and given to office manager for placement in the Proffers Notebook. (Note: If rezoning has no proffers, resolution goes in Amendments Without Proffers Notebook.) L' C g Action letter mailed to applicant -�4 a t r Reference manual and D-base updated File given to office manager to update Application Action Summary (final action) File given to Mapping/GIS to update zoning map Zoning map amended U \CwoNCommonuuecking. re Revised 05/09/02 BERM PLANTING (as recommended by the Virginia State Forester) EXISTING BERMS: Where existing berms do not have adequate ground cover to prevent them from eroding, they should be planted with various native grasses, shrubs, and trees. A successful mixture of buckwheat, rye and other grasses has been developed by quarry employees that has proven to be effective in vegetating these slopes. In spots where prior vegetating efforts have failed, it is recommended that erosion control methods such as landscape fabric and jute mats be installed prior to revegetating these spots. It may also be necessary to reshape the berm in these spots to retard water movement down the slope and to hold water for vegetation survival and growth by constructing planting terraces with existing rock and soil. RECOMMENDED TREE AND SHRUB SPECIES: Native species should be chosen to provide optimum survival, the least maintenance, and to further blend into the existing landscape. A list of suggested trees and shrubs for landscape plantings in the Shenandoah Valley is included. Actual species chosen need to be selected for the specific location they are to be planted, and their availability. Not all of these are available for purchase through nurseries. In general, these species should be intermixed to provide more of a camouflage effect along the face and ridgeline of the berms. Coniferous species should be planted where year-round screening is desired. Coniferous species, with their ability to survive better on hot dry slopes, should also be chosen for screening on south and west facing slopes. PLANTING RECOMMENDATIONS: Where possible, the topsoil removed in the initial stages of new quarry construction should be spread to the depth of 6 — 12 inches over all level surfaces that will be planted. For instance, the tops of the berms. The recommended planting terraces along the face of the berms should also be filled with topsoil prior to planting with trees and shrubs. Bare rooted plants are recommended because of their low cost, ease of planting, and good survivability. They should be planted in March or April of each year. INVASIVE SPECIES: Numerous invasive species now threaten native plants in eastern forests. If allowed to grow and spread unimpeded, they will crowd out native trees and have a negative impact on wildlife populations that depend on the native trees and shrubs for their food. Ailanthus (tree of heaven, paradise tree), paulownia, autumn olive and multiflora rose are the most common non-native invasive shrubs and trees in this locality. Ailanthus Has a distinct rancid odor in the leaves, twigs, and bark. Autumn Olive Aluminum sheen to f le Underside of the leaves. Large crop of red berries each fall. Paulownia Large leaves 8" —14" in diameter. Multiflora Rose Multiple stems from each plant. Numerous, short curved thorns. RECOMMENDATIONS: Once every 2 — 3 years, inspect all berms and associated land for invasive species. Where found, individual plants of these species should be either dug or pulled out of the ground, or deadened with herbicide applications to prevent the spread of their seed to these spots. One such herbicide recommended is RoundUp S. Cutting the tree down and painting concentrated RoundUp 3) herbicide on the stump within 2-3 minutes of cutting is very effective with invasive trees and requires a very little amount of herbicide. Very large trees can be girdled with a chainsaw or a hatchet, and a mixture of RoundUp® and water can be applied to the girdle to deaden the tree. This will also have the benefit FREDERICK COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FORM DATE : 5 C. I sL N�.e /-j REQUESTOR' S NAME: ADDRESS: l S (-C -�cJ� 4-�-1,U, 2z��/ TELEPHONE NUMBER: PUBLIC RECORD(S)-SOUGHT AND AMOUNT NEEDED (SEE BREAKDOWN ON PAGE 3 OF FOIA REQUEST FORM): 0 /-J o--Ss�-J 41, C/kj�j Please Note the Applicable FOIA Procedures The Virginia Freedom of Information Act (Virginia Code Section 2.2-3700, et. seq.) provides for inspection and copying of the official public records of the County of Frederick by citizens of the Commonwealth and media representatives. The procedures for inspecting or obtaining copies of County of Frederick public record(s) are as follows: 1) A request must be submitted to the County of Frederick identifying the public record(s) sought with reasonable specificity. 2) The County of Frederick will act diligently to locate and produce requested public records. However, the Freedom of Information Act allows five (5) work days to respond, and citizens should not expect the county's response to be instantaneous. If an extraordinary volume of records is requested, the county will advise the requestor in writing within the five (5) work day period which provides the county with an additional seven (7) work days to respond by statute. I o--Ss�-J 41, C/kj�j Please Note the Applicable FOIA Procedures The Virginia Freedom of Information Act (Virginia Code Section 2.2-3700, et. seq.) provides for inspection and copying of the official public records of the County of Frederick by citizens of the Commonwealth and media representatives. The procedures for inspecting or obtaining copies of County of Frederick public record(s) are as follows: 1) A request must be submitted to the County of Frederick identifying the public record(s) sought with reasonable specificity. 2) The County of Frederick will act diligently to locate and produce requested public records. However, the Freedom of Information Act allows five (5) work days to respond, and citizens should not expect the county's response to be instantaneous. If an extraordinary volume of records is requested, the county will advise the requestor in writing within the five (5) work day period which provides the county with an additional seven (7) work days to respond by statute. I Public Records Request Form Page 2 of 3 3) The Freedom of Information Act allows the County of Frederick to assess a reasonable charge to,access, search for, duplicate, and supply requested public records. There is a fee for the county's services which must be paid before the records are received. The County of Frederick will charge the hourly rate of pay for the time expended by its employees in searching for and reproducing the record. The County of Frederick will also charge for copying at the rate of $0.20 per page for letter size duplication, $0.25 per page for legal size duplication, $0.50 per page for 11 x 17 duplication, $0.40 per page to duplex letter size public records, $0.50 to duplex legal size public records, and $1.00 to duplex 11 x 17 public records. Prior to the search, the County of Frederick will estimate the cost of providing the publics record(s) to the requestor. Where estimated costs exceed $200, the County of Frederick will require payment of the estimated cost by the requestor in advance. 4) The County of Frederick is not required to create or prepare a particular requested record if it does not already exist. The County of Frederick is not required to abstract or summarize information from official records, or to convert a record from one form to another. Only existing public records are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Not all public records of the County of Frederick are obtainable under the Freedom of Information Act. Examples of exempt public records include, but are not limited to, police investigation records, personnel records, closed session memoranda, tax returns, opinions of the county attorney, litigation records, customer utility records (including the customer's name and service address, but excluding the amount and costs of service), appraisal and cost estimates, and trade secret information. If it is determined that all or part of requested public records are exempt under the Freedom of Information Act, the county will respond with a written 1. explanation. SIGNATURE OF REQUESTOR: E' Public Records Request Form Page 3 of 3 Itemization Cost of FOIA Request ESTIMA pE OF COST COST HOURLY NQ OF SUBTOTAL ; R ATEATEM HOURS/iTEM Administrative Time $ /HOUR,S $ Copies Letter (Duplexed count each side as 1page)' 2'0/Page Copies - Legal (Duplexed count each side as 1 pagie) .25/Page /Pages $ Copies =11 x 17 (Duplexed count each sid'c as 1 page ' S0/Pa e P g) g /Pages $ Tapes - Regular Recording (No charge if tape is replaced by requestor) $1.70/Each /Tapes $ Video T,,,apes ' $ $ $2"�00/Each CostofTape /Tapes y $ Miscellaneous $ /Each $ tt Q� r $ J I F 4�m4 DATE PAYMENT RECEIVED: SIGNATURE OF EMPLOYEE: ja ;-2- � ��� t-n � �1 l<Y n o C:\cihT-oia\foiarequestfrtn.wpd Revised 4/8/03 �f ^ po, AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: June 7, 2006 - Recommended Denial BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: May 28, 2008 ID APPROVED ❑ DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING #03-06 OF O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) WHEREAS, Rezoning 403-06 of O-N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 394.2 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers dated June 13, 2005 and final revision May 27, 2008, was considered. The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west of Hites Road (Route 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The properties are in the Back Creels Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 83-A-109 and 90-A-23. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on April 5, 2006 with final action taken on June 7, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on April 23, 2008 with final action taken on May 28, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 394.2 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District, with proffers, for a quarry, as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owners. PDRes. 4 10-08 C This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 28th day of May, 2008 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chainnan Gary Dove Gene E. Fisher Philip A. Lemieux Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Aye Bill M. Ewing Nay Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Nay Nay A COPY ATTEST John ."'Rile}, Jr s` Fredeppk County Administrator PDRes. iE 10-08 41 5 REZONING APPLICATION #03-06 O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: May 22, 2008 - (Original prepared on March 20, 2006, May 22, 2006, and April 14, 2008) Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director BOARD OF SUPERVISORS UPDATE FOR 05/28/08 MEETING The following is a chronology of events that have occurred since the Board of Supervisors tabled this request at your April 23, 2008 meeting. The Applicant provided a revised Draft Proffer Statement to County dated May 14, 2008. Staff and Mr. Mitchell reviewed and commented on revised proffers dated May 14, 2008 and met with Applicant on May 19, 2008 (Mr. Mitchell provided a review letter dated May 19, 2008). The Applicant provided a revised Draft Proffer Statement to County dated May 20, 2008. Staff and Mr. Mitchell reviewed and commented on revised proffers dated May 20, 2008 and met with Applicant on May 21, 2008 (Mr. Mitchell provided a review letter dated May 21, 2008). The Applicant provided a revised Final Proffer Statement to County dated May 22, 2008. Mr. Mitchell reviewed the Final Proffer Statement dated May 22, 2008 and states that the Applicant has made an effort to address the staff comments and his legal review comments. Further, that the Applicant has made numerous revisions to the Proffer Statement and has improved the Proffer Statement. The Proffer Statement is in the appropriate legal form. Mr. Mitchell has provided an update of his legal review in the attached letter dated May 22, 2008; letter attached. The following is a summary of the changes that the Applicant has made to their application and is based upon the Applicant's Proffer Statement dated May 22, 2008. The Applicant has reduced the total acreage sought to be rezoned from 639.13 acres to 394.2 acres, a reduction of 244.93 acres. The Applicant has modified their GDP to reflect the reduced acreage and has specifically incorporated the following into the Proffer Statement; the additional phasing plans and view shed plats, the berming and landscape recommendations of the VA State Forester, the exhibit which clarifies the 8 acre dedication, and the well and blasting survey and agreements. The Applicant has proffered to limit the truck loads to 86 per day, except under certain circumstances, in which event it will be limited to 200 per day. The Applicant has made a number of additional changes to address the comments offered by Mr. Mitchell which are further described in Mr. Mitchell's May 22, 2008 - proffer review letter. Sr Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 2 Based upon an evaluation of the May 22, 2008 Proffer Statement, opinion to the Board that the Board is not required to hold another conditional rezoning application with the revised proffers and re( letter dated May 22, 2008. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 3 * * *STAFF REPORT FROM THIS POINT FOR WARD HAS NOT BEEN MODIFIED SINCE YOUR 04123108 MEETING*** BOARD OF SUPERVISORS UPDATE AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR 04/23/08 MEETING. The Plarming Commission had a considerable amount of discussion regarding this application and numerous issues and concerns were raised by the Conunission. Fifty-seven (57) citizens spoke during the Public Hearing for this request. The Commission recognized conflicts with the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan as identified in the staff report and acknowledged significant issues and impacts associated with the request that had not been satisfactorily addressed by the Applicant. These included the following: - Potential impacts associated with the scope and more intensive use of properties. - Historic resource concerns (HRAB) -View shed coordination and mitigation -Cultural Resource Surveys - Envirommental impacts. - Rural view shed impacts. - Transportation impacts on Route 625, its intersection with Route 11, and the Town. - Potential groundwater, dust, and blasting impacts and controls on adjacent properties. Ultimately, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of denial to the Board of Supervisors. Following the Commission's review, the Applicant has provided a revised Proffer Statement. However, the modifications in the Proffer Statement are relatively limited and focus upon recognition of the two historical cemeteries discovered on the property and a phasing plan for the quarry. In summary, while the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application addresses several of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, more significant elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Board of Supervisors should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. These would include: 1) The Potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties and the scope of the use. 2) The recommendations of the Historic Resources Advisory Board, particularly regarding view shed coordination and mitigation and Cultural Resource Surveys 3) The potential groundwater, dust, and blasting and view shed impacts on adjacent properties. 4) Transportation impacts, particularly within the Town of Middletown. Rezoning 403-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 4 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning (natter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: April 5, 2006 Tabled 60 days June 7, 2006 Recommended Denial Board of Supervisors: April 23, 2008 Tabled 30 days May 28, 2008 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. LOCATION: The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west and adjacent to Hites Road (Route 625), and is bisected by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential South: EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Use: Shenandoah County East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural PROPOSED USES: Quarry Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 5 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 757. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Global Stone Chemstone Corporation rezoning application dated June 13, 2005 address transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization and off - site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Will not directly effect fire and rescue. Plan approval recornmended. Department of Inspections: Demolition permit required prior to removing any existing structures. No additional comments required. Public Works Department: Refer to page 4, Environmental Features: The discussion indicated that an environmental report prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) was included with the impact statement as Appendix "A". A copy of this report was not included with our submittal. Please provide us with a copy of this report for our review. Refer to page 6, Soils/Geology: The geology discussion should be expanded to include hydrogeology and the impact of the project on the local groundwater. In particular, the subdivisions which rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. General: The impact analysis has not addressed one very important item related to a rezoning from RA to EM. That item is the impact or effect of blasting on adjacent residential buildings. This issue should also be expanded to include the impact of dust on adjacent residential dwellings. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority: The Frederick County Sanitation Authority supports this rezoning request. The Authority will use these pits, when abandoned, as a source of water supply under an agreement with Global Stone Chemstone Corporation, dated March 2, 2000. Larger pits will provide a more abundant supply and reliable source of water. Larger pits are also more cost effective for the Authority to develop as a water supply. That benefits the residents of Frederick County that depend upon the Authority for water service. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Health Department has no objection if there is to be no increase in water use which would require sewage disposal. GIS: No road/name requirements noted. Any road network that provides primary access to four or more occupied business structures shall be names. Numbering will be assigned as applicable. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 6 Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Winchester Regional Airport: Allowed uses under this rezoning should not effect airside operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Town of Middletown: The Middletown Town Council provided the County with a resolution opposing this rezoning request. Please see attached resolution dated May 8, 2006 Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached correspondence from Mr. Bob Mitchell datedAPril 4, 2008 and April 11, 2008. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Please seethe attached letter dated January 3, 2006, signed by Candice E. Perkins, Planner H. Planninf, & Zoninjz: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Middletown Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living envirorunent within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The property for which the rezoning is being requested is located within the Rural Areas of Frederick County. This land use designation is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as all areas outside of the designated Urban Development Area. The primary land uses in the Rural Areas are agriculture and forests. The primary growth pattern consisting of widely scattered, large lot Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 7 residential development. Many residents of Frederick County are attracted to the natural beauty and special lifestyle found in rural portions of the County. Excessive or inappropriate development in these areas can reduce their value and attractiveness. At the same time, the rural areas play an important role in the County's economy through the income generated by agriculture. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-551 The subject property contains areas of prime agricultural soils which are generally located in the limestone belt rurming north -south through the County. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the value to the County's economy of the limestone resources within the County and the extraction of these natural resources. Within the Business and Industrial Area policies it is recognized that policies are needed and standards should be developed concerning how to deal with new requests for large mining operations [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-11, 6-72]. The Rural Areas Conclusion states that most of the County will continue to be rural areas used for agriculture, forests, or low density residential uses. Certain types of business uses may be located at scattered rural locations if safe access is available, and if adverse impacts on surrounding uses and the rural environment can be avoided. These rural business and industrial uses should be those that provided services to rural areas or that are more appropriate in rural areas than urban areas. The locations for such business would include major intersections or locations with recent or existing business activity [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-60] Two of the identified goals of the Rural Area policy are to maintain the rural character of areas outside the UDA and to protect the rural environment [ComprehensNe Policy Plan, p. 6-76]. F1112 i J-n 1.711119 11f The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need to promote environmental issues and protect the environment in several locations. Specific goals of the Environmental Chapter include identifying and protecting important natural resources and protecting the natural environment from damage due to development activity. After describing the physical characteristics of the County, the Environment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan addresses Water Supply. Issues concerning water quality, quantity, use, and protection of water resources are directly related to land development activities. Water supplies are needed to support development, while surface and groundwater are potentially affected by development activities [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3]. Major sources of water used in the County are groundwater and the North Fork of the Shenandoah River. In 2000, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority entered a seventy year lease with Global Stone Chemstone Corporation (Global). Global owns quarries at Clearbrook, Middletown, and Strasburg. The lease provides the water from these quarries as a source of supply and transfers title of the quarries to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority when the mining operations are complete. The agreement has provided a viable long term source of water for the County [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3] Rezoning 403-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 8 Groundwater is the major source of water supply in the rural portions of the County and provides a potential alternative source for urban areas. In all, over half the population of the County relies on groundwater as the sole source of water supply. The most productive aquifers in the County are the limestone -carbonate aquifers [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3, 5-4]. Histor The property for which the rezoning is being requested is located adjacent to Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield. Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield are historic sites in Frederick County that are listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. Cedar Creek is identified as one of six battlefields of great national importance that are located in Frederick County and Winchester. The Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County further identifies both sites as potentially significant properties. In addition, the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property as being within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek. Significant portions of Cedar Creek, along with Third Winchester and Kernstown battlefields provided the critical mass and the foundation for the Battlefield Network Plan which was adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on December 13, 1995, and subsequently incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Excerpts from the Battlefield Network Plan have been provided for your information. The Battlefield Network Plan and the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley were important catalysts for the designation of the regional Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District which was created by Congress in 1996. More recently, the efforts of the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Foundation and the National Park Service continue to further historic preservation efforts relating to the civil war battlefields located in Frederick County and the broader region. To address the historic preservation policy goal of protecting the historic resources in Frederick County, The Comprehensive Plan provides that the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) review development proposals which potentially impact significant historic resources and that the HRAB's information and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB facilitated the involvement of the historic preservation stakeholders in the review of this rezoning request. The recommendation of the HRAB accompanies this report and will be discussed in greater detail later in the report. Identified implementation methods for promoting the preservation and protection of Civil War Battlefield resources include the preservation and protection of the historical appearance and character of the key battlefield sites, their viewsheds, and their approaches, and the coordination of the battlefield efforts with efforts to protect and preserve natural, visual, and enviromrrental resources [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 2-11-13]. Rezoning #03-06 — ON Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 9 Transportation The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan does not cover this portion of the County. The properties are located in the Rural Area of the County. A large portion of the roads within the County are currently inadequate to meet the needs of the areas they serve. There is a need to insure that improvements to existing rural roads continue to be made in a systematic way and that new rural roads are provided as needed [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 7-1]. In general, the Comprehensive Plan states that a Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments within the County. The applicants Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) seeks to address the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning request. However, the TIA does not account for the character of the truck traffic and does not evaluate the heavy truck traffic's impact on the context of the streets within the Town of Middletown. 3) Site Suitability/Environment Both properties contain envirorunentally sensitive areas. The applicant has identified wetlands, streams, and floodplains, and areas of mature woodlands on the properties. Exhibits have been provided that depict these envirorunental features. Any disturbance of identified environmental resources would occur in conformance with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations. Cedar Creek forms the Southern boundary of the property. Cedar Creek, with its steep slopes, cliffs, and associated floodplain is a significant environmental resource for Frederick County and the adjoining Shenandoah County. Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook are the existing streams that traverse the subject properties. Both streams have associated floodplain designations. It must be recognized that the proposed mining operation would most significantly impact Middle Marsh Brook which would be relocated to allow for the excavation of the mining pit. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. Multiple soil types are located on the sites. The site contains soil types that are considered prime agricultural soils. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. It is recognized that the limestone deposits that underlie the properties provide the ideal geological conditions for Extractive Manufacturing use. In addition, the most productive aquifers in the County are the limestone -carbonate aquifers that are present in this area. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 10 4) Potential Impacts Potential Impact Summary. The County is familiar with the operation and practices of the existing Middletown Quarry operation and recognizes that the purpose of the rezoning request is to enable the expansion of the existing limestone ore extraction operation onto adjacent properties, utilizing this natural resource. However, lacking a commitment that seeks to further define the scope of operations, this application should be evaluated carefully and with the understanding that the use of the properties could be more intensive than that described in the applicant's impact statement. In evaluating the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application it is very important to recognize that the applicant has proffered a commitment to not engage in several land uses permitted within the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. However, the use of the property as enabled by the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District, beyond those land uses which would be eliminated, would have a major impact both on -site and off -site. Significant land uses, meeting the applicable development standards, would be permitted within the district based upon the application as submitted. Consideration should be given to- the maximum possible intensity of EM (Extractive Manufacturing) use identified in the County's Zoning Ordinance (a copy of the EM (Extractive Manufacturing District has been provided for your review). The impacts associated with this rezoning request may be significant and should be understood. The applicant should be prepared to continue to address the mitigation of the impacts associated with this rezoning request, in particular, those impacts and issues identified by the reviewing agencies, Commission, and Board of Supervisors. Guarantees in the form of proffered conditions have not been offered to ensure that the impacts generated by this application are limited and consistent with the discussion in the Impact Statement. The applicant has the ability to address this through the Proffer Statement. When considering the acreage potential, the dimensional requirements, and the EM District uses, it is possible that facilities located adjacent to and with access from Chapel Road could result, as could facilities located within 50 feet of the adjacent RA zoned property surrounding the site. The scope of the impacts could exceed the projections identified and accommodated in the impact statement and TIA. Frederick County's Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Amendment Process seek to ensure that the impacts of a particular Zoning Amendment are fully identified, analyzed, and addressed before an amendment is approved. It is essential that the impacts are known prior to the rezoning, so the mitigation or avoidance of identified impacts can be recognized in the request and proffer statement. In general, the proffer statement and generalized development plan provide the Applicant with the opportunity to further define the scope of the land use activity on the property. Limiting the potential acreage of development, new facility construction, and further limiting the type of uses on the property would limit the potential impacts of the EM development of this property. Rezoning 403-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 11 It is evident that many of the potential impacts of this request are unknown and have not been clearly identified in the impact analysis. The potential scope of the impacts are not fully understood. The most significant example of this with this application is the historic and cultural resources. A. Historic Resources The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application during their December 20, 2005 meeting. Invited to attend the meeting by the HRAB were representatives of the various historical and cultural groups considered stakeholders in relationship to the historical resources in the vicinity of the rezoning. The following stakeholder groups were represented: Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, National Park Service, and the Town of Middletown. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, information provided by the applicant as well as information provided by various groups that were in attendance of the meeting. The 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property in question as being located within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek. The property also contains the site where the Nieswanger Fort once stood. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The HRAB expressed concern that the proposed rezoning was not protecting the viewshed of the battlefield and the Belle Grove property as well as the archeological resources present on the Cedar Creek Battlefield and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. The HRAB felt that the applicant still needs to address many issues with this rezoning before it should be considered by the Plarming Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB expressed that they could support the approval of this project if the suggestions offered as a result of the HRAB meeting are considered by the applicant in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources (Please see HRAB letter dated January 3, 2006, signed by Candice E. Perkins, Planner 11). The applicant has modified their rezoning application in an effort to address two of the nine comments suggested by the HRAB. However, many of the valid recommendations offered by the HRAB have not been addressed. Two of the most significant and constructive comments offered by the HRAB (the first two comments in the letter from the HRAB) should be further satisfied to ensure that the potential impacts associated of the rezoning are appropriately addressed. Presently, they have not been addressed in a manner that satisfies the concerns expressed by the HRAB. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 12 The opportunity has been provided for the applicant to work with the identified stakeholders, Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, and the National Park Service, to prepare a view shed mitigation plan that addresses the unique view sheds and approaches critical to their particular points of view. Understanding their points of view, a tailored approach that integrates the natural landscape with customized berming and landscaping would promote an approach to the view shed management that mitigates the visual impacts of the mining operations in an effective manner. A customized approach to the buffering, berming, and landscaping would be more appropriate than the present approach proposed in the proffer statement. In certain locations, particularly on the southern property (90-A-23), designating areas of non disturbance would preserve the existing landscape and by taking advantage of the topography effectively mitigate the visual impacts of the mining operations. A strategic approach to the location and size of the waste stockpiles identified on the exhibits should also be a consideration. Current practice at the existing facility with regards to the stockpiling of overburden should be avoided in the future. Approaches to addressing the visual impacts of the proposed operations should be more detailed and should be incorporated into the proffer statement. The applicant has provided for the dedication of approximately eight acres as an historic reserve. This is in an area where archeological resources associated with the Belle Grove Plantation have previously been identified. A time fiame has been provided for the dedication of this acreage. However, an appropriate recipient has not been identified in the latest proffer statement. Previously, the Applicant had proffered the dedication to Belle Grove. This is the entity recommended to be the recipient by the County Attorney. The HRAB suggested that a Phase 1 Archeological Survey should be done on the property focusing on core battlefield areas and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. If warranted subsequent studies should be performed. The applicant has proffered to complete a Phase 1 Archeological Survey of the property in the future. However, no commitments have been made beyond a Phase 1 Survey. Further, this survey is proffered to occur after the rezoning of the property rather than before. The goal of the HRAB comments is to enable the reining operations to expand in a manner which is not detrimental to the historical context of the surrounding landscape. Further, to promote an approach that is mutually beneficial to the applicant, historic preservation stakeholders, and the adjacent community. The HRAB comments provide the opportunity for O-N Chemstone to continue to address the needs of the community, minimizing the impacts of their operations in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding community, in a manner described in their Impact Statement. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 13 Subsequent to the Planning Commission's review of this application, two historic cemeteries have been identified by the Applicant, the historic Tabler and Nisewander Family Cemeteries. A report regarding these cemeteries is provided with your agenda B. Transportation Much of the analysis in the Impact Statement is based upon the continuation of the existing practices of the Middletown quarry operation. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the impact statement suggests that the vehicle trips would increase by more than double from the existing count of 506 vehicles per day to 1,305 vehicle trips per day. A more significant increase in Global Stone truck traffic is anticipated in the TIA from 19 trucks per day to 80 per day and an increase of 56 customer truck trips per day. It should be recognized that a different combination or additional uses may fiu-ther increase the traffic impacts associated with this request. As evidenced at the existing Strasburg facility, additional traffic impacts could be experienced from a more intensive use of the property than is currently envisioned. The Applicant has proposed a restriction to the truck traffic. However, this would still enable a considerable amount of traffic, particularly, heavy truck traffic. In addition, the mechanism to administer this proffer is problematic to the County as it creates an undesirable, ongoing enforcement issue. This should be avoided. Primary access to the site is depicted as being from the existing site entrance along Route 625 (5t" Street) to U.S. Route 11, Main Street in the Town of Middletown. The Town has expressed their opposition to the increase of truck traffic through Middletown. Previously, a significant amount of discussion regarding the inter -site transfer of materials via a conveyor belt system is offered in the impact statement. This approach should not presently be part of the consideration of this rezoning request. As demonstrated in the TIA, a level of service C or better would be achieved at the intersection of Route 11 and Route 625 (5th Street). Consideration should be given to the character of the traffic generated from the facility and utilizing the aforementioned intersection. The traffic will be predominantly large, heavy truck traffic which would have a greater impact on the rural and small town context of the streets within Middletown. Noise and dust from the heavy truck traffic has been an issue in the past and would likely continue to be in the future. B. Mining Operations and Community Impacts Associated with mining operations is the potential for a variety of impacts that may affect surrounding properties and land uses. The Division of Mineral Mining of the Virginia Department of Mines is responsible for permitting mining operations within the State of Virginia including the operations of 0-N Chemstone at the Middletown Quarry. The EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provides additional local requirements that seek to minimize the impacts associated with Extractive Manufacturing uses. Provisions and performance standards are provided to protect surrounding uses from adverse impacts. Appropriate landscaping or screening may be required by the Zoning Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 14 Administrator or Plarming Commission within any required yard setback area in order to reasonably protect adjacent uses from noise, sight, dust, or other adverse impacts. The County Engineer reviewed the request and provided input expressing concerns regarding the geological impacts and the potential hydrological impacts, in particular the impact of the project on the local groundwater which includes the adjacent subdivisions that rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. With regards to the geology discussion, the impact or effect of blasting on adjacent residential buildings should be fully considered as should the impact of dust from the mining operations on adjacent residential dwellings. The Impact Statement did not fully address these potential impacts. As a result of the input of the County Engineer, the applicant has included proffers that seek to address the groundwater, dust, and blasting concerns associated with this rezoning request. In addition, mechanisms have been proffered to help resolve issues that may occur in the future. In addition to the potential impacts of the proposed mining operations on the view shed from the historical perspective, serious consideration should be given to the visual impacts on the rural landscape from the perspective of the adjacent residential landowners and from the perspective of residents and visitors traveling along Chapel Lane which bisects parcel 83-A-109 and the proposed mining operation. Summary of Impacts: - Potential impacts associated with the more intensive use of properties - Historic Resource Concerns (HRAB) -View shed coordination and mitigation -Cultural Resource Surveys - Enviromnental Impacts - Rural view shed. - Transportation impacts on Route 625, its intersection with Route 11, and the Town. - Potential groundwater, dust, and blasting impacts and controls on adjacent properties. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated March 18, 2008 (Previous revisions dated June 13, 2005, January 16, 2006, February 8, 2006, February 17, 2006, and August 28, 2006) Please see the comments provided by Mr. Bob Mitchell regarding this latest proffer Statement April 4, 2008 and April 11, 2008. The applicant has provided that the property shall be developed with EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Land uses. The Applicant has further restricted several EM (Extractive Manufacturing) land uses. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 14 With regards to site development, the applicant has attempted to limit access to the existing site entrance, has proffered distance buffers, earthen berms, and landscaping to minimize the impacts to the view shed of the surrounding community. It should be understood that no minimum standards have been offered to ensure that the site development proffers will minimize the potential impacts of the mining operations on tlae surrounding community and address the expressed concerns of the HRAB. An eight acre historic reserve to be dedicated to a recognized historic group has been proffered by the applicant. The County Attorney has recommended that this entity be Belle Grove. A limited Phase 1 Archeological Survey has been proffered by the applicant. No commitments have been made beyond a Phase I Survey. Further, the survey would only occur following the approval of the rezoning. The resources, and impacts to these resources if any, should be known prior to rezoning. The Applicant has proffered to preserve the two cemeteries that were identified on the property. These cemeteries were only recognized following the public input provided during the Planning Commission review process. The Applicant has proffered to preserve these resources within the context of the mining operation. The Applicant has proffered to keep its mining operations at least 200 feet from Cedar Creek. No other commitment regarding the protection of this resource has been provided. The applicant has guaranteed to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority rights to the groundwater resources in accordance with existing agreements between the applicant and the FCSA. The applicant has stated their intent to monitor, minimize the impacts, and remediate any impacts associated with groundwater, dust, and blasting; has proposed to perform voluntary pre - blast surveys on adjacent properties and wells; and has included a bonding mechanism as security. An additional proffer has been included following the Planning Commission's review which seeks to address the phasing of mining activities. Mining in the Northern Reserve would occur immediately following the approval of the rezoning; mining in the area south of Chapel Road would commence no earlier than ten years from the date of the rezoning; and mining in the area north of Chapel Road would commence no earlier than twenty years from the date of the rezoning. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 16 APPENDIX A — PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW INFORMATION STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 04/05/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application addresses many of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the following: 1) The Potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties. 2) The recommendations of the Historic Resources Advisory Board, particularly regarding view shed coordination and mitigation and Cultural Resource Surveys 3) The potential groundwater, dust, and blasting and view shed impacts on adjacent properties. 4) Transportation impacts, particularly within the Town of Middletown. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 04/05/06 MEETING: Planning Staff provided an overview of the application. This was followed by a presentation by the applicant of their project. During the Planning Commission's initial discussions, Commissioners wanted to know which State agency, the Department of Mines and Minerals (DMM) or the Department of Enviromnental Quality (DEQ), was responsible for overseeing aquifer protection, particularly, the quality and quantity protection measures. Commissioners suggested that a fund or bond be set up in escrow if a determination of responsibility for well damage had to be contested. In addition, they suggested that an agent of the County be assigned as a designated mediator in remediation situations. Berms were discussed and the case was made for smaller berms with flatter slopes in order to be more viewshed-friendly. Higher berms would be necessary in certain limited cases, while a minimurn height was also suggested to conceal the height of a truck. It was suggested that the language should state, "...an average of 30 feet with higher berms as required for proper viewshed conditions." Commissioners commented that the applicant's proffer statement seemed to be too general and they would have preferred to see more specificity, particularly dealing with the placement and monitoring of seismographs, the eight -acre reserve area for Belle Grove, a detailed plan showing the berms, a detailed phasing plan, and buffer details. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 17 Due to the Commission's Bylaws requiring a mandatory 11:00 p.m. adjournment, the Planning Commission did not have enough time to hold the public comment portion of the hearing. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to table the rezoning for 60 days, until June 7, 2006. (All members of the Planning Commission were present.) PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE FOR 06/07/06 MEETING: Staff has not received any materials from the applicant in modification of the O-N Minerals Rezoning Application, RZ03-06. The concerns and issues identified during the Planning Commission's initial discussions regarding this application, and the issues identified in the initial staff report, remain un- addressed. The Public Hearing for this application was not held during the 04/05/06 Planning Commission meeting due to time constraints. As a result, the Conunission should satisfy the Public Hearing requirements at the 06/07/06 meeting. The information offered during the Public Hearing should also be a consideration of the Planning Commission during their evaluation of this rezoning application. Since the initial 04/05/06 meeting at which the O-N Minerals Rezoning Application was considered, staff has been provided with numerous correspondence regarding this rezoning application. This additional public comment, in addition to an updated comment in the form of a resolution from the Town of Middletown, is included with this rezoning application package for your information. In addition, at the request of the applicant, staff met with Mr. David Benner, Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy to discuss the role his department plays in permitting and monitoring proposed and existing operations such as the Chemstone Middletown facility. Staff is confident that the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy will effectively carry out their responsibilities and duties. However, their responsibilities and duties are limited to the permitting and monitoring of the mining operations. It was made very clear that coordination with other State Agencies through the permitting process was minimal. Further, it was made clear that the Department's involvement with the adjacent property owners was limited and that in no way does the Department take a position in resolving conflicts that may arise between adjacent property owners and mining companies. The responsibility of addressing impacts that may be realized by properties in the vicinity of mining operations would rest with the affected property owner. The locality would have the responsibility of monitoring impacts and enforcing compliance in cases where the locality accepted proffered conditions aimed at mining operation impact mitigation. Please find attached to end of this report additional correspondence from various sources including The Town of Middletown, L. Preston Bryant, Commonwealth of Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources, and Mr. Woodward S. Bousquet. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 18 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 06/07/06 MEETING: Fifty-seven citizens spoke at the Planning Commission's public hearing on June 7, 2006. Of the 57 citizens, 55 persons spoke in opposition to the rezoning and two spoke in favor of the rezoning. Included in the 55 persons who spoke in opposition were representatives of various historic, environmental, and state agencies, such as the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, the Belle Grove Plantation, the National Park Service at Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park, the Headwaters Conservation for the Potomac Conseivancy, and the Greater Middletown Business Association. Many speakers belonged to a citizens group called Preserve Frederick, some were local business owners, and other speakers were simply residents of Middletown and the surrounding area. Letters were received from the Commonwealth of Virginia's Secretary of Natural Resources, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the Belle Grove Plantation, along with numerous citizen letters and petitions. Following is an abbreviated summary of the concerns raised by speakers in opposition to the rezoning. Representatives for the historic, environmental, and state agencies expressed concern that the request to expand mining operations and change the zoning on 639 acres would negatively impact the historic view shed and landscape. Agency representatives encouraged the quarry to undertake a comprehensive view shed analysis and present a written plan and timeline to mitigate, remove, screen, and/or plant the existing large waste pile to the northwest of Belle Grove, which was visible from both the Belle Grove and Cedar Creek property and was already problematic in terms of the historic landscape. Public health and safety issues were raised concerning increased truck traffic through Middletown and along Valley Pike. Concern was raised that the increase in heavy commercial vehicles would envelope the community in constant background noise and added air pollution, which currently deposits a grey layer of fine limestone particles and diesel soot on most exterior surfaces. Problems with existing truck traffic through Middletown were expressed, noting the challenge faced by both residents and tourists alike. The Greater Middletown Business Association noted that Middletown's retail businesses derive the majority of their income from tourism and it was critical that the con-ununity continues to be a desirable destination for tourists. Concern was expressed for the air quality and fugitive dust emissions, noise, and vibration from blasting, particularly to Belle Grove. Regarding the environment, a recent report published in conjunction with Shenandoah University, detailed the ecological and historic context of the Cedar Creek Watershed. The report revealed the existence of sensitive eco-systems, supporting a variety of unique plant species and mature hardwood forests on adjacent property. The possibility that similar ecosystems and rare plant communities could exist on the Chemstone property was raised, along with the concern about the impact of a larger and more intensive quarry operation, or other permitted uses under EM District zoning, on the water quality and aquatic life in Cedar Creek. Efforts to preserve or restore forested buffers along Watson Run, Middle Marsh Brook, and Cedar Creek were encouraged to prevent any influx of water into these waterways which could choke off the diverse aquatic life. Terrestrial and aquatic habitats within the proposed proj ect's area were identified and concern was raised that state -threatened and endangered wildlife species, such as the bald eagle, wood turtles, and various bird species could be affected. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chernstone) May 22, 2008 Page 19 Speakers from the citizens group, Preserve Frederick, were in opposition to the rezoning and raised many issues regarding the inadequacies of the application, non-conformance with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan, impacts to water, as well as quality of life, air quality, public health, traffic, the environment, and negative economic impacts. Some of the specifics of the public's concerns included: The Comprehensive Plan states that measures aimed at increasing the appeal of areas to tourists and businesses need to be developed and implemented; however, the sharp increase in industrial traffic and pollutants from the mining operation will not create small-town ambiance, which is the key economic ingredient to the success of Middletown's businesses and tourism. Negative visual impacts, traffic, and noise will erode the Town's assets of Main Street, the National Park, the Battlefield, and its rural character. Further, over 1,300 dump truck trips per day will in no way help to minimize congestion of the main corridor to this quaint, one -light town. Nothing was more contradictory to the guidelines of the Comprehensive Policy Plan than a heavy, dirty industrial corporation operating within a rural, historic national park and battlefield community; it was a clearly incompatible land use. Local business owners were concerned that the destruction of the landscape, the dust, and the increased truck traffic with its noise and fumes, will have a very negative affect on out-of-town visitors and will jeopardize their businesses and livelihoods. Roads in this area are not constructed for large amounts of heavy truck traffic and over -sized vehicles. Numerous health issues were raised; expansion of quarry mining operations will be detrimental to public health and safety. Operations will be too close to residences, increased safety hazards were named dealing with fly rock from blasting, increased truck traffic, and safety to children. It was noted that truck traffic emissions will have severe health consequences for the community and statistics were quoted indicating that diesel exhaust is one of the greatest public health risks of all air pollutants. It was reported that diesel combustion releases fine particles and gases, called soot, which are typically smaller than 2.5 microns; this fine particulate matter is an air -quality containinant regulated under the Clean Air Act. Diesel soot contains many toxins and can be inhaled into the deepest parts of the lungs where it is able to enter the bloodstream; a considerable number of associated respiratory illnesses were named. A police officer spoke about road traffic safety. He expressed concern about quarry trucks, some of which are 75-feet long and weighing up to 80,000 pounds, which can often be seen exceeding the posted speed limit and barreling down back country roads with tight curves, unsafe shoulders, and hills. It was noted that families travel these roads, along with school buses, the elderly and teenagers with new licenses. It was noted that tripling the amount of heavy industrial traffic through the countryside would be a recipe for disaster. Comments from a retired, professional geologist noted that the extension of limestone mining west and north of Middletown could bring detrimental health consequences to people living on farms and residences in proximity to the operation. In addition to occasional fly rock, blasting will open existing rock fractures or develop new fractures that could cause nearby wells to dry up and/or drain fields to malfunction. Fracturing induced by blasting could release residual clays from sirAdholes and voids, thereby fouling water wells; operations of crushing, grinding, and loading brings the potential for large accumulations of dust and hazardous metals. Rezoning 403-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 20 Citizens in the health profession expressed concern for water -borne pollutants and toxic elements; tests on local well systems from 1995 through 2006 revealed occasional high levels of toxic elements, including nitrate, cadmium, iron, and lead. Percentages of the elements found were quoted and the health problems associated with these levels were named. Other citizens in the health profession expressed concern for air -borne pollutants and fine particulate matter generated by limestone mining operations and extraction. Because of the westerly -prevailing winds, it was believed that residents of Middletown and students at Lord Fairfax Community College and Middletown Elementary School would be directly exposed to far greater emissions from the blasting, extraction, and refining of minerals. Health problems such as astluna, chronic obstructive lung diseases, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis were mentioned. It was noted that O-N Minerals was already the known leading contributor for emissions. Some residents stated that when they purchased their property years ago, they approached quarry operators about their plans for this property and were told it would be left as a buffer area. Residents did not believe view shed mitigation would shield their homes from quarry dust, dirt, and particle matter. The applicant had been quoted as saying that 10 million gallons of water a day would be pumped from the property and residents were concerned about their private wells and local springs. Liability issues were raised and who would pay for potential damages. Devaluation of properties was an issue. The fact that O-N Minerals had not offered any restrictions on other EM District uses was a concern. A citizen spoke of a 125-year-old family cemetery located north of Chapel Road, near an abandoned farmhouse. Citizens asked why the County continued to allow residential development to occur all through this part of the valley, if they knew the property could be mined in the future. It was noted that Middletown's old, rich history and architecture are not conducive to industrial infrastructure changes. One citizen conunented that numerous quarry companies have owned this land over 50 years; he questioned why they waited all this time to apply for a rezoning. Middletown was not the same place it was 52 years ago and considerable changes have taken place since the 693 acres were sold to Chemstone. The Town now has a national historic park; it has a thriving national heritage of historic importance, and a rapidly growing number of residential developments. The financial status of O-N Minerals was commented on by a few of the citizens. They quoted operating figures about the company which indicated O-N was functioning under a considerable debt load and had to sell assets. Also raised was the fact the applicant was a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos -induced illnesses and silica. Citizens questioned how this could affect the company's financial future and their obligations to meet proffers or successfully resolve future cases. Citizens asked what recourse would be available, if the company failed to perform promised proffers. Liability issues on many levels were raised as a future problem. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority's connection to the land use application was raised numerous times and citizens expressed the need for all agreements to be thoroughly examined. Citizens Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 21 commented on all of the costs the FCSA had agreed to pay, including the costs for rezoning the land, for relocating ball fields, for installing and maintaining monitoring wells, restitution for water loss from nearby wells, etc., and to hold Chemstone harmless from all issues raised by regulators or private citizens. It was noted that FCSA would then have a water storage pit with which to partially serve the UDA and Chemstone would not have the expense of filling the pits and reclaiming land. Many of the residents said they moved to Middletown to escape large commercial developments and traffic problems, and residents feared these same negative impacts would result from this rezoning and affect the quality of life they have become accustomed to. Finally, citizens called for the Commission to vote on the application at the end of discussion and not to table the application. Commission Discussion: The Conunission had a considerable amount of discussion and numerous issues were raised. Commission members asked the staff to review the State's role in mediating disputes and dealing with various off -site impacts. Staff responded that discussions with DMME had determined that while the DMME regulates the operation of the mining company, along with permitting and safety issues, the scope of their involvement beyond the property or permit is very limited. In fact, the DMME is reluctant to become involved with any of the issues that may revolve around blasting or water issues. Conunission members asked if O-N Minerals had submitted a CPPA application by the June 1, 2006 deadline or if the land subject to the rezoning was in any way planned for something other than rural areas land use, such as with a text amendment. Staff replied that no comprehensive plan amendment had been submitted, nor was this area being considered for another planned land use. Commission members asked staff about remediation requirements. Staff responded that there were considerable requirements by the DMME; however, there were many opportunities to modify the requirements and approach things in a different manner. Commission members assumed that if the property changed hands after the land had been mined, as in the possibility that it would be turned over to a quasi -public entity, such as the FCSA, then the regulations would change. It was noted that FCSA was not in the business of land remediation. Commission members stated that if the rezoning was tabled, they would want a clear understanding of the agreement between the FCSA and O-N Minerals before it came back to the Commission again. Not only did they want to have a clear understanding, but thought it was important for the community because of statements that.could be interpreted in different ways and could have significant liability, not only on surrounding property owners, but on the FCSA. Commissioner Thomas summarized the issues he believed were significant in the review of the rezoning. Many of the other Commissioners agreed with those issues, as follows: The traffic impact analysis submitted was woefully inadequate and needs to be redone. The use of numbers of vehicles for trip generation in the traffic impact analysis is inappropriate when 60-70% of the traffic will be 40-ton dump trucks and will not result in an accurate analysis. A route analysis needs to be done which examines the geometrics and conditions of the road, in particular, the impact of 800-900 severely - loaded 40-ton trucks on the road itself. A strip map should be included so the community understands the vehicle traffic pattern that will occur with heavily -loaded vehicles from the quarry, through Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 22 Middletown, and onto their destination. The environmental impact analysis is lacking; there was nothing within the envirommental impact analysis that addressed air quality. A particulate matter study is needed with a wind -rose analysis showing the distribution of the particulate matter, the levels of particulate matter that will be experienced by the surrounding residents, and the particulate matter size that will be distributed. In light of all the nearby farms and livestock, information is needed on how the particulate matter may affect surrounding agricultural and orchard land uses; for example, the affect of particulate matter on grazing cattle and the pollination of orchard fruit trees. In addition to outside dust, dust inside homes also needs to be addressed. Particulate matter of this size will get inside new homes as well as older homes and all homes within a couple miles will have a significant dust problem within the home. Regarding the subject of determining liability for water wells and blasting damage, how will the applicant monitor existing wells from a quality and quantity standpoint and how will the existing homes be inventoried and evaluated. A plan should be developed with a process for damage assessment and appeals that doesn't require surrounding homeowners to invest an extensive amount of money hiring lawyers and suing. Due to the significant size of this project, a bonding process above the minimum State standards is needed to protect the surrounding homeowners against potential future damages and liabilities, if the company has financial difficulties and moves out of the area. No information was provided by the applicant regarding meetings with surrounding property owners; neighborhood meetings should take place to convey the applicant's plan, how the property owners will be protected, and what the applicant's blasting plan will be. Since the biggest potential problems will come from areas outside of the quarry site, and the State only regulates on -site, permitted areas, something significantly more than the minimum State -regulated requirements is needed. For example, one seismograph in a blasting area with this kind of topography is substantially inadequate; there should be three -to -five for every blasting plan. The liability for surrounding homeowners for water wells and blasting needs to be substantially expanded. The applicant needs to examine allowed uses in an EM area and consider what is realistically going to be done there and the uses that are not going to be needed should be taken out through a proffer to avoid confusion by adjoining property owners about what can be done here. Another significant item is the life of the quarry operation; specifically, will it be a five-year operation or a 50-year operation, and what is the applicant's phase plan for development of the quarry and the extent of that development. Is it the applicant's intent to proceed down the Valley with this operation and are there plans for remediation of areas left behind as the operation moves along, or are the areas left open through the entire process. Has the applicant considered a mining operation versus an open quarry? Although a mining operation would have less impact on the visual area and produce less dust, it still has the same amount of impact on blasting and water wells. In addition, issues raised by other Commissioners included a desire for some type of bonding process established for well issues, so that the burden of proof did not fall on local residents. They wanted to see increased buffer distances to keep the operation further away from residences. The subject of the unsightly appearance of dirt piles that may exist for 25 to 50 years was also raised. In addition, they wanted the applicant to revisit the issues raised by the HRAB, the Town of Middletown, and Public Works. Some Commission members doubted that the applicant could address the issues raised in 90 days or a year in terms of the kind and amount of analysis that was needed in this case. The comment was made that if the applicant did proceed with all of the studies, they were not sure whether the results would Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 23 snake a difference, because fundamentally, this was a land use issue. It was pointed out that the time for expansion of this quarry and the industrial use of these particular properties has long passed; the surrounding community is clearly residential at this point in time. It was noted that the Commission had previously asked for additional information 60 days ago and nothing was produced. Commission members believed the rezoning needed to be considered in the spirit of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Members commented that the public's presentation was far better than what was provided by the applicant, in terins of the information provided and organization. Commissioners believed the concerns raised by the public were valid and required mitigation, which could only be accomplished by denying the rezoning; they were adamant that no amount of proffers could make this proposal acceptable for them. Other comments included the observation that the application was not clear as to whether the operation would be limited to an active core area or even how much quarrying the applicant plamied to do. It was suggested that a revised application and proffer could result in a minor amount of rezoned land with protections; it was pointed out that the residents and historic areas have no protections today. Commission members had concerns about sending the application forward to the Board of Supervisors in its present state because it was so incomplete and lacking that the Board would have nothing to review. Those Commission members were concerned about doing a disservice to both the Board and the citizens without allowing the applicant to go back and improve the application with a phasing plan, or offering a commitment to a smaller area, or providing protections for surrounding areas. Still other Commissioners argued that they did not hear anything during the public hearing that made them think something could be done with this proposal to make it compatible as a land use. A motion to recommend denial of the rezoning application was made, seconded, and passed by a majority vote, as follows: YES (TO REC. DENIAL): Watt, Morris, Oates, Wilmot, Ours, Kriz, Kerr, Mohn NO: Unger, Manuel, Light, Thomas (Note: Commissioner Triplett was absent from the meeting.) m PARCEL 90-A-23 TOTAL AREAS 153.5 ACRES PROPOSED REZONING:,,�...67 00qq AREA SUMMARY TRACT PROPOSED AREA REZONING TM 90-A-23 153.5 AC. 67.0 AC. TM 83-A-109 539-5AC. 327.2 AC. TOTALS 693.0 AC. 394.2 AC. Patton Harris Rust 6 As soolatas,pe Eng-n Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Ard,it-ts. l l 117 Eml 7-21 ny S,reel �nNysla, V. 326OI T 540-6- IX f SM-56.5—Os9] --,9x;�•1; :r!_ � �� I ��:�,r' ',� fit, c�- rl ;,,• 11; %�:;. �C� �J %ir'1 L__`'�l• l�l. 1,,1� 7',' .�1%�i==J��;"�.�:>: ,. �,�.e,J.. •%�'�^--__ 1^r '_�� , •`�j •� =^1 ,l\•s,- ,Z;';r'•' %c,R+A b A= roc - _ •f' '1 /,':; %? ` :,`,; ��0 !!'I'•�'I g,�= �07 �� - r __'. • (; -::: - �l ��,J;. rl i U, ,C:c ' t%.( �`: '=Ste'^c'7 r f(•%!y _ t' t � Sm - ((Ii .'ir 1 }lg;rJR f,''� pW&E.- in,: �;,,fi.,`�> �;+'ul i.• a: :,•,:;�=', ^ ',j �I'�ri:-i:,P 'r- �• !�6iP` -_, d�a=3xi:�--� _ �'r, =,-1 I =- - jM1;`'- - !� 4S`,r `��..,, _ ��rJ' •� _; °� �"'"-.i _ _ J `,� - `•�:� _=�yy',_;sY�+-,l,,,;? 1'_'".� 1 , r r �y -t;:.%6QI �'-.Ir� {„']F_- �`,f•• :'ra .:- I: ••,_ `��-.- _ !,'� �,' _ �.` •�•rc �x'�.°.-_--_fin%.=.'; 7! �//• /r-��I ' L---::'i; 1. •till:==•;---.�i !j!u �'•,, ,___ 1 sq 'i; .;�J"J -O"-' !i"-' '�_p,-._•�:ic'^'e'-'�'•_;p,?'.i.'!%'' - 'iti`,:�%'7, I ! ' =:a�^ bili:� ilt \(i` �:�--••'! giii%�— I �__ _ N`��. /:._ 1',�l lti1 '/N*/('�.•�.^1,.,i" I. ii'!r/ il'�1jv'7````�'�-Y�o"i"fi ),% ,�:',Ytt( �1J i'L•"-i,"•ry'r ''^_ ;�.J �— - \ '�__ � .y t '\ha;�', jl;', 5�: 's'ra''-s,•< J� ,.. !i'd:'� ry i 1•.,, lia-'3: �'---!)�l 'CL^' .%'J:/;i !�;,(,,,ly+_'' ,%/r•-F ]�i _ Y�\ -.{.% `,t"`,� -•�, / 4", .i $ER %t%_i3::' f�_�. ) _' i('ti l i� _ %l/, x�``'\„ _ .\( `,t ti::_�' 4�"nJ7i, � `-.`� Ie'�J ���_.,C;.••:i %•ir�� �-` _I � 1t��i�(' 1_-`'.4", ,';tjo�a ,'°lran�ir�` , ,,.. ''� ' t • :, , • .•\: - ` < � aP _ , ; •--�F i:, ( r �„ J!; _ �1 ;V %' (�'`., "' it �(t`t�;�_ -. ' ��: a �%%r��i:•,��, `\ - `' '' - "!'. ,I,' t• •�,Vrr:-,(I ;'ti',a ii' c ,G.' i^, )! J,, c ;,. t;/,•/':�L' j r -" �`';r y v( _i5ir ��--'tp^,/t, ' �1,, :-�'.11 ,, -_! -�_7 (,� `�--�•�U '�`.'rr, `�'-i�:�'.:!'t:' i i "!, ,��f�•J _ > ,:\ •� y;�L•'"l:�,T/•i, ', G sE;%'"�'`�`-ii(tft"•" i%_� j, ": _`�`�:�i'3'', ,y %., +.'i ,_ __-'I ',t+,r_"%',%� ;'i'l-i`. ._.•:• ?l;;rr; `.f ' •! iln-`•.��k+: r I: _ t `_ _ •� �.^--- �: I v r - ;)L,tilr'.'J `; : I r( �j �r::•_ �.: � i' ��.�1 '._ - � c-,,;,^,1'-'('r- ^t; t' �_ �'. R,; !: l_ •,• - ,:,- ^li. ,x ,� 1r ;r^� _ ' i` z {',1( II'f• `��v <r �i ,��:',., :,; L _r` ly'-.1,1,i f.'\�,.�•I ;l• i,vl t__ 7i Jiro, _ - ,t:"' .��'` _J;..__•.,e: �r'ir -�r,' _-:zA-.', �-t, ,,Nf',•;-".i"a'.'�11-; �,; f 4!x 'rl _� ,tlf,l; ,Halo ,i ,i ;?�_.,�; �\ ,\, %"1��'%:(-- .^_`•�': ;_yam` j; :'rt,l - ' ,)(;�i, ;:•3t,;r��!(Sk," t` "" if _ :,i; "`"�._.:.'l, ]` tf�`,�^ i%irilli -- �, i •t•;F�1EF(JI�Yi t,�t iL.,j� 1,—; '— %. �l `.� �i„', (.J_,�`: Jf� _ t): '_�!"� ,11 v�CE'F'sn1c, 11 /fi'%,t( l,i( J.',•,;;.y,'r ,;✓:;,-•. _%�'_ '•- _�e;1 1•-�:, �``•11_i�',�`�--=: I Jfl `�i - r! \1' `i,•;';' 'a%� 0 ah',V" C' �' ! �4` ): I_C r; s-�\ ;i; rr J, �� 'kN't (, j a'�`, I;,r,-^'"�'1,-„;•:'p; jiff%''r•IS'[_✓1 lll,, f(: it �c (,�;•";)•^ :gin;'•` !tll�,;` ( / _ %�'' � - • -- '' i/� �It i; (, - ��"� _ (;• , !1/ „ _ _ -.\l (, 71 1 ,:•�;1t M-` 1/+�'!'a r �'" r'r•t�', � : �./' // ':�1%„ '' i I , )�\{_____ ''+((� �(aie Jl %` _ -., _�``,'.,' .. _- 'Itl'e� 'r'I,'An,v '�'s .' �•'JI%l• Jr,-J-„a I,�J -_ I�'`I �`^~f 1,{`•lr J�� �, I. ^J ff '.V ' r a - i fir, r ;: a; ��- -_\. `0 :/ _ :r„i air .:F avo ! i,, •,1(�' t (,'t1; ` +3W. w,:i,,j�ld,'V'l: I .%'i } _ lP� .�, \,:�:�__„✓,i'�.:y' �_y`�t1 • r �`. -`-- g>;�S .•r,''_y -,� Jr `t�•:�_r' _ -,(i tit"` •. , �, �, a • J _.`��=-__"�_ it ! = •"'_- :; - - ter_ lu- 'v --o; - r-,r_� -,� �•v _ �:.g:� �;;,-�,�Ir• __- 'i..rr'„�_----'i- ��DL7rTQY✓�;i; � [.� 'trr,.,,,;, Wig', _ ,a..-'rl,,,,r�.�•�_;=;,_.;`%'fl•:,r'\r�' Al •yf,r I', 1f 1(i;.• .r;j '. �r- ��itf(!���L li !{4�'1{-�r(���-r"',%I '; a,; .• �_ , `�4y3�-: `; : J,;:.� + ,_,,,.\% 1J�'e' .r ;=i(1� ,:. 1, r,,'M, *'%i'(�•:=;i,. .�.` f,% "ter (.,� `r' 'a^hpgrl j �/,`-� �: �'=• fi. - •1 't r', 17-W ir;,�\41'ii� it k;7. is i; yr1� . % J \, :•.'! Q�L,, . J•',;\, ` �I 1_,'';' '` `a ''�>;x `,N;-`gip<!r,ft-f 't,-^„,`f... �::_,;:__ -ale.•- I;;t,�'-_"', _'��r"> \ '` ''"..F"r" �G �v,. T__ �_ _=d` '>' /_. ^�,_�: �.`\.•�,, fl�(?,.C?%�f!'ttiz'lt i� '�i--"ri�_�'( .d;: `:.2 _t, t:pt: - - ;?c• ��I(� ,;, - ,If :XL O-N Minerals Chelwstone GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA MAY 2008 as aaa�= EXHIBIT No LEGEND PROPOSED QUARRY AREA HISTORIC RESERVE MINIM SUBJECTPARCELS ...... EXISTING PERMIT AREA PROPOSED ZONING BOUNDARY PROPOSED MONITORING WELL LOCATION Patton Harris Rust & Assoclat ­'" Enq_­ Survey— P, ....... L,,dm,pe A,thft.tt.. 117 East ft-Oly Street S-657-2139 pil" F 5 �Wlnt111Q655-0493 _P2. gj - :rt(I,, - '�'t. - :_L;`);I /�A7�41Ek't�' :�'��ya-,,,..l�•. :'\;,'i-o•_�.�';;-':�'s �Y_zzz";, k". =_M R w, 17 "T X,i a N-3 Z, v Wo v .......... — r_l O-N Minerals Chemstone OVERALL PLAN FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA MAY 2008 WX/Amil"m GRA.PIUC SCALE >;4- V JI1, I L9 r"7 N Q, !­.Jz;p t L .7 aw, It t "'A"".6 AT I IN, ix t 14 z• 0 7-15 95 N ow f.0 LEGEND CURRENT WORKING QUARRY AREA COMPLETED QUARRY AREA WATER FILLED QUARRY AREA 03 F_ SUBJECT PARCELS ...... EXISTING PERMrr AREA — PROPOSED ZONING BOUNDARY Patton Harris Rust & Assoelates,pc Eilgi,­ Surveyors fil-n— L—d—p. A,.hit..t., 117 Eolld ft—Y Sheet ; � 7-21M I C u "'44 AZ, 'M `S'V z It'll 33 1 7, Kal FOX % a VIA';I,— If 4 'j- O-N Minerals Chemstone PHASE III PLAN FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA MAY 2008 7,1 I ­;J LEGEND mWATER FILLED QUARRY AREA L.JnIC-J, SUBJECT'PARCELS ------ EXISTING PERMIT AREA — PROPOSED ZONING BOUNDARY P.tt.. H.-I. R..t A A S"Clat"'pe Enqm­­ S.—p- Plor—s. Lord—pe Architects. p 1 11 E"I ft-de, 9I-1 n6a, 657—M F 540-565-0493 `­V -Q, so V A�5; O-N Minerals Chemstone PHASE IV PLAN FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA MAY 2008 N _A GRAPMC SCALE Patton Harris Rust & Associatos,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Plonnem Landscape Architects. p 117 1,11 PI-1611Y 511,11 ]�#A Winch�ster, VA 22601 T 540-GG7-2139 F 540-665-0493 9 VEGETATION SHOWN IS EXISTING UNLESS OTHEIWAW NarED. VIEWSHED 1A HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1' - 600' VERTICAL SCALE: 1' - 300' 7 0 4V & PROPO U'ARRY STR RF,LOC'AiIO 'REQUIRED C C MISTING, Q UA�FZRY \ sTORN R c, N ®R R� tEEY .-Q A Exf N S*N fL11-'-h.-EE7Y MAP NO SCALE O-N Minerals C'hemstone Frederick County, Virginia MAY 2008 II=11=1—1=II=11=1. 11=11=11=11=11=11=11=11= =Tf=1f I =Rlf n lf=7f=1f=7f—lf 1f=1 � u u n ll n n u li �l rl � u n n ll a n n n n n l ii 1, i rl lr rl . 141M41t®43t11401145 NOt1147f®4Et1149t1155t1151t11SMWill WE55t115 VIEWSHED 1B HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1' = 600' VERTICAL SCALE: 1' = 300' �0 P / r Q` PROPLOS l ''WW Vq.'�-,.�1'- 10 y... 0 REQUIRED G�CREE o XIS7WG �. F L.. QUARRY �. ... l RE4 _✓ .�/j,� .. .`` MILL :PR POSEDD / /�Id ' •c rAr`�4zeEY EX NSION �;US i / P KEY MAP NO SCALE Patton Harris Rust & Associ atesrpc O-NMinerals Chemstone Engineers. Surveyors. Planners, Landscape Architects. 117 Eaat Piccadilly Strcct + Wlnehester. VA 22601 Frederick County, Virginia T 540-667-2139 F 540-665-0493 MAY 2008 TREES B E$pA HT.•ZT IQU ARRY PR MOD vim 91 J7()( MININGAREA 801 7DO 500 8 VECL7ATKM SWYM r. BOSTM UM-EM 0-MEMI6E NUMEL VIEWSHED 2 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1' = 600' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 300' -7 ..r,�` ;.ram 1�./ / `` �.' t ` ., l _/ — 12� f s, .4 PROPO RE.O 414. IRED S7 P�. 4 % A., . . . . . . OR PRE BJE R AREA ML :PP. POSED Y E1E IV SKM KEY MAP_ NO SCALE Patton Harris Rust & Associatosrpc 0-1V Afinerals C emstof".1 e Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. p 1l7E11tF-i­d-.Ny StreetWln,hest .r, VA 22601 Frederick County, Virginia _pA T 1+0-667-7.139 F 54D-665-0493 MAY 2008 7( 6( • VEGETATION SHOWN B EX aMQUNLESS OTFEF&%SE NOT®. VIEW S HED 3 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 600' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 300' J/ � r F, � t /�` Esre �•4f ,t j ; ter, `-y . / . .%� `^ , m� ��°c � • .jRnA PROPOS E AN i Y � '7✓ // /,._ lam"' /. 9TR �,: E,- ' REL0C*&l0KEQ_\\ l ` ✓ ✓� �' / ✓ ♦ RUIRED np AR RSXISTING. t - QUARRY e J � 1 r TOR r )PRESER 710N -AREA 71 PR . PCSSED i PEEP S1U%1R�RV ",j' EXP KEY MAP NO SCALE Patton Harris Rust $ Associatesepc O-N Minerals Chemstolne Engineers. Surveyors. Planners, Landscape Architects. P T 0-6 7-21 9 Sirect Virginia + Winchester, VA 2260I Frederick County, T 540-667-2139 F 540-665-0493 MAY 2008 Patton Harris Rust & Associ at es,p1c Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. P 17 Eaat Pi«1y Strcct WINWinchester, VA 22601 T 540-667-2139 F 540-665-0493ad11 SIGHT LINE PROPOSEDTREES w �APPROX. BERM HT.=12 �iA} Q � /� --------- �O-L.i_ -- 70C BERMA MINING AREA 60C 11 II 115 - _ I O M h N a a < O < O f ✓1 � uDl O O n O n O � n O O O � In D O O O O O IA < O 0 0 O A N O n• N P h m < o A N n n ^ ^ O O O '- ^ D O O O O O Y Yl IA ID ill < < 'd' •� h h h N _ � - D O O O -00 1t00 2+00 3+00 4t00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 10+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 • VMUAMON It*^ IS MSPNO UNE9S 07HM ISE NOTM. VIEWSHED 4A SCALE: 1' — 300' _a s t ROPO f�" r.EXJ�q\`^QUAAR"rR+Y ✓ �._ ' '��J STREAM:' e Soh / ♦ - RELOCA71OW, UIRED An0 iC Y�/of MISTING QUARRY "b t `�.. ! t TO R�� t—ESER`♦ATpN' ..AREA Pf� POSED r+t OaEEV� U RY Q EXP NSIDN ee 4ti.ti..Arfr HER KEY MAP NO SCALE O-N Minerals C'heynstone Frederick County, Virginia MAY 2008 SIGH7LN�� TREES BERMC/=PPROX BERM Ni.•37 %�A I '�— A /V 7L �� pm — — _ _ _ _ _ _ — — _ _ _ — — — — — — PROPOSED — — — / — — — — MINING AREA II IOp O _ n f n f f ." f ^ � r Q /1 •- N M IG N In O < A m o O� O O o 1� o pppp Ol O 'w ID f P 1D pl and b O b Y1 b u7 m b b b O mN b O b O b Yf ao b n o b b b � n o n n• f 0 o O n n o n P O n a w �_ f n n P f n `-' " D _ f C C 00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+DO 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+0021+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+DO 27+00 28+DO 29+DO 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 36 VEOETATION SHOWN 19 E109TM LJN E99 OTh ERME NOTIM V I E W IJ H E D 4 B SCALE- 1" - 300' Patton Harris Rust & Associatosepc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners, Landscape Architects. PI-PAEast Plicca 117 0-6 7-21 9 St cct Winchester, VA 22601 T 540-667-2139 F 540-565-0493 C � O irk '"+ r,�� i!%, / ' l._ m� e�P ; ♦.i� Sot\ ` I..- � � �,[ / l , `\ '�� � .... ��• .. .,'♦♦� i `f �. STIR °N i i,�- ♦ i, R¢LOCATIO �• :. REQUIRED n i TOR \ PF ESER . TION ^ 1 i �' �•i :� \ �� J a r Y �•M - - ' MR, .Pfj POSED I4CEY MAP NO SCALE 0-1V Minerals C'heynstone Frederick County, Virginia MAY 2008 S1-Q -&(;)�--A-9- 9--ANPA-,---------------- PROPOfiEDTREE6 U O APPROX. BERM MT.•23 — — 170C —"I — MINING AREA Fal IiMq gn 60C n O D O Y1 O O m N O O O O O O`V h TQb 1.- m n n`np n Uzi W-b m Of Om+ n n O 9+001G+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+D0 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 +00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 B+00 • VEC3ETATION SHOWN S E)aSTM UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. Patton Harris Rust & AssociatesrPc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Land5cope Architects. P 117 East Pi-213dilly Slrect 1 l + Winchester, VA 22601 T 540-6679 F 540-665—D493 VIEWSHED 5A SCALE: 1' — 300' KEY MAP NO SCALE O-N Minerals Chemstone Frederick County, Virginia MAY 2008 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+UO 4+00 5+00 5+00 7+00 B- • VEGETATION SHOWN IS EXHTN0 UNLESS OTHERMSE NOTED. T .CT3 SCALE: 1' = 300' lmV 4JbA " 7�Pl'Wls (hemszop e MAY 9008 600 SIGH7 LbINE EDTnREE PROoD_P OI . BERM PRnOPONSEDwTl REES—�D 750 HOSE LAH_]TL.i-IT %P7P{ORjO1%-X — _—__—y_ APPROX.BERM HT•3D 75D0�____—XG _ — — — — — — — — — — 9 ©nA696 --—� DD_ — — —A =nA BERM MIN ING AR MINING AREA 650 550 _S BERMC 600 o O n n ^D0 ^n n n n yj pe n � < r. n n n o C n n n' n' � b 1'. n n n N n r` 'n of n Cr n n n n I. o n n n n n n n n n n n ♦ n n n r` n n n n O n` n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+DO • VEGETATION SHOWN 6 EXT= UNLM OTMRWM NOTED. VIEWSHED 6 SCALE: 1' = 300' StP - `� SrfTh yF ♦ 41 ♦.1 z� , - - ,. `y,♦ IROPOQ,- ]UARRY �D i AN OF SIR SR 41 � ,,: 9 ♦ REQUIRED Ala ; /,-ETNG. 'c:7�'y//�,Y%/�/% �• �� s . / QxISUARRY q`•'. U%`j. `;A .C,6� PRESER%TgN EA �:�'' '� y .• r � MILL :. Pf{ %: Ptl E SDi '� r-F➢D� EXP NSgN .';� �..7A HER .. �ylf, / ..fir `'1T�i3 \ . KEY MAP NO SCALE Patton Harris Rust & Associ ate srpc 0-1V Minerals Chemstone Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 17 Eari ' Street ,+ Winchester, VA 22601 Frederick County, Virginia T 54-0-667-2I7-2139 F 540-665-0493 MAY 2008 PROPOSEDTREES 800 SIGHT APPROX. BERM •30 800 — — — — -- — — — — -- ^ 2���, L.k?1"J-t—_C LT_L.1 — BERM^ 6ERMA PROPOSED TREES 700 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — APPROX. BERM HT.• �/ _ —' — — — — C_APPROX. BERM H7.•1a 70D JA BERMO FLOOR ELEV BD090 FLOOR ELEV.tg0.00 / CHAPEL ROAo 600 MINING AREA 11122����111 MINING AREA Ann 0+00 I+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+DO 1D+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+DO 16+00 17+00 18+DO 19+DO 20tl) 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+� 25+00 26+DO 27+00 28+D0 29+DO 30+OD 31+DO 32+00 33+OD 34+OD 35+D0 36+00 37+00 38+OD 39+00 40+00 41+00 ♦ VEOPTATION SHOWN 8 EXHl"INO L1NLP99 OTHERWISE NOTED. V IE W S HE D 7 SCALE; 1' = 300' .� It �._ ..• . �./ i �/ r •imp \• m.7 erc � y ';ice • = % Ei 4 ly f 0 a ?� ♦' MyRSiE b' ��� �'P c. ! i, P 3 ♦ \'H Y PROPOSSTR E AN °- RELOOAin \ _ /! ... r _ REQUIRED` {•i. T 'C QUARRY tom• � le \ r T,OR � • to � . � �; , m bRESER TION - - p ' MEA t4 r � EX4 N SION KEY MAP NO SCALE Patton Harris Rust 11 ASS06atas,Pc O-N Minerals Chemstone Engineers. Surveyors. Plonne— Landscape Architects. P Wln Z7 ' �. ter, VA 22601 Frederick County, Virginia T 540-667-2139 1 F1540'-665-0493tP1ttnd11ly 5""t MAY 2008 Patton Harris Rust & Associatesepc Engineers. Surveyors. Planner. Landscope Architects. 117 Eorid 2 Slreet .} Winchester. VA 22501 T 54D-667-217-2130 F 540-665-0493 EXISTING LINE--,, 80 0BERM -- —SIGHT — C APPROX. BERM HT-W _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 700 — — — — MINING AREA MIDDLE MARSH BROOK r7m 6D0 o a♦amoanooYiI-, d d d I I d mnOmnnI't O c1 n r n r r r I� r r r r io m r r r r r r r r r r r n r r r 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+D0 9+00 10+00 11+00 13+D0 14+D0 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+011 21+10 22+g0 23+D0 24+00 25+01 VECErATION IS EXISTM UNLESS OT1 RWSE NOT®. �12+D0 +D IEW SHED 8 e SHOWN v SC:ALC= I- UUU' / �� > .., V ` t � / � l _. `♦ ,..ems `�`�—'s'^-•..` � 4�1 0v^fir "moo.PAopo uAR ti REFLOCATIJ \ �1 ji EOUIRED .\• . QUARRY ? L L TOR i RESER REA NVE .• ;PR KEY MAP NO SCALE n O-N Minerals C'heynstone Frederick County, Virginia MAY 2008 27+DO 28+00 SIGHT LINE BOO SIGHT LI—NEA� -- FROM TOPO=RIDGE'i���—}�}�/�-1'�4,�y'�y%��(�� 500 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+DD 4+DD 5+OD 6+00 7+DD 5+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 25+00 27+ . vEOEranoN %iOW l IS MWnNQ UNLMS OTHOWSE NOTM V IE W S HE D 9 Patton Harris Rust & Associatesrpc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. P T 0- 7-21 9 Sl cet L + Wln chester. VA 22601 T 540-667-2139 F 540-665-0493 sca��- i- - svv• /5 s T� r C �.'p` _ �. ♦ 3 �4,y ^l P_ROPOS '•-• ExU�AR`t' A RELOCATIO �' - /' ♦ J REQUIRED �Jv� ni r Ni.CRE r` / XISTNG. Via: ,i✓f�`2 i�ca, �. .�/�,c ... ' 1 Z QUARRV s f C`.. T RI� REF P� lPRESE&—T' ! AREA r r ,.. �MIL PR POSED '—+,�' CREEV Ol3 V {'4. __. ��� 3 f y� CcA -' - EXP t�510N �B t., � . S R� E,qCI HER KEY MAP NO SCALE BERMC PROPOSEDTREES /LAPPROX. BERM HL/T.-221�'/�'�(�j 80D — 700 MINING AREA —® _BOTTOM OF H 500 DO 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 0-iN Minerals Chemstone Frederick County, Virginia MAY 2008 39+DO 40+DO 41+DD 42+00 43+00 44+00 45+00 of creating wildlife snags until the trees rot down. A foliar spray of Roundup@ can effectively control individual small stems and clumps of small stems. Instructions for timing of herbicide applications and mixing for the various methods of application will be found on the herbicide label. These instructions should be followed precisely to obtain the desired results and to protect the enviromnent. NATIVE TREES (mostly) SUGGESTED FOR LANDSCAPING IN THE NORTHERN SHENANDOAH VALLEY OF VIRGINIA No particular order of preference Gerald R. Crowell, Va. Dept. of Forestry 2/2008 Not all of these will grow on every site. First, decide why you want a tree; shade, screening, to enhance the landscape, fall coloration, flowering, wildlife food, etc. Second, choose the final mature height you want the tree to reach. Then, research each species as to the desirability of planting in a particular location with regard to purpose, soil type, and available sunlight. DECIDIOUS: LITTLE `UNS (TO 20 FEET) Alder, Hazel Alnus serrulata Hawthorn Crataegus sps. Serviceberry Anielanchier sps. Viburnum Viburnum sps Buckthorn, European Rhamnus cathartica Fringetree Chionanthus virginicus Elderberry Smnbucus canandensis Burningbush Euonymus atropurpureus Redbud, Eastern Cercis canadensis MEDI `UM'S (20 — 40 FEET) Hornbeam, American Carpinus earoliniana Hophornbeam, Eastern Oshya virginiana Chinkapin Castanea pumila Pawpaw Asimina triloba Sassafras Sassafras albidum Persimmon Diospyros virginiana BIG `UNS (40 — 80+ FEET) Willow, black Salix nigra Hickory Carya sps. Birch, yellow Betula alleghaniensis DECIDIOUS ]BIG `UNS (continued) Birch, black, sweet Betula lenta Birch, River Betula nigra Oak Quercus sps. Except for Q. falcata, Q. nigra, Q. phellos, Q. virginiana Hackberry Celtus occidentalis Poplar, yellow, tulip Liriodendron tulipifera Sycamore Pla.tanus occidentalis Maple, sugar Acer saccharum Maple, red Acer rubrum Basswood Tilia Americana Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica EVERGREEN: LITTLE `UNS (to 20 feet) Rhododendron Rhododendron iraximum Mountain Laurel Kalmia latifolia MEDI `UM' S (20-40 FEET) NONE DIG `UNS (40 — 80+ FEET) Pine, Pitch Pinus rigida Pine, shortleaf Pintrs echinata Pine Table Mountain Pinus pungens Baldcypress Taxodium distichum Arborvitae, Northern whitecedar Thuja occidentalis Eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana Norway spruce Picea abies Leyland Cypress Cupressocyparis leylandii NOT RECOMMENDED FOR LANDSCAPE TREES: Ash (Fraxinus sps), due to Emerald Ash Borer White pine (Pinus strobus); be careful, it is off -site on many shale soils and limestone clay soils in the Valley Elm (Ulmus sps), due to elm yellows and Dutch Elm Disease 080008915 DEED OF GIFT THIS DEED OF GIFT is tnade and dated this 25`h day of July, 2008 by and between O-N p N S— MINERALS (CIIEMSTONE) COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, whose address is P.O. Box 71, Strasburg, Virginia 22657, hereinafter referred to as GRANTOR, and CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD FOUNDATION, INC., a Virginia corporation, whose address is P.U. Box 229, Middletown, Virginia 22645, hereinafter referred to as GRANTEE;. W ITNESSF,TI E That for and in consideration of the conveyance hereby made, and other good and valuable considerations, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby does grant, bargain, convey and sell with Special Warranty of Title, unto the Grantee all the Grantor's right, title, and interest in those certain tracts or parcels of real property having the following Legal Description: All that certain tract or parcel of land with all easements and appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying, and being in the Back Creek Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 8 acres more or less, the metes and bounds whereof are shown on a certain plat of survey by Carl J. Rinker & Associates dated July 9, 2008, which plat shall be recorded with this Deed of Gift as "Exhibit A" thereto ("Property"). Reference is hereby made to "Exhibit A" and the attachments and references therein contained for a further and more particular description of the Property hereby conveyed. This conveyance is made subject to all duly recorded and enforceable restrictions, easements, and rights of way and is also subject to the following conditions: Document prepared hy: Thomas Moore Lawson, Fsquire P.O. Box 2740 Winchester. VA 22604 Rctum to: Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire P.U. Box 2740 Winchester, VA 22604 Tax Map No. portion of 90-A-23 Granlee's Address: Consideration: $0.00 P.O. Box 229 Middletown, V A 22645 This deed is exempt from all recordable taxes by virtue of Section 58.1-81 1 (D) of the Code of Virginia. EXHIBIT CD N N • There shall be no structures built on the Property unless first approved by Grantor; • The Property shall be maintained in a neat and orderly condition at all times and any trees maintained using best management practices; • Grantor further reserves the right to take any action reasonably required to maintain the Property in the event the Grantee fails to do so. This right shall include, but not be limited to, the right to enter upon the Property to do such work on the Property as may be required to effect the conditions on the Property described herein. In addition, this conveyance is made subject to the following first right of refusal. With the agreement of Grantee as evidenced by its signature below, Grantor hereby reserves a first right of refusal for any future sale, transfer or conveyance of the Property (or portion thereof) by the Grantee except a sale, transfer or conveyance to an entity that is (a) related to the Grantee and (b) a charitable entity established for the preservation of historic properties. In the event that Grantee receives a bona fide offer or tenders a bona tide offer for the sale, transfer or conveyance of the Property (or any portion thereof) to any person or entity, then Grantee shall forthwith send to Grantor a notice in writing of its desire or intention to sell, transfer or convey the Property (or a portion thereof) accompanied by a copy of the offer. Upon receipt of that notice, Grantor shall have thirty (30) days from the date of its receipt of the notice to notify Grantee of its desire and agreement to purchase the Property (or the portion thereof) under the terms and conditions as contained in that offer. if Grantor gives Grantee notice of its intent to purchase the Property (or a portion thereof) as described above, Grantee shall sell the Property (or portion thereof) to Grantor under the terms and conditions contained in the offer. 2 If Grantor elects not to purchase the Property (or portion thereof) or does not respond to the notice and offer from the Grantee, then Grantee may sell the Property (or portion thereof), but only in accordance with the terns and conditions contained in the bona tide offer. If the transaction contemplated by the bona fide offer is not completed within ninety (90) days after the expiration of the last day upon which Grantor has the right to give notice of its intent to purchase, then Grantee shall not thereafter sell or offer the Property (or any portion thereof) unless and until it again complies with the above requirements. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: GRANTOR: O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY By' Its: Arc-c— 0F?&rti-►pn5 jVlwna�Qi� COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 6+f*/COUNTY of to -wit: rr _ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Jd— day of July, 2008, by ✓.r•�•✓ r 4! )ery V-.04 ,Q,�r,� j^e. of O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company. My commission expirct� Registration No\`c , 1 n t CD N CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD FOUNDATION, INC. BY: r! Yv`l • D Its: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY of �S2,t1Lr_t� , to -wit: The for�epoing instrument was cknowledged before me tliis-?0day of July, 2008, by l Pnss - of Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundatio , Inc. jlaczln Q-) A Leu Notary Pub Iic /) My commission expires: Registration No.: __f56%/61 ff ' ... . . 1" HAUSF '1 �.• NOTARV'.. ; PUEUC �G REG$357186 '•x = i,RES Q Y v ? SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION: I, CARL J. RINKER, A DULY LICENSED _ ��- LAND SURVEYOR IN THE COMMONWEALTH < 0 } z w OF VIRGINIA, HEREBY CERTIFY TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, F �// m 75 THAT THE PROPERTY CONTAINED IN THIS gy 0 SUBDIVISION IS THE SAME PROPERTY CONVEYED TO O-N z z Q '•� U MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY BY DEED RECORDED IN DEED 800K 582 AT PAGE z 0 y� 122 AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF = 0 SITE�,QO� FREDERICK O 'NIA. 2 PINca�cP. 23 t� . INKER, J >90-A NO. 1058 (Uc. �P 9 O72 �Pct� D slmvs VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1' - 2,000' APPROVED BY: FREDERICK COUNTY SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR UI 2f -1 ray NOTES: 1. FREDERICK COUNTY TAX MAP: 90-A-23. CURRENT OWNERSHIP: 0-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY, DB 582, PG 122. CURRENT ZONING: RA, 2. MERIDIAN AND BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREIN ARE BASED ON THAT CERTAIN BOUNDARY SURVEY ATTACHED TO THE DEED RECORDED IN DB 582, PG 122. 3. THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT NECESSARILY SHOW ALL ENCUMBRANCES OR OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY. 4. PURSUANT TO AN EXAMINATION OF HUD FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, COMMUNITY PANEL 510063 01758, EFFECTIVE JULY 17, 1978, A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LIES IN ZONE A (AREAS OF 100-YEAR FLOOD; BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS AND FLOOD HAZARD FACTORS NOT DETERMINED). 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LIMITS SHOWN HEREIN HAVE BEEN DIGITALLY SCALED FROM THE REFERENCED FIRM PANEL 5. THIS PARCEL HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED FOR SANITARY WASTE DISPOSAL, APPROVAL MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMITS FOR STRUCTURES REQUIRING SUCH FACILITIES. 6. EXISTING SUBJECT AND ADJOINING PROPERTY AREAS REPRESENTED HEREIN ARE DERIVED FROM INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE FREDERICK COUNTY CIS WEBSITE MAY 20. 2008. 7. REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND TRACK MAP, THE WINCHESTER AND STRASBURG RAILROAD COMPANY' (ORIGINAL DATE JUNE 30, 1916). CURRENTLY (UP)DATED )UNE 10, 2008, FILE NUMBER V08541 (V-321/8) PROVIDED BY CSX REAL PROPERTY, INC. CIS DEPARTMENT AND REVIEWED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PREPARATION OF THIS PLAT. OWNER'S CONSENT: THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING SUBDIVISIDN OF THE PROPERTY OF 0-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY AS APPEAR ON THE ACCOMPANYING PTS, IS NTH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRE�U F THE UND OWNERS, PROPRIETORS AND TRUSTEES, IF ANY. 4INTED ` �. NAM do 11TL o� ....... NOTARY PUBLIC C� Nr REG01571B8 NOTARY PUBLIC MY COb;.VISSION "" E.TIRES :2 STATE OF 4rorzo2y O .......... RURAL SUBDIVISION CITY/COUNTY OF OF THE uND OF �ri1rLRALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED DISTRICT BEFORE FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA /� ON U �rin SCALE: AS SHOWN DATE: JUNE 25, 2008 BY P_iQLF°l cn, REVISED: JULY 9, 2008 DAZE) (NAME) (NOTARY PUBLIC) Carl J. Rinker do Associates MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 4 � _ 74 Phllipa Court StroWurq, VA f(/J/3><YA /n„ Ab �i%/��( ( ATE) 540-459-4715 %fEET 1 OF 2 9 GRAPHIC SCALE \ 0 100 no ao \ 1 Inch - 200 fL / r / I I J P Z A 4P 94". I r 8.019P �eRrn I n AREA TABULATION: \ (OLD) / 90- 6) (SEE NOTE E 6) 153.50 AC � PARCEL A-8.010139 AC � / l (REMAINDER) 90-A-23 145.486 AC � a YY 0 \ \ 1 MMAIItM 90-A-M ( i 145.480 ACT= L 2 h J IF UNE BEARING DISTANCE Li '4 'W 14 . L2 N 4 ' . L3 N7 'W 1 . L4 'W 6' L5 N4 1.4 'W 7.1 LB 4 L7 1 3.64' LB 7. 1 L9 4" 36.4 ' LID 78.09' 'W 1 2' 01 N 47' 'w 1' L12 57'W , L13 N '4 'W 11 .90' L14 N L1S L18 1' 'W 17• 07 N 'W L18 N7 '4 'W 1 .48- L19 4 'W L20 4"5' 'W L21 4' 7' 1'%f 1 L22 N7 '1 7'W 1.8 ' L23 N '49'W 1' L24 N •44• 'W 7 L25 7 'W L IS L27 41 1'08' 7 .7 ' t C. J.WINKE Lid No. 1 Owl/09) MINOR RURAL SUB00ASlON OF THE LAND OF O-N MINERALS (CHEMSMNE) COMPANY BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: AS SHOWN DATE DUNE 25. 2008 REVISED: JULY 9, 2008 Carl J. Rinker do Associates 74 Phalpd Cant Stro�burg 715 VA SHEET 2 OF 2 540-459-4 VIRGIrOk- FREDERICK COUNTY-SCT. mfe itastrmaem of writing was produced to me on p?S—PI' at H 1 21 Pr2 and tiHhcx-IT4"tcacknwvledgemcm thereto annexed was admmc,f No Rt1Kd. "fax imix»ed h) Sec. 58.1-802 of $ , and 58.1-801 have been paid, if assessable. �� t-4-0 ' Clerk Methodology and Purpose of Pre -Blast Surveys at the Middletown Operation WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A PRE -BLAST SURVEY? As the name implies, the pre -blast survey is a visual inspection of selected structures located adjacent to proposed blasting activities. While off -site effects of commercial blasting such as that proposed for the Middletown expansion are expected to pose no threat to existing structures, it has been historically documented that when the perception of blasting reaches new or additional property owners, it is human nature to pay additional attention to one's property. Decades of research performed by the US Bureau of Mines as well as other investigative groups, have fully documented not only the impact of blasting on structures, but also the impact of ambient environmental conditions. While blast effects typically remain well below the effects of various environmental forces, stress caused by everyday exposure to various weather events regularly places strain on construction materials above their ability to resist impact. In other words, these studies have documented what every homeowner already knows, houses, over time, will develop cracks and defects. EXHIBIT 3 y � EL 7 c m co 6 0- 5 w c q 0 T 3 > 2 y f9 m 1 Environmental Effects Comparison With Blast Vibration Inside Exterior Inside Exterior Wind Middletown Humidity Humidity Temp Temp Gusts Blast Changes Changes Change Change (Avg.) Environmental Effect Oriard, 1992 With the property owner paying close attention to the structure upon the perception of blasting operations, minor, threshold cracks that may have previously gone unnoticed now become the focus of attention. The question becomes; "were they there before the blasting started"? The pre -blast survey has become a standard practice for mine and quarry expansion to remove as much doubt regarding the effect, or lack of effect, of blasting on the community as possible. By documenting the condition of a structure before it is exposed to transient ground vibration energy from blasting, a baseline of condition can be developed to aid both the property owner, as well as the mine operator, in determining cause and effect associated with blasting. HOW IS A PRE -BLAST SURVEY CONDUCTED? The pre -blast survey is a relatively simple process requiring no effort on behalf of the property owner other than providing access to his or her home for about one to two hours. The inspector will ask to be given access to both exterior and interior walls, floor and ceiling surfaces, looking for any observable cracks, separations, settlement or other feature that would be considered a change from standard building conditions. Most of the cracks found in residential structures are easily observed at window and door openings, wall junctions and ceiling tape joints. Whenever a crack is found, the inspector will document the location of the crack and its characteristics by taking a photograph or videotape of each observed area. In addition to the photograph, a written description of each crack will be made, providing the location of the crack, length/width features and any other observations deemed of interest. After reviewing all interior surfaces, a similar survey of the exterior of the structure will be performed, using the same simple technique of inspecting observable surfaces and documenting any change in condition with photographs and or videotape. In addition, basic information regarding the structure (age, additions, major repairs, etc.) will be requested similar to what is done for a home purchase inspection. At the conclusion of the survey, the inspector will create a written report containing all of the photographic documentation, as well as the written narrative identifying the location and characteristics of each photograph. A copy of this report will be provided to the property owner. For a typical 3,000 ft2 residential home, a complete survey can be completed in less than two hours. HOW MANY TIMES WILL MY PROPERTY BE SURVEYED? In most cases, a single survey is performed when it is projected that approaching blast operations will become perceptible to the property owner. Because of the impact of environmental forces on any structure over time, it is not appropriate to survey structures if prolonged periods of time will elapse prior to the commencement of blasting in the area. In operations such as Middletown, it would be expected that perception of blasting activities would occur when blasting operations are at a distance of approximately 3,000 feet from blasting operations. Given the phasing of mining activities at Middletown, this would mean that some existing and future structures might not require a pre -blast survey for many years. Sometimes arrangements are made with property owners to have all adjoining properties surveyed upon the receipt of the new mine permit as a means of providing everyone with a general baseline of structure condition at the commencement of general mining activities associated with the permit. An agreement is then made to allow for a second survey when blasting activities reach perceptible levels if a time period greater than six months has elapsed since the initial survey. As all blasting operations are monitored with approved seismic monitoring equipment, no additional surveys will be required. HOW DO I KNOW THE SURVEY IS IMPARTIAL? This is one of the cases where anything that is done with regard to the pre —blast survey that is substandard or incorrectly done will aid the property owner. The primary error that is made with regard to a survey is to miss an existing crack or condition that should be documented. Logic would indicate that this only works in the property owner's favor as, in essence, the structure contains pre-existing cracks that have not been documented, leaving the possibility that they may be claimed as blast related at a later date. I know of no manipulation of a pre -blast survey that can be done that would aid the mine operator in any way. The pre -blast survey is an effective tool in providing the property owner and the mine operator with a baseline reference for the condition of the community prior to blasting. While it needs to be stressed that continued exposure to environmental forces will, over time, show some change in the condition of any structure, the pre -blast survey is still an effective means of establishing guidelines prior to blasting activities. JanutuY 2006 ft Chemstone - Middletown PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT 0 5 w c 4 0 3 w 2 �a m 1 Environmental Effects Comparison With Blast Vibration m --_0 m C � C U ?K C M 10 C ._2 C4 N Inside Exterior Inside Exterior Wind Middletown Humidity Humidity Temp Temp Gusts Blast Changes Changes Change Change (Avg.) Environmental Effect Oriard, 1992 With the property owner paying close attention to the structure upon the perception of blasting operations, minor, threshold cracks that may have previously gone unnoticed now become the focus of attention. The question becomes; "were they there before the blasting started"? The pre -blast survey has become a standard practice for mine and quarry expansion to remove as much doubt regarding the effect, or lack of effect, of blasting on the community as possible. By documenting the condition of a structure before it is exposed to transient ground vibration energy from blasting, a baseline of condition can be developed to aid both the property owner, as well as the mine operator, in determining cause and effect associated with blasting. HOW IS A PRE -BLAST SURVEY CONDUCTED? The pre -blast survey is a relatively simple process requiring no effort on behalf of the property owner other than providing access to his or her home for about one to two hours. The inspector will ask to be given access to both exterior and interior walls, floor and ceiling surfaces, looking for any observable cracks, separations, settlement or other feature that would be considered a change from standard building conditions. Most of the cracks found in residential structures are easily observed at window and door openings, wall junctions and ceiling tape joints. Whenever a crack is found, the inspector will document the location of the crack and its characteristics by taking a photograph or videotape of each observed area. In addition to the photograph, a written description of each crack will be made, providing the location of the crack, length/width features and any other observations deemed of interest. After reviewing all interior surfaces, a similar survey of the exterior of the structure will be performed, using the same simple technique of inspecting observable surfaces and documenting any change in condition with photographs and or videotape. In addition, basic information regarding the structure (age, additions, major repairs, etc.) will be requested similar to what is done for a home purchase inspection. At the conclusion of the survey, the inspector will create a written report containing all of the photographic documentation, as well as the written narrative identifying the location and characteristics of each photograph. A copy of this report will be provided to the property owner. For a typical 3,000 ftz residential home, a complete survey can be completed in less than two hours. HOW MANY TIMES WILL MY PROPERTY BE SURVEYED? In most cases, a single survey is performed when it is projected that approaching blast operations will become perceptible to the property owner. Because of the impact of environmental forces on any structure over time, it is not appropriate to survey structures if prolonged periods of time will elapse prior to the commencement of blasting in the area. In operations such as Middletown, it would be expected that perception of blasting activities would occur when blasting operations are at a distance of approximately 3,000 feet from blasting operations. Given the phasing of mining activities at Middletown, this would mean that some existing and future structures might not require a pre -blast survey for many years. Sometimes arrangements are made with property owners to have all adjoining properties surveyed upon the receipt of the new mine permit as a means of providing everyone with a general baseline of structure condition at the commencement of general mining activities associated with the permit. An agreement is then made to allow for a second survey when blasting activities reach perceptible levels if a time period greater than six months has elapsed since the initial survey. As all blasting operations are monitored with approved seismic monitoring equipment, no additional surveys will be required. HOW DO I KNOW THE SURVEY IS IMPARTIAL? This is one of the cases where anything that is done with regard to the pre —blast survey that is substandard or incorrectly done will aid the property owner. The primary error that is made with regard to a survey is to miss an existing crack or condition that should be documented. Logic would indicate that this only works in the property owner's favor as, in essence, the structure contains pre-existing cracks that have not been documented, leaving the possibility that they may be claimed as blast related at a later date. I know of no manipulation of a pre -blast survey that can be done that would aid the mine operator in any way. The pre -blast survey is an effective tool in providing the property owner and the mine operator with a baseline reference for the condition of the community prior to blasting. While it needs to be stressed that continued exposure to environmental forces will, over time, show some change in the condition of any structure, the pre -blast survey is still an effective means of establishing guidelines prior to blasting activities. description of each crack will be made, providing the location of the crack, length/width features and any other observations deemed of interest. After reviewing all interior surfaces, a similar survey of the exterior of the structure will be performed, using the same simple technique of inspecting observable surfaces and documenting any change in condition with photographs and or videotape. In addition, basic information regarding the structure (age, additions, major repairs, etc.) will be requested similar to what is done for a home purchase inspection. At the conclusion of the survey, the inspector will create a written report containing all of the photographic documentation, as well as the written narrative identifying the location and characteristics of each photograph. A copy of this report will be provided to the property owner. For a typical 3,000 ft2 residential home, a complete survey can be completed in less than two hours. HOW MANY TIMES WILL MY PROPERTY BE SURVEYED? In most cases, a single survey is performed when it is projected that approaching blast operations will become perceptible to the property owner. Because of the impact of environmental forces on any structure over time, it is not appropriate to survey structures if prolonged periods of time will elapse prior to the commencement of blasting in the area. In operations such as Middletown, it would be expected that perception of blasting activities would occur when blasting operations are at a distance of approximately 3,000 feet from blasting operations. Given the phasing of mining activities at Middletown, this would mean that some existing and future structures might not require a pre -blast survey for many years. Sometimes arrangements are made with property owners to have all adjoining properties surveyed upon the receipt of the new mine permit as a means of providing everyone with a general baseline of structure condition at the commencement of general mining activities associated with the permit. An agreement is then made to allow for a second survey when blasting activities reach perceptible levels if a time period greater than six months has elapsed since the initial survey. As all blasting operations are monitored with approved seismic monitoring equipment, no additional surveys will be required. HOW DO I KNOW THE SURVEY IS IMPARTIAL? This is one of the cases where anything that is done with regard to the pre —blast survey that is substandard or incorrectly done will aid the property owner. The primary error that is made with regard to a survey is to miss an existing crack or condition that should be documented. Logic would indicate that this only works in the property owner's favor as, in essence, the structure contains pre-existing cracks that have not been documented, leaving the possibility that they may be claimed as blast related at a later date. I know of no manipulation of a pre -blast survey that can be done that would aid the mine operator in any way. The pre -blast survey is an effective tool in providing the property owner and the mine operator with a baseline reference for the condition of the community prior to blasting. While it needs to be stressed that continued exposure to environmental forces will, over time, show some change in the condition of any structure, the pre -blast survey is still an effective means of establishing guidelines prior to blasting activities. WELL GUARANTEE AGREEMENT Carmeuse Lime & Stone, its successors or assigns (hereinafter referred to as "MINE OWNER") guarantees to the undersigned Owner that it will replace or replenish the Owner's existing privately owned domestic -use water well(s) under the following circumstances: Any water well negatively impacted in such a way as to render it unsuitable for its existing use, on property within 1,500 feet of any parcels being actively quarried and dewatered by MINE OWNER located at its Middletown plant (hereinafter referred to as the MINE OWNER Facility) by depleting a well, lowering the water surface below the pump or negatively intercepting the groundwater flow to the well. If at some future date MINE OWNER expands the MINE OWNER Facility and the active mining operations into other adjoining properties not currently zoned for earth materials extraction, then this Well Guarantee Agreement will be automatically expanded to include all parcels within 1,500 feet from those areas. MINE OWNER will repair the problem by lowering the pump, deepening the well. drilling a replacement well. and/or installing an appropriate water quality treatment system at no cost to the Owner. The undersigned Owner, in accepting this guarantee. agrees to the following conditions: The Owner grants permission to MINE OWNER or its representative to inspect and evaluate the current condition of the well as part of a baseline water well inspection survey. The Owner grants permission to MINE OWNER or its representative to perform water level measurements of the well or collect water quality samples (in addition to the baseline water well inspection survey) on an as needed basis for the purpose of creating background data for the well, and to assess potential complaints. The Owner agrees to notify within twenty-four (24) hours of discovery of the reduction of water supply, depletion of the well or degradation in water quality so that MINE OWNER and a third - party hydrogeologist (as a Licensed Professional Geologist in the State of Virginia) can verify and/or document any occurrences noted during quarrying at the MINE OWNER Facility that may have contributed to the reduction of water supply or well depletion. The third -party hydrogeologist shall document the reduction of water supply, depletion of the well or degradation in water quality. Further, the hydrogeologist will make a determination as to the cause of the reduction of water supply, depletion of the well or degradation in water quality only for purposes of determining the appropriate repair or remediation. MINE OWNER shall be responsible for supplying temporary potable water for human consumption, and potentially. water hauling for other uses (as appropriate) until the problem is corrected. MINE OWNER shall be allowed by the Owner to evaluate the well and conduct such reasonable tests as it deems necessary to verify the cause of the reduction of water supply, depletion of the well or degradation in water quality. MINE OWNER agrees to bear all reasonable expenses that result from said reduction of water supply or well depletion; including, but not limited to temporary potable water supply for human consumption, household use, water hauling for other potential uses (as appropriate), well and pump modification, new well construction, and legal fees expended in implementing this Well Guarantee Agreement. The owner shall notify MINE OWNER prior to undertaking remedial activities or incurring expenses that later may be borne by MINE OWNER. Repair costs due to worn or defective pumps, electrical cabling, and piping are specifically EXHIBIT yA D excluded from this guarantee. The terms of the Well Guarantee Agreement are binding during the active life of the said MINE OWNER Facility, including one year following cessation of mining activities. Upon the expiration of one year following completion of quarrying activities at the MINE OWNER Facility, this Well Guarantee Agreement shall be considered null and void. Owner: Date: MINE OWNER: Title: Date: Local homeowners within 1,500 feet of the property line of the proposed expansion will be invited to take part in a pre -expansion survey of their domestic water wells. Within _ days after rezoning is approved, each property owner within the 1,500 ft. radius of the proposed expansion will be sent an informational newsletter explaining the purpose of the Survey. A second letter, which will include a short scheduling form for owners to fill out and return to Carmeuse Lime & Stone, will be sent out within _ days after the newsletter, and a public information meeting will be held as a follow up. As the scheduling forms are received, the property owners will be contacted by Carmeuse personnel to coordinate a day and time that is convenient to conduct the survey. The Survey generally will consist of a short, in -person or phone, interview with the resident, property owner, or other knowledgeable party to gain information on the history of their well. The interview will followed by a physical inspection of the well. This includes obtaining the water level, pump setting depth and total depth. Existing driller's logs will also be examined. All sampling will be conducted in accordance with governing approved testing procedures for potable water wells. Field parameters measured at the time of collection include pH, Specific Conductance, Temperature, and Turbidity. The samples will be packed in ice and transported under chain -of -custody to a third party, accredited analytical laboratory for analysis. The samples will be analyzed at the laboratory for pertinent biological and chemical constituents. These include Total Coliform, Alkalinity, Chloride, Sulfate, Nitrate, Phosphorus, Potassium, Sodium, Magnesium, Calcium, Iron, and Manganese. Each well will also be tested to determine its Specific Capacity, which will be used as a baseline for well yield estimations at that particular location. Well water at each respective well will be purged at a measured flow rate (variable for each well) for a specific time interval (also variable for each well) using the existing pumping system currently in place. The water level in each well will be measured during the testing period. Typically the well will be purged at a flow rate of less than 5 to 10 gallons per minute for approximately 30 minutes or less. The Specific Capacity for each test will be calculated using the average pumping rate during the test divided by the water level drawdown incurred at the well during the test. Copies of the resulting reports will be provided to the property owner, as well as being maintained by Carmeuse and the designated third party performing the evaluation. EIBIT Methodology and Purpose of Pre -Blast Surveys at the Middletown Operation WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A PRE -BLAST SURVEY? As the name implies, the pre -blast survey is a vis proposed blasting activities. While off -site effect: Middletown expansion are expected to pose nc documented that when the perception of blasting nature to pay additional attention to one's property. aal inspection of selected structures located adjacent to of commercial blasting such as that proposed for the threat to existing structures, it has been historically reaches new or additional property owners, it is human Decades of research performed by the US Bureau of Mines as well as other investigative groups, have fully documented not only the impact of blasting on structures, but also the impact of ambient environmental conditions. While blast effects typically remain well below the effects of various environmental forces, stress caused by everyday exposure to various weather events regularly places strain on construction materials above their ability to resist impact. In other words, these studies have documented what every homeowner already knows, houses, over time, will develop cracks and defects. EXHIBIT 11 3 ;' 8 a c v 6 5 W c q 0 3 2 N IC M 1 Environmental Effects Comparison With Blast Vibration m c a' t m °� � G cm C M s N C e o 04 = CL dC i Inside Exterior Inside Exterior Wind Middletown Humidity Humidity Temp Temp Gusts Blast Changes Changes Change Change (Avg.) Environmental Effect Oriard, 1992 With the property owner paying close attention to the structure upon the perception of blasting operations, minor, threshold cracks that may have previously gone unnoticed now become the focus of attention. The question becomes; "were they there before the blasting started"? The pre -blast survey has become a standard practice for mine and quarry expansion to remove as much doubt regarding the effect, or lack of effect, of blasting on the community as possible. By documenting the condition of a structure before it is exposed to transient ground vibration energy from blasting, a baseline of condition can be developed to aid both the property owner, as well as the mine operator, in determining cause and effect associated with blasting. HOW IS A PRE -BLAST SURVEY CONDUCTED? The pre -blast survey is a relatively simple process requiring no effort on behalf of the property owner other than providing access to his or her home for about one to two hours. The inspector will ask to be given access to both exterior and interior walls, floor and ceiling surfaces, looking for any observable cracks, separations, settlement or other feature that would be considered a change from standard building conditions. Most of the cracks found in residential structures are easily observed at window and door openings, wall junctions and ceiling tape joints. Whenever a crack is found, the inspector will document the location of the crack and its characteristics by taking a photograph or videotape of each observed area. In addition to the photograph, a written WELL GUARANTEE AGREEMENT Carmeuse Lime & Stone, its successors or assigns (hereinafter referred to as "MINE OWNER") guarantees to the undersigned Owner that it will replace or replenish the Owner's existing privately owned domestic -use water well(s) under the following circumstances: Any water well negatively impacted in such a way as to render it unsuitable for its existing use, on property within 1,500 feet of any parcels being actively quarried and dewatered by MINE OWNER located at its Middletown plant (hereinafter referred to as the MINE OWNER Facility) by depleting a well, lowering the water surface below the pump or negatively intercepting the groundwater flow to the well. If at some future date MINE OWNER expands the MINE OWNER Facility and the active mining operations into other adjoining properties not currently zoned for earth materials extraction, then this Well Guarantee Agreement will be automatically expanded to include all parcels within 1,500 feet from those areas. MINE OWNER will repair the problem by lowering the pump, deepening the well. drilling a replacement well. and/or installing an appropriate water quality treatment system at no cost to the Owner. The undersigned Owner, in accepting this guarantee. agrees to the following conditions: The Owner grants permission to MINE OWNER or its representative to inspect and evaluate the current condition of the well as part of a baseline water well inspection survey. The Owner grants permission to MINE OWNER or its representative to perform water level measurements of the well or collect water quality samples (in addition to the baseline water well inspection survey) on an as needed basis for the purpose of creating background data for the well, and to assess potential complaints. The Owner agrees to notify within twenty-four (24) hours of discovery of the reduction of water supply, depletion of the well or degradation in water quality so that MINE OWNER and a third - party hydrogeologist (as a Licensed Professional Geologist in the State of Virginia) can verify and/or document any occurrences noted during quarrying at the MINE OWNER Facility that may have contributed to the reduction of water supply or well depletion. The third -party hydrogeologist shall document the reduction of water supply, depletion of the well or degradation in water quality. Further, the hydrogeologist will make a determination as to the cause of the reduction of water supply, depletion of the well or degradation in water quality only for purposes of determining the appropriate repair or remediation. MINE OWNER shall be responsible for supplying temporary potable water for human consumption, and potentially. water hauling for other uses (as appropriate) until the problem is corrected. MINE OWNER shall be allowed by the Owner to evaluate the well and conduct such reasonable tests as it deems necessary to verify the cause of the reduction of water supply, depletion of the well or degradation in water quality. MINE OWNER agrees to bear all reasonable expenses that result from said reduction of water supply or well depletion; including, but not limited to temporary potable water supply for human consumption, household use, water hauling for other potential uses (as appropriate), well and pump modification, new well construction, and legal fees expended in implementing this Well Guarantee Agreement. The owner shall notify MINE OWNER prior to undertaking remedial activities or incurring expenses that later may be borne by MINE OWNER. Repair costs due to worn or defective pumps, electrical cabling, and piping are specifically EXHIBIT D IA excluded from this guarantee. The terms of the Well Guarantee Agreement are binding during the active life of the said MINE OWNER Facility, including one year following cessation of mining activities. Upon the expiration of one year following completion of quarrying activities at the MINE OWNER Facility, this Well Guarantee Agreement shall be considered null and void. Owner: Date: MINE OWNER: Title: Date: Local homeowners within 1,500 feet of the property line of the proposed expansion will be invited to take part in a pre -expansion survey of their domestic water wells. Within _ days after rezoning is approved, each property owner within the 1,500 ft. radius of the proposed expansion will be sent an informational newsletter explaining the purpose of the Survey. A second letter, which will include a short scheduling form for owners to fill out and return to Carmeuse Lime & Stone, will be sent out within days after the newsletter, and a public information meeting will be held as a follow up. As the scheduling forms are received, the property owners will be contacted by Carmeuse personnel to coordinate a day and time that is convenient to conduct the survey. The Survey generally will consist of a short, in -person or phone, interview with the resident, property owner, or other knowledgeable party to gain information on the history of their well. The interview will followed by a physical inspection of the well. This includes obtaining the water level, pump setting depth and total depth. Existing driller's logs will also be examined. All sampling will be conducted in accordance with governing approved testing procedures for potable water wells. Field parameters measured at the time of collection include pH, Specific Conductance, Temperature, and Turbidity. The samples will be packed in ice and transported under chain -of -custody to a third party, accredited analytical laboratory for analysis. The samples will be analyzed at the laboratory for pertinent biological and chemical constituents. These include Total Coliform, Alkalinity, Chloride, Sulfate, Nitrate, Phosphorus, Potassium, Sodium, Magnesium, Calcium, Iron, and Manganese. Each well will also be tested to determine its Specific Capacity, which will be used as a baseline for well yield estimations at that particular location. Well water at each respective well will be purged at a measured flow rate (variable for each well) for a specific time interval (also variable for each well) using the existing pumping system currently in place. The water level in each well will be measured during the testing period. Typically the well will be purged at a flow rate of less than 5 to 10 gallons per minute for approximately 30 minutes or less. The Specific Capacity for each test will be calculated using the average pumping rate during the test divided by the water level drawdown incurred at the well during the test. Copies of the resulting reports will be provided to the property owner, as well as being maintained by Carmeuse and the designated third party performing the evaluation. EXHIBIT y� DECLARATION OF COVENANTS CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS AND RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL THIS DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AND RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL (the "Declaration") is made as of the day of , 2008, by and between O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE COMPANY), a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns (the "Declarant") (Grantor for indexing purposes), and CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD FOUNDATION, INC., a Virginia corporation, its successors and assigns (the "Association") (Grantee for indexing purposes). RECITALS: A. The Declarant is the owner of certain real property, which is intended to be a historical reserve and to be conveyed to Grantee as such and with the following covenants, conditions and restrictions and also be subject to a right of first refusal. NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant, for and in consideration of the premises and the covenants contained herein, grants, establishes and conveys to Grantee a certain tract of land, which is further described in the attached and incorporated plat ("Property"), which shall be maintained as a historic reserve and further establishes the following covenants: 1. There shall be no occupied dwellings on the Property; 2. The Property shall be maintained with all grass neatly mowed at all times and any trees maintained using best management practices; 1 3. The Declarant further reserves the right to take any action reasonably required to maintain the Property in the event the Grantee fails to do so. This right shall include but not be limited to the right to enter upon the Property to do such work on the Property as may be required to effect the provisions of this Declaration. IT IS FURTHER agreed and understood that the Property shall be conveyed with the Grantor retaining a right of first refusal to purchase the Property in the event the Grantee conveys or sells all or a portion of the Property to an entity, which is not related to the Grantee and which is not a charitable entity established for the preservation of historic properties. The parties do agree to execute any and all such other documents as may be required to effect provisions of this agreement, including but not limited to, a memorandum confirming the right of first refusal to be recorded in the land records of Frederick County, Virginia. [REMAINDER OF TIIE PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK] W WITNESSETII, the following signatures and seals: O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE COMPANY) a Delaware corporation By: (Seal) Its: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF , TO WIT: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2008 by , of O-N Minerals (Chemstone Company). My Commission expires: Registration No.: Notary Public 3 CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD FOUNDATION, INC. a Virginia corporation By: (Seal) Its: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF , TO WIT: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2008 by of Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, Inc. My Commission expires: Registration No.: Notary Public M Methodology and Purpose of Pre -Blast Surveys at the Middletown Operation WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A PRE -BLAST SURVEY? As the name implies, the pre -blast survey is a visual inspection of selected structures located adjacent to proposed blasting activities. While off -site effects of commercial blasting such as that proposed for the Middletown expansion are expected to pose no threat to existing structures, it has been historically documented that when the perception of blasting reaches new or additional property owners, it is human nature to pay additional attention to one's property. Decades of research performed by the US Bureau of Mines as well as other investigative groups, have fully documented not only the impact of blasting on structures, but also the impact of ambient environmental conditions. While blast effects typically remain well below the effects of various environmental forces, stress caused by everyday exposure to various weather events regularly places strain on construction materials above their ability to resist impact. In other words, these studies have documented what every homeowner already knows, houses, over time, will develop cracks and defects. EXHIBIT a f c m 6 5 w m 1 He Environmental Effects Comparison With Blast Vibration Inside Exterior Inside Exterior Wind Middletown Humidity Humidity Temp Temp Gusts Blast Changes Changes Change Change (Avg.) Environmental Effect Oriard, 1992 With the property owner paying close attention to the structure upon the perception of blasting operations, minor, threshold cracks that may have previously gone unnoticed now become the focus of attention. The question becomes; "were they there before the blasting started"? The pre -blast survey has become a standard practice for mine and quarry expansion to remove as much doubt regarding the effect, or lack of effect, of blasting on the community as possible. By documenting the condition of a structure before it is exposed to transient ground vibration energy from blasting, a baseline of condition can be developed to aid both the property owner, as well as the mine operator, in determining cause and effect associated with blasting. HOW IS A PRE -BLAST SURVEY CONDUCTED? The pre -blast survey is a relatively simple process requiring no effort on behalf of the property owner other than providing access to his or her home for about one to two hours. The inspector will ask to be given access to both exterior and interior walls, floor and ceiling surfaces, looking for any observable cracks, separations, settlement or other feature that would be considered a change from standard building conditions. Most of the cracks found in residential structures are easily observed at window and door openings, wall junctions and ceiling tape joints. Whenever a crack is found, the inspector will document the location of the crack and its characteristics by taking a photograph or videotape of each observed area. In addition to the photograph, a written description of each crack will be made, providing the location of the crack, length/width features and any other observations deemed of interest. After reviewing all interior surfaces, a similar survey of the exterior of the structure will be performed, using the same simple technique of inspecting observable surfaces and documenting any change in condition with photographs and or videotape. In addition, basic information regarding the structure (age, additions, major repairs, etc.) will be requested similar to what is done for a home purchase inspection. At the conclusion of the survey, the inspector will create a written report containing all of the photographic documentation, as well as the written narrative identifying the location and characteristics of each photograph. A copy of this report will be provided to the property owner. For a typical 3,000 ft2 residential home, a complete survey can be completed in less than two hours. HOW MANY TIMES WILL MY PROPERTY BE SURVEYED? In most cases, a single survey is performed when it is projected that approaching blast operations will become perceptible to the property owner. Because of the impact of environmental forces on any structure over time, it is not appropriate to survey structures if prolonged periods of time will elapse prior to the commencement of blasting in the area. In operations such as Middletown, it would be expected that perception of blasting activities would occur when blasting operations are at a distance of approximately 3,000 feet from blasting operations. Given the phasing of mining activities at Middletown, this would mean that some existing and future structures might not require a pre -blast survey for many years. Sometimes arrangements are made with property owners to have all adjoining properties surveyed upon the receipt of the new mine permit as a means of providing everyone with a general baseline of structure condition at the commencement of general mining activities associated with the permit. An agreement is then made to allow for a second survey when blasting activities reach perceptible levels if a time period greater than six months has elapsed since the initial survey. As all blasting operations are monitored with approved seismic monitoring equipment, no additional surveys will be required. HOW DO I KNOW THE SURVEY IS IMPARTIAL? This is one of the cases where anything that is done with regard to the pre —blast survey that is substandard or incorrectly done will aid the property owner. The primary error that is made with regard to a survey is to miss an existing crack or condition that should be documented. Logic would indicate that this only works in the property owner's favor as, in essence, the structure contains pre-existing cracks that have not been documented, leaving the possibility that they may be claimed as blast related at a later date. I know of no manipulation of a pre -blast survey that can be done that would aid the mine operator in any way. The pre -blast survey is an effective tool in providing the property owner and the mine operator with a baseline reference for the condition of the community prior to blasting. While it needs to be stressed that continued exposure to environmental forces will, over time, show some change in the condition of any structure, the pre -blast survey is still an effective means of establishing guidelines prior to blasting activities. WELL GUARANTEE AGREEMENT Carmeuse Lime & Stone, its successors or assigns (hereinafter referred to as "MINE OWNER") guarantees to the undersigned Owner that it will replace or replenish the Owner's existing privately owned domestic -use water well(s) under the following circumstances: Any water well negatively impacted in such a way as to render it unsuitable for its existing use, on property within 1,500 feet of any parcels being actively quarried and dewatered by MINE OWNER located at its Middletown plant (hereinafter referred to as the MINE OWNER Facility) by depleting a well, lowering the water surface below the pump or negatively intercepting the groundwater flow to the well. If at some future date MINE OWNER expands the MINE OWNER Facility and the active mining operations into other adjoining properties not currently zoned for earth materials extraction, then this Well Guarantee Agreement will be automatically expanded to include all parcels within 1,500 feet from those areas. MINE OWNER will repair the problem by lowering the pump, deepening the well. drilling a replacement well. and/or installing an appropriate water quality treatment system at no cost to the Owner. The undersigned Owner, in accepting this guarantee. agrees to the following conditions: The Owner grants permission to MINE OWNER or its representative to inspect and evaluate the current condition of the well as part of a baseline water well inspection survey. The Owner grants permission to MINE OWNER or its representative to perform water level measurements of the well or collect water quality samples (in addition to the baseline water well inspection survey) on an as needed basis for the purpose of creating background data for the well, and to assess potential complaints. The Owner agrees to notify within twenty-four (24) hours of discovery of the reduction of water supply, depletion of the well or degradation in water quality so that MINE OWNER and a third - party hydrogeologist (as a Licensed Professional Geologist in the State of Virginia) can verify and/or document any occurrences noted during quarrying at the MINE OWNER Facility that may have contributed to the reduction of water supply or well depletion. The third -party hydrogeologist shall document the reduction of water supply, depletion of the well or degradation in water quality. Further, the hydrogeologist will make a determination as to the cause of the reduction of water supply, depletion of the well or degradation in water quality only for purposes of determining the appropriate repair or remediation. MINE OWNER shall be responsible for supplying temporary potable water for human consumption, and potentially. water hauling for other uses (as appropriate) until the problem is corrected. MINE OWNER shall be allowed by the Owner to evaluate the well and conduct such reasonable tests as it deems necessary to verify the cause of the reduction of water supply, depletion of the well or degradation in water quality. MINE OWNER agrees to bear all reasonable expenses that result from said reduction of water supply or well depletion; including, but not limited to temporary potable water supply for human consumption, household use, water hauling for other potential uses (as appropriate), well and pump modification, new well construction, and legal fees expended in implementing this Well Guarantee Agreement. The owner shall notify MINE OWNER prior to undertaking remedial activities or incurring expenses that later may be borne by MINE OWNER. Repair costs due to worn or defective pumps, electrical cabling, and piping are specifically EXHIBIT w d D D excluded from this guarantee. The terms of the Well Guarantee Agreement are binding during the active life of the said MINE OWNER Facility, including one year following cessation of mining activities. Upon the expiration of one year following completion of quarrying activities at the MINE OWNER Facility, this Well Guarantee Agreement shall be considered null and void. Owner: Date: MINE OWNER: Title: Date: Local homeowners within 1,500 feet of the property line of the proposed expansion will be invited to take part in a pre -expansion survey of their domestic water wells. Within _ days after rezoning is approved, each property owner within the 1,500 ft. radius of the proposed expansion will be sent an informational newsletter explaining the purpose of the Survey. A second letter, which will include a short scheduling form for owners to fill out and return to Carmeuse Lime & Stone, will be sent out within _ days after the newsletter, and a public information meeting will be held as a follow up. As the scheduling forms are received, the property owners will be contacted by Carmeuse personnel to coordinate a day and time that is convenient to conduct the survey. The Survey generally will consist of a short, in -person or phone, interview with the resident, property owner, or other knowledgeable party to gain information on the history of their well. The interview will followed by a physical inspection of the well. This includes obtaining the water level, pump setting depth and total depth. Existing driller's logs will also be examined. All sampling will be conducted in accordance with governing approved testing procedures for potable water wells. Field parameters measured at the time of collection include pH, Specific Conductance, Temperature, and Turbidity. The samples will be packed in ice and transported under chain -of -custody to a third party, accredited analytical laboratory for analysis. The samples will be analyzed at the laboratory for pertinent biological and chemical constituents. These include Total Coliform, Alkalinity, Chloride, Sulfate, Nitrate, Phosphorus, Potassium, Sodium, Magnesium, Calcium, Iron, and Manganese. Each well will also be tested to determine its Specific Capacity, which will be used as a baseline for well yield estimations at that particular location. Well water at each respective well will be purged at a measured flow rate (variable for each well) for a specific time interval (also variable for each well) using the existing pumping system currently in place. The water level in each well will be measured during the testing period. Typically the well will be purged at a flow rate of less than 5 to 10 gallons per minute for approximately 30 minutes or less. The Specific Capacity for each test will be calculated using the average pumping rate during the test divided by the water level drawdown incurred at the well during the test. Copies of the resulting reports will be provided to the property owner, as well as being maintained by Carmeuse and the designated third party performing the evaluation. EXHIBIT D �O /1 3 January 2006 Chemstone - Middletown PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: June 7, 2006 - Recommended Denial BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: May 28, 2008 ID APPROVED DENTIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING 403-06 OF O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) W11EREAS, Rezoning 403-06 of O-N AMinerals (Cheinstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust c&. Associates, to rezone 394.2 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive, Manufacturing) District with proffers dated June 13, 2005 and final revision May 27, 2008, was considered. The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west of lilies Road (Route 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenar-i.doah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The properties are in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 83-A-109 and 90-A-23. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on April 5, 2006 with final action taken on June 7, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on April 23, 2008 with final action taken on May 28, 2008; and WTHIEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 394.2 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District, with proffers, for a quarry, as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owners. PDRes. # 10-08 This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoptic Passed this 28th day of May, 2008 by the following re Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Aye Clary Dove Gene E. Fisher Aye Philip A. Lemieux Nay PDRCS. #10-08 PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ171 03-06 Rural Areas (RA) to Extractive Manufacturing (EM) PROPERTY: 394,2 Acres +/-; Portions of Tax Map Parcels 83-A-109 ("parcel 109") and 90-A-23 ("parcel 23") (the "Properties") RECORD OWNER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE(S) O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company 0-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company ("Applicant") Chemstone - Middletown June 13, 2005 January 16, 2006 March 18, 2008 May 20, 2008 February 8, 2006 April 18, 2008 May 22, 2008 August 28, 2006 May 14, 2008 May 27, 2008 The undersigned Applicant hereby proffers that the use and development of the portions of the above -referenced parcels, which are requested to be rezoned, the portions requested to be rezoned being shown on the attached and incorporated plat identified as "Exhibit 1," shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers on the Properties that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above -referenced EM conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant, these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Properties with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' (the `'Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an. interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Properties adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void. The terra "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan; O-N Minerals (Chemstone)" dated May, 2008 (the "GDP"). The Applicant attaches and incorporates the GDP, which includes a plan titled "Generalized Development Plan"; a plan titled "Overall Plan"; four plans titled "Phase I Plan", "Phase 11 Plan", "Phase III Plan", and "Phase IV Plan"; and twelve viewshed plats titled "Viewshed 1A, Viewshed 1B, Viewshed 2, Viewshed 3, Viewshed 4A, Viewshed 4B, Viewshed 5A, Viewshed 5B, Viewshed 6, Viewshed 7, Viewshed 8 and Viewshed 9". The aforementioned documents are and shall be incorporated by reference herein as "Exhibit 2." The Applicant proffers that its development of the Properties will be in substantial conformity with the GDP. 1. Land Use 1.1 The Properties shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining ("DMM") of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy ("VDMMI"), and shall therefore conform to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 1.2 The Applicant hereby proffers not to engage in the following uses on the Properties: Oil and natural gas extraction; Asphalt and concrete mixing plants; Brick, block and precast concrete products; Cement and lime kilns; and Coal and natural gas -fired power plants or facilities which sell power to the local utility or power grid* *This is not to be. interpreted as a restriction against using power plants on the Properties as necessary to support extractive mining activities. 2. Site Development 2.1 Properties' access via public secondary roads shall be limited to the existing quart' entrance on McCune Road (Route 757). Access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the Properties shall not be limited. 2.2 Earthen berms shall be installed around the active quarry pits in the location shown on the GDP. The berms shall have a maximum height of 30 feet and a minimum height of 10 feet. The berms (Berm A and Berm B) depicted on the Phase I Plan of the GDP shall be installed within 10 years of the approval of the rezoning. The berms (Bern C and Ben- D) depicted on the Phase Il Plan of the GDP shall be installed no later than 10 years prior to the commencement of mining north of Chapel Road. The berms shall be landscaped to miiumize impacts to the viewshed of the surrounding community. Such landscaping shall consist of a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed in a random manner to be consistent with existing vegetation patters. The description of the plants to be installed on the berms are more specifically described in the attached and incorporated "Exhibit 3." The landscaping shall be subject to reasonable approval by the Zoning Administrator of Frederick County and upon consultation with the State Forester. With respect to Berm A, located on Tax Parcel 90-A-2, not owned by the Applicant, the berm will be constructed by the Applicant as the tenant under a 100-year lease of Parcel 90-A--2, with authority under the lease to construct Berm A. 2.3 The existing overburden stock pile on the southeast corner of the current Middletown plant site shall be reduced in height to the greater of 30 feet or the height of the adjacent tree line (lying to the east) within 5 years of the approval of the rezoning. 3. Historic Resources 3.1 The Applicant shall create an 8 acre historic reserve as shown on the GDP and on Exhibit 1, within which archaeological resources and other historic activities have been identified. Further, the Applicant shall place restrictions on the reserve land for how the reserve will be used by the Properties' owner and future owners. A copy of said restrictions are attached and incorporated as "Exhibit 4." Said reserve land shall be dedicated to the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, Inc. within 60 days of final rezoning. [NOTE: the aforementioned 8 acre historic reserve property is not to be included in the property to be rezoned.] 3.2 The Applicant shall complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey of parcels 23 and 109. The Phase I Archaeological Survey of parcel 23 shall be completed within 12 months of the approval of the rezoning. For the remaining tracts of land, the Applicant shall complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey of a particular tract of land before any mining activities commence on that property. The Applicant may commence mining activities on a particular portion of the Properties before the completion of the Phase I survey for all of the Properties, but under any and all circumstances, no mining operations shall commence on any portion of the Properties until after the Phase I Archeological Survey has been completed on said portion of the Properties. Said survey shall locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects on the parcels, Such survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines for a Phase I Survey as defined in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources "GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY IN VIRGINIA - Chapter 7: Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Virginia," 1999 (Rev. Jan. 2003). 3.3 Two cemeteries have been identified on the Properties. The first cemetery is located adjacent to Chapel Road and is in an area that is not designated for mining and is also outside of the berming area. That cemetery is currently undergoing a historical restoration. After the historical restoration, the Applicant will follow the recommendations of the Applicant's historian. The second cemetery is located in the area where berming is slated to be installed. The Applicant proffers the beaming will be located in such a way as to not encroach on the cemetery. This cemetery is also currently undergoing a historical restoration. After the historical restoration, the Applicant will follow the recornmendations of the Applicant's historian. In addition, the cemetery is accessed through a right-of-way which is of record providing access to the cemetery from Route 625. The Applicant proffers to improve said right-of-way so that it can be used for access by the descendants of those in the cemetery within 12 months of completion of the cemetery restoration. Once said right-of- way has been improved, the Applicant will provide continued maintenance and have use of same. Rights to Water Supply 4.1 The Applicant shall guarantee the Frederick County Sanitation Authority ("FCSA") rights to the water resources available on the Properties in accordance with the existing agreements between the Applicant and FCSA. Ground Water 5.1 The Applicant shall install a minimum of three monitoring wells to effectively establish and monitor the groundwater- level in order to avoid detrimental impacts to surrounding properties. Said wells shall be installed prior to any land disturbance of the portion of the Properties identified as parcel 109 by the GDP, and shall be located witlain 500 feet of the Properties' boundaries. A minimum of one monitoring well shall be installed within 500 feet of the parcel 109 Properties' boundary. The exact location of the monitoring wells is depicted on the Overall Plan of the GDP. 5.2 Subject to and consistent with the provisions of paragraph 9.2, the Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations on the Properties. Costs associated with any required remediation shall be borne by the Applicant. Furthernnore, the Applicant agrees to participate in a pre -blast survey and well monitoring survey, as further described herein. The intent of the aforementioned surveys is to provide a mechanism to remediate any adverse impacts to wells and/or structures which are caused by the mining operations on the Properties. Dust Control 6.1 Dust from drills, muck piles, rnaterial handling, screens, crushers, conveyors, feeders, hoppers, stockpiles, load -outs, and traffic areas shall be controlled by wet suppression or equivalent, and controlled by and consistent with the terms of the Department of Environmental Quality ("VDEQ") general air permit. The Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the mining operations on the Properties. Blasting Control 7.1 All blasting associated with mining operations on the Properties shall be limited by the mining pennit approved by the DMM of the VDMME. Peak Particle Velocities (PPV) associated with blasting on the Properties shall not exceed the levels stipulated by said permit. In addition, the Applicant agrees to have an approved blasting plan in place at all tunes. An example of the current blasting plan is attached. Further, in addition, the Applicant agrees that there will be no block holing or adobe blasting conducted on the Properties. Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting on the Properties shall be remediated at the Applicant's expense. Traffi c 8.1 The Applicant's current number of truck loads leaving the site on a daily basis is approximately 63, and the Applicant has had higher numbers of recorded truck loads leaving the plant to a total of 114 truck loads per day. The Applicant, in its proffer, is agreeing to restrict truck traffic to the Properties to 86 truck loads per day averaged over the prior 30 days, but intends to also have an ability to increase the number of truck loads in the event of an emergency or circumstances, which could be caused by issues driven by the Applicant's customers, suppliers, and/or carriers. Examples of such shall include, but are not limited to, an interruption of rail service to the site and/or any sites that are serviced by rail from the Applicant's Properties and/or any other interruption of the ability to deliver materials at the Applicant's site or any other sites which are owned, controlled, or by business relationship connected with the Applicant's site. To that end, and in any circumstance, the Applicant agrees to restrict truck traffic to the Properties to a maximum of 200 truck loads per day averaged over the prior 30 days through the scale house hauling mined materials on and/or off the proposed quarry site from the existing quarry entrance. The maximum number of truck loads will be regulated by the Applicant and its successors and/or assigns. A record of the actual number of truck loads per day shall be kept current (and maintained for one year) by the Applicant at its scale house office. Said record shall be made available in a form which con.finns the number of trips and the form will be produced to Frederick County officials upon demand with reasonable notice. The Applicant proffers there will be. no truck loads from the Properties on Sundays and the hours of trick loading on Saturdays will be no later than 7:00 p.m. The Applicant further proffers it will instruct all truckers as to the proper route of travel from the Properties to Route 11, which shall exclude both Belle Grove and Chapel Roads. Pre -Blast Surveys 9.1 The Applicant will offer voluntary pre -blast surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent engineering firm, which will investigate and document the pre -blast conditions of the participants' residences and/or outbuildings. The Applicant and its successors and assigns will contact all citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 1.09, and monitor the tax roles for Frederick County on an annual basis in order to contact any citizens who have recently purchased the aforementioned property. This contact will be made by the Applicant and its successor and assigns to invite citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109 to participate in the pre -blast surveys. Contact will be made by registered return -receipt letters, rnailed annually from the time of the rezoning. All citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109 can, and are encouraged to, participate in the survey by contacting the Applicant and scheduling a. mutually agreeable time for the independent engineering fine to visit the party's residence to document and survey the pre -blast condition of the party's residences/outbuildings following the procedures set forth in the attached and incorporated "Exhibit 5." If the property owner agrees to participate, the Applicant's and/or its engineering fn-zm shall visit and inspect the party's residences/outbuildings to monitor the condition of the same. A record of those pre -blast conditions will be kept by the independent engineering fine with copies retained by the Applicant and the participating property owner. In the event of a change in condition, which is alleged by the participating property owner as a result of mining operations, the engineering frrn will then conduct a follow-up visit and investigation and use the pre -blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. Said analysis shall be used to determine the cause of any negative change in condition. If it is determined there is a change in condition in the residences/outbuildings, which has been caused by the Applicant's mining activities on the Properties, then the Applicant agrees to remediate and/or repair said negative change in condition to restore it to its status prior to blasting operations. In addition, the Applicant agrees to establish seismic monitoring of the proposed quarry site to monitor all blasting activities and keep records of said seismic monitoring as required by the VDMME. 9.2 The Applicant will offer voluntary well .monitoring surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent well drilling firm or hydrogeologist, which will investigate and document the pre -mining conditions of the participants' wells. The Applicant and its successors and assigns will contact all citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109, and monitor the tax roles for Frederick County on an annual basis in order to contact any citizens who have recently purchased the aforementioned property. This contact will be made by Applicant and its successor and assigns to invite citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109 to participate in the well monitoring surveys. Contact will be made by sending annually registered return -receipt letters. All citizens who have property located within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109 can and are encouraged to participate in the survey by scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent well drilling firm to visit the party's residence to document and survey the pre -blast condition of the party's well following the procedures set forth in the attached and incorporated "Exhibit 6A and 6B." A record of these pre -mining conditions will be kept by the independent well drilling firm, with copies retained by the Applicant and the participating property owner. In the event a change of condition is alleged by the property owner as a result of mining operations, the Applicant will provide an interim replacement water supply as necessary to supply the property owner with water. The well drilling firm will then conduct a follow-up visit and investigation and use pre - blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. If it is determined that the status of the neighboring property owner's well has deteriorated from the condition it was in at the time of the pre -blast survey, then the Applicant agrees to restore the well to its condition existing at the time of the pre -blast survey and/or provide the adjoining property owner a replacement well of the same condition (or better) of that which existed at that time of the pre -blast survey. 9.3 In addition to the above, the Applicant agrees to maintain in force an insurance policy or other sufficient security for the period of time covering the active mining operations on the Properties and to maintain in effect for a period of one year from the date of cessation of said mining operations, and to cover the costs of any remediation and/or repair, which is required pursuant to the terms of sections 9.1 and 9.2 above. Said policy or surety shall be in the amount of no less than One Million and 00/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. Frederick County may review from time to time the amount of the policy or surety to evaluate whether the minimum amount of $ l ,000,000.00 is sufficient to protect the cost of any remediation and/or repair, which is required pursuant to the terms of sections 9.1 and 9.2. In the event Frederick County believes that the amount of the policy or surety needs to be increased for the reasons set forth above, then the Applicant and Frederick County shall reach an agreement as to the proper amount of policy or surety. The approval of said increase shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or denied by either party. The Applicant shall amZually provide to the County a Certificate of Insurance from the insurance carrier. 10. Reclamation 10.1 It is intended that pursuant to the terms of the agreement reached with the FCSA that at the time of cessation of mining activities, the Properties' quarry pits shall be used by the FCSA as water reservoirs. The control of the water levels in the quarry pits shall be handed over to the FCSA. It is intended that the quarry pits at that time will contain quantities of water monitored and directed by the FCSA, and which will be conducive to the general betterment of natural habitat. 11. Noise Abatement 11.1 Operations on the Properties will not exceed the VDMME Engineering's decibel guidelines. The Applicant will make all reasonable efforts to locate mining machinery in the quarry pit or behind beans. 12. Lighting 12.1 There shall be no affixed lighting structures above -ground our the berms other than as may be required for or provided by regulations that affect the plant operations, including but not limited to, Mine Safety Health Administration ("MSHA"), VDMME, and any other govenunental or regulatory body that oversees mining operations. Lighting used for devices or machines that convey materials or for pit cnishing facilities and other mining activities is permitted. Conveying and pit crushing facilities shall also be interpreted as including such other devices or activities that perform similar or related functions that may come into use and/or existence at some time in the future while the extractive mining use is still in effect on the Properties. In addition to the above, all lighting will be installed in such a manner that there will be no spillover beyond any property line of the Applicant onto adjacent properties not owned by the Applicant. 13. Air Permit 13.1 The Applicant shall maintain its existing general air permit controlling emissions in accordance with the VDEQ standards and also see that the existing general air permit covers all activities conducted on the rezoned Properties. 14. Environment 14.1 In addition to compliance with the VPDES water discharge permit already in place, the Applicant agrees to work with a recognized environmental entity of the Applicant's choosing during its operations to ensure that the water emissions from water flowing from the quarry operations on the Properties is of a quality consistent with the water quality in Cedar Creek so as to maintain an environment conducive to natural habitats. No additional water discharge points will be added. 14.2 The Applicant agrees that all areas currently in trees on property owned by the Applicant, which is outside of the rezoned Properties and identified on the GDP as "Middletovni Woods", shall be maintained using best management practices. 14.3 The Applicant proffers to keep its mining operations at least 200 feet from the edge of Cedar- Creek. 15. Phasing 15.1 The Applicant agrees that mining activities on the Properties shall occur with the following phasing and as set forth on the Phasing Plans of the GDP: After the rezoning is approved, the Applicant will start creating berms on the newly rezoned Properties and the Applicant shall start quarrying in the area identified as parcel 23. Mining in parcel 23 shall occur from the time period commencing with the approval of the rezoning for a period of time which is estimated to he twenty years. For the newly zoned area, which is north of the existing EM zoned property, and south of Chapel Road, mining activities will commence no earlier than ten years from the date that the rezoning referenced herein is approved. For the newly zoned area, which lies north of Chapel Road, mining will commence no earlier than twenty years from the date that the rezoning referenced herein is approved. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Respectfully submitted, O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY Its: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this e day of 2008, by S�i►'�SoVI R PUBLIC ��?�•' �NOTARY�•'•.�9'• My commission expires piJR1 Ir. '•_ Registration number: REG # 71552566 o 6. EXPIRES ,/OgN� k/F l /WESTERNVIEW SUBDIVISION E yl 70 UB 828, PG 15811 /NIsroR�'£�� k f1 `` 6p0p8403 _ 9 Za/ 6�5 4 3 2 I t —T -- L5 \vdo / 00 2 >_2 cLl ms M rJ �� �Qo / 1 C9CD 4� C10 C8 0 J 2 it R03 04 OU ' �f5 Ri 'ViF II %E 62� O' �s DeN BRpPc sDYE (I 92 CifB C2 t l s o C, c �n a a z Q 0�. PORTION OF _Z 'o W' PIN 83-A-109 REMAINDER OF / w 1 I W m j 14.253,609 SF � PIN 83-A-109 / co r 2 �0 327.2178 AC W a x f a ! 0m oz 1 0 + PROPOSED EM N o / J 1 I a ZONING BOUNDARY O m J Q RUNS ALONG a. 0 EXISTING PROPERTY a LINES AT L22, L23 do L24 ONLY. Lt2mf- 02 2+ i vi o PENS ra�� F II a a 08 °2 i ONE � II Leo I � II i _ LINE TABLE INE BEARING LENGTH 0e B �q - - L1 N37'20'21"E 2908.33' NOTES: L2 N44'1 `04"W 353.46' 1. FREDERICK COUNTY PIN: C 6ge < o L3 N31'45'19"E '587.57' 83-A-109 C = L4 N83'55'47"L 11427.97'_' >' 1-5 �S56'S0'54"E 2031.06' 2. PROPERTY OUTLINE AND LJ -li MERIDIAN SHOWN HEREON ARE GRAPHIC SCALE o L6 S33.19'31"W 35918' BASED ON THE PLAT ATTACHED o 5oo +000 z000 !-7 551'D8'a6"w 1771.57' TO DEED OF BARGAIN AND SALE L8 N44'54'24"W 547.10" RECORDED IN DB 620, PG 186 ( IN Faer) i L9 AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF a 557'S3''2"W 326.61' FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA. 1 inch 1000 tt. w L10 540'29'59"W '80.07' INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS "ZONING BOUNDARY EXH!BiT A" a L11 $34_14'59"W 75.78' NOT BASED ON A CURRENT A PORTION OF THE L12 550-29'59"W 52.91' FIELD RUN SURVEY. ADJOINING PROPERTY CONVEYED TO s PROPERTY OWNERS ARE BASED i L13 539',59'45"W 100.50' ON INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CHEMSTONE CORPORATION w L14 5.4.7'S@' 6"W' 1D0.41 FREDERICK COUNTY GIS WEBSITE, DEED BOOK 620, PAGE 186 L15 S41'44'59"W 1DI. 79' MAY, 2008. BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT N L16 SO6'30_00"W_,_ ?5 9l' FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 544'aa'Sy"yy 4fi.Y0' 3• NO TITLE REPORT. N L17 SCALE: 1' = 1000' DATE: FEB. 15, 2006 I.iF. N60'27'Ol"W 19.00' REVISED: MAY 20, 2008 i _ Patton Harris Rust 8, Associales,PC + —-` U9 I S70"47 59"W 33 21' S..rveyors ?Innners. Landsr.npe Arch iec's. L20 S44'23'3 ' 873.66' i 21 3079.05' 117 East Piaadiiiy Slree;, Suite 2G0 v S 6'�8'S8"VJ 1 e 7 Winchester. Virginia 22601 L12 N4'3"'31"W 9 30' y '( �- o 23N42'39'21"E 62.27' �--@ T 54ossz213s i _L24 N43'20'04W 558.68' 1 j F 540.665,0493 PHR+A ZD08 EXHIBIT CHEMSTONE CORPORATION DB 628, PG 721 j c'Lgi, ry � go � 0-19� you s� r yc .00 9,0_ 1 N /F GARRET' FARMS, LLC y0 DB 846. PG 698 9,rc� / L6 \ � REMAINDER OF PIN 90—A-23 —g&� — RI,,U.RO pO LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH Li S37'00'10"E 1046.22' S46'56'50"W 262.12' _L2 L3 S43'05'07"E 889.86' L4 S29'32'22"E 615.38' L5 S35'51'02"W 863.68' L6 S89'56'36"W 475.26' L7 N17'59'22"W 645.46' L8 N40-11'14"W 1720.29' L9 N52'18'45"E 1336.75 NOTES: 1. FREDERICK COUNTY PIN: 90—A-23. 2. PROPERTY OUTLINE AND MERIDIAN SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE PLAT ATTACHED TO DEED RECORDED IN DB 582, PG 122 AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA. INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD RUN SURVEY. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM FREDERICK COUNTY GYS WEBSITE, MAY, 2008. 3. NO TITLE REPORT. GRAPHIC SCALE 0 500 1000 20M ( IN FEET ) I inch — 1000 rt. *PROPOSED EM ZONING BOUNDARY RUNS ALONG EXISTING PROPERTY LINES AT L1, L2, L3 do L4 ONLY. "ZONING BOUNDARY EXHIBIT B" A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO CHEMSTONE CORPORATION DEED BOOK 582, PAGE 122 BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, ARGINIA SCALE: 1" = 1000' DATE: MAY 20. 2008 Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. ///��� 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 P T T�_`R Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 L I1 F 540.665 0493 SHEET 1 OF 1 CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C1 1876.78' 1 66.33' 02'01'30" 1 S 78'41'59" W 66.33' 1 L7 I� V2' y lC 0 5 17 351.8031 SO. E': $g00 L 198.07F3t ACRES J Li0 _i B & 0 RAtLRNAI) 1r i i �F �s DETAIL 1 " = 50' s% EXISTING p-' RETAINING WALL EXISTIN oa BRIDGEG'� LINE BEARING I DISTANCE L1 S 59'38'45" W 142.52' L2 N 47'42'49" W 9.59' L3 N 15'52'44" W 22.16' L4 N 44'25'50" W 53.96' 1-5 N 42'01'49" W 57.18' L6 N 37'55'33" E 292.45' L7 S 86'35'28" E 1303.64' L8 S 18'05'05" E 87.01' L9 S 29*06*54" E 240.71' L10 S 89'32'16" W 443.23' L11 N 02'54'34" E 39.16' L12 N 73'35'59" W 34.99' L13 N 61"1'46" W 55.17' L14 N 79'13'29" W 88.69' L15 N 73"0'45" W 129.48' U 6 N 24'46'35" W 63.00' L17 N 74'55'35" W 1 11.16' 1_18 S 64'37'31 W 81.52' L19 N 78'12'17 W 61.62' L20 N 51'30'49" W 52.51' L21 N 64'44'51 W 73.52' L22 S 71'26'S6 W 50.03' L23 S 65'36'S1" W 151.36' L24 I S 41'51.08" W 79.70' 200' 400' 600 i" = 200' CHEMSTONE PROPOSED OFF -CONVEYANCE 8.076 ACRES ± BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: .AS SHOWN DATE: DECEMBER 2003 URBAN ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS - !.ANDSCAPE ARCH!'fkCiS - LAND SIJRVEYORS 600 PEGASUS COURT. SLIM- 101 WINCHES'I'ER. VIRUINIA 22602 040)450-0211 BERM PLANTING (as recommended by the Virginia State Forester) EXISTING BERMS: Where existing berms do not have adequate ground cover to prevent them from eroding, they should be planted with various native grasses, shrubs, and trees. A successful mixture of buckwheat, rye and other grasses has been. developed by quarry employees that has proven to be effective in vegetating these slopes. In spots where prior vegetating efforts have failed, it is recommended that erosion control methods such as landscape fabric and jute mats be installed prior to revegetating these spots. It may also be necessary to reshape the berm in these spots to retard water movement down the slope and to hold water for vegetation survival and growth by constructing planting terraces with existing rock and soil. RECOMMENDED TREE AND SHRUB SPECIES: Native species should be chosen to provide optimum survival, the least maintenance, and to further blend into the existing landscape. A list of suggested trees and shrubs for landscape plantings in the Shenandoah Valley is included. Actual species chosen need to be selected for the specific location they are to be planted, and their availability. Not all of these are available for purchase through nurseries. In general, these species should be intermixed to provide more of a camouflage effect along the face and ridgeline of the berms. Coniferous species should be planted where year-round screening is desired. Coniferous species, with their ability to survive better on hot dry slopes, should also be chosen for screening on south and west facing slopes. PLANTING RECOMMENDATIONS: Where possible, the topsoil removed in the initial stages of new quarry construction should be spread to the depth of 6 — 12 inches over all level surfaces that will be planted. For instance, the tops of the berms. The recommended planting terraces along the face of the berms should also be filled with topsoil prior to planting with trees and shrubs. Bare rooted plants are recommended because of their low cost, ease of planting, and good survivability. They should be planted in March or April of each year. INVASIVE SPECIES: Numerous invasive species now threaten native plants in eastern forests. If allowed to grow and spread unimpeded, they will crowd out native trees and have a negative impact on wildlife populations that depend on the native trees and shrubs for their food. Ailanthus (tree of heaven, paradise tree), paulownia, autumn olive and multiflora rose are the most common non-native invasive shrubs and trees in this locality. EXHIBIT v Ailanthus Has a distinct rancid odor in the leaves, twigs, and bark. Autumn Olive Aluminum sheen to the Underside of the leaves. Large crop of red berries each fall. Paulownia Large leaves 8" — 14" in diameter. Multiflora Rose Multiple stems from each plant. Numerous, short curved thorns. RECOMMENDATIONS: Once every 2 — 3 years, inspect all berms and associated land for invasive species. Where found, individual plants of these species should be either dug or pulled out of the ground, or deadened with herbicide applications to prevent the spread of their seed to these spots. One such herbicide recommended is RoundUp ®. Cutting the tree down and painting concentrated Roundup® herbicide on the stump within 2-3 minutes of cutting is very effective lAith invasive trees and requires a very little amount of herbicide. Very large trees can be girdled with a chainsaw or a hatchet, and a mixture of RoundUp® and water can be applied to the girdle to deaden the tree. This will also have the benefit of creating wildlife snags until the trees rot down. A foliar spray of RoundUp® can effectively control individual small stems and clumps of small stems. Instructions for timing of herbicide applications and mixing for the various methods of application will be found on the herbicide label. These instructions should be followed precisely to obtain the desired results and to protect the environment. NATIVE 'TREES (mostly) SUGGESTED FOR LANDSCAPING TI- E NOR' FERN SHENANDOAH VALLEY OF 'VIRGINIA No particular order of preference Gerald R. Crowell, Va. Dept. of Forestry 2/2008 Not all of these will grove on every site. First, decide why you want a tree; shade, screening, to enhance the landscape, fall coloration, flowering, wildlife food, etc. Second, choose the final mature height you want the tree to reach. When, research each species as to the desirability of planting in a particular location with regard to purpose, soil type, and available sunlight. DECIDIOUS: LITTLE T_LE `UNS (TO 20 FEET) Alder, Hazel Alnus serrulata Hawthorn Crataegu.s sps. Serviceberry Arnelanchier sps. Viburnum Viburnum sps Buckthorn, European Rhamnus cathartica Eringetree Chionanthus virginicus Elderberry Sambucus canandensis Burningbush Euonyrnus atropurpureus Redbud, Eastern Cercis canadensis MEDI `IJM' S (20 — 40 FEET) Hornbeam, American Carpinus caroliniana Hophornbeani, .Eastern ®strya virginiana Chinkapin Castanea pumila Pawpaw Asimina triloba Sassafras Sassafras albidran Persimmon Diospyros virginiana BIG `IMgS (40 — 80+ FEET) Willow, black Salix nigra Hickory Carya sps. Birch, yellow Betula alleghaniensis DEGIDIOU S BIG `UNS (continued) Birch, black, sweet Betula lenta Direb, River Betula nigra Oak Quercus sps. Except for Q. falcata, Q. nigra, Q. phellos, Q. virginiana Hackberry Celtus occidentalis Poplar, yellow, tulip Liriodendron tulipifera Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Maple, sugar Acer saccharurn Maple, red Acer rubrum Basswood Tilia Americana Blackgum i j ssa sylvatica EVERGREEN: LITTLE `UNS (to 20 feet) Rhododendron .rhododendron maeimum Fountain Laurel Kalmia latifolia MEDI `IJIVI' S (20-40 FEET) T) NONE BIG `UNS (40 — 80+ FEET) Pine, Pitch Pinus rigida Pine, shortleaf Pinus echinata Fine 'fable Mountain Pinus pungens Baldcypress Taxodium distichum Arborvitae, Northern whitecedar 1'huja occidentalis Eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana Norway spruce Picea abies Leyland Cypress Cupressocyparis leylandii NOT RECOMMENDED FOR LANDSCAPE 'TREES: Ash (Fraxinus sp.$), due to Emerald Ash Rorer White pine (Pinus strobus); be careful, it is off -site on many shale soils and limestone clay soils in the Valley Elm (Uhnus sps), due to elm yellows and Dutch Elm Disease DECLARATION OF COVENANTS CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AND RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL THIS DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AND RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL (the "Declaration") is made as of the day of , 2008, by and between O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE COMPANY), a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns (the "Declarant") (Grantor for indexing purposes), and CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD FOUNDATION, INC., a Virginia corporation, its successors and assigns (the "Association") (Grantee for indexing purposes). RECITALS: A. The Declarant is the owner of certain real property, which is intended to be a historical reserve and to be conveyed to Grantee as such and with the following covenants, conditions and restrictions and also be subject to a right of first refusal. NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant, for and in consideration of the premises and the covenants contained herein, grants, establishes and conveys to Grantee a certain tract of land, which is further described in the attached and incorporated plat ("Property"). which shall be maintained as a historic reserve and further establishes the following covenants: 1. There shall be no occupied dwellings on the Property; 2. The Property shall be maintained with all grass neatly mowed at all times and any trees maintained using best management practices; EXHIBIT T `r 1 � 3. The Declarant further reserves the right to take any action reasonably required to maintain the Property in the event the Grantee fails to do so. This right shall include but not be limited to the right to enter upon the Property to do such work on the Property as may be required to effect the provisions of this Declaration. IT IS FURTHER agreed and understood that the Property shall be conveyed with the Grantor retaining a right of first refusal to purchase the Property in the event the Grantee conveys or sells all or a portion of the Property to an entity, which is not related to the Grantee and which is not a charitable entity established for the preservation of historic properties. The parties do agree to execute any and all such other documents as may be required to effect provisions of this agreement, including but not limited to, a memorandum confirming the right of first refusal to be recorded in the land records of Frederick County, Virginia. [REMAINDER OF TI-lE PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK] 2 WITNESSETH, the following signatures and seals: 0-N MINERALS (CHENtISTONE COMPANY) a Delaware corporation By: -- - -----(Seal) Its: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF . TO WIT: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2008 by of O-N Minerals (Chemstone Company). Notary Public My Commission expires: Registration No.: CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD FOUNDATION, INC. a Virginia corporation By: (Seal) Its: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF , TO WIT: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2008 by _ _ _ of Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation; Inc. My Commission expires: Registration No.: __ 4 Notary Public Methodology and Purpose of Pre -Blast Surveys at the idd�etown Operation WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A PRE -BLAST SURVEY? As the name implies, the pre -blast survey is a visual inspection of selected structures located adjacent to proposed blasting activities. While off -site effects of commercial blasting such as that proposed for the Middletown expansion are expected to pose no threat to existing structures, it has been historically documented that when the perception of blasting reaches new or additional property owners, it is human nature to pay additional attention to one's property. Decades of research performed by the US Bureau of Mines as well as other investigative groups, have fully documented not only the impact of blasting on structures, but also the impact of ambient environmental conditions. While blast effects typically remain well below the effects of various environmental forces, stress caused by everyday exposure to various weather events regularly places strain on construction materials above their ability to resist impact. In other words, these studies have documented what every homeowner already knows, houses, over time, will develop cracks and defects. � � ", EXHOT � D i 5 Environmental Effects Comparison With Blast Vibration 9, 38 C N O 17f 6 —ems --------..c.-' > I M b Q 5 111 N c 4 .L - or --- -- - 0 3 - 2ca — - -- �- - -- - r Inside Exterior Inside Exterior Humidity Humidity Temp Temp Changes Changes Change Change Environmental Effect Oriard, 1992 a M Wind Middletown Gusts Blast (Avg.) With the property owner paying close attention to the structure upon the perception of blasting operations, minor, threshold cracks that may have previously gone unnoticed now become the focus of attention. The question becomes; "were they there before the blasting started"? The pre -blast survey has become a standard practice for mine and quarry expansion to remove as much doubt regarding the effect, or lack of effect, of blasting on the community as possible. By documenting the condition of a structure before it is exposed to transient ground vibration energy from blasting, a baseline of condition can be developed to aid both the property owner, as well as the mine operator, in determining cause and effect associated with blasting. HOW IS A PRE -BLAST SURVEY CONDUCTED? The pre -blast survey is a relatively simple process requiring no effort on behalf of the property owner other than providing access to his or her home for about one to two hours. The inspector will ask to be given access to both exterior and interior walls, floor and ceiling surfaces, looking for any observable cracks, separations, settlement or other feature that would be considered a change from standard building conditions. Most of the cracks found in residential structures are easily observed at window and door openings, wall junctions and ceiling tape joints. Whenever a crack is found, the inspector will document the location of the crack and its characteristics by taking a photograph or videotape of each observed area. In addition to the photograph, a written description of each crack will be made, providing the location of the crack, length/width features and any other observations deemed of interest. After reviewing all interior surfaces, a similar survey of the exterior of the structure will be performed, using the same simple technique of inspecting observable surfaces and documenting any change in condition with photographs and or videotape. In addition, basic information regarding the structure (age, additions, major repairs, etc.) will be requested similar to what is done for a home purchase inspection. At the conclusion of the survey, the inspector will create a written report containing all of the photographic documentation, as well as the written narrative identifying the location and characteristics of each photograph. A copy of this report will be provided to the property owner. For a typical 3,000 ft2 residential home, a complete survey can be completed in less than two hours. HOW MANY TIMES WILL MY PROPERTY BE SURVEYED? In most cases, a single survey is performed when it is projected that approaching blast operations will become perceptible to the property owner. Because of the impact of environmental forces on any structure over time, it is not appropriate to survey structures if prolonged periods of time will elapse prior to the commencement of blasting in the area. In operations such as Middletown, it would be expected that perception of blasting activities would occur when blasting operations are at a distance of approximately 3,000 feet from blasting operations. Given the phasing of mining activities at Middletown, this would mean that some existing and future structures might not require a pre -blast survey for many years. Sometimes arrangements are made with property owners to have all adjoining properties surveyed upon the receipt of the new mine permit as a means of providing everyone with a general baseline of structure condition at the commencement of general mining activities associated with the permit. An agreement is then made to allow for a second survey when blasting activities reach perceptible levels if a time period greater than six months has elapsed since the initial survey. As all blasting operations are monitored with approved seismic monitoring equipment, no additional surveys will be required. HOW DO 1 KNOW THE SURVEY IS IMPARTIAL? This is one of the cases where anything that is done with regard to the pre —blast survey that is substandard or incorrectly done will aid the property owner. The primary error that is made with regard to a survey is to miss an existing crack or condition that should be documented. Logic would indicate that this only works in the property owner's favor as, in essence, the structure contains pre-existing cracks that have not been documented, leaving the possibility that they may be claimed as blast related at a later date. I know of no manipulation of a pre -blast survey that can be done that would aid the mine operator in any way. The pre -blast survey is an effective tool in providing the property owner and the mine operator with a baseline reference for the condition of the community prior to blasting. While it needs to be stressed that continued exposure to environmental forces will, over time, show some change in the condition of any structure, the pre -blast survey is still an effective means of establishing guidelines prior to blasting activities. WELL GUARANTEE AGREEMENT Carmeuse Lime & Stone, its successors or assigns (hereinafter referred to as "MINE OWNER') guarantees to the undersigned Owner that it will replace or replenish the Owner's existing privately owned domestic -use water well(s) under the following circumstances: Any water well negatively impacted in such a way as to render it unsuitable for its existing use, on property within 1,500 feet of any parcels being actively quarried and dewatered by MINE OWNER located at its Middletown plant (hereinafter referred to as the MINE OWNER Facility) by depleting a well, lowering the water surface below the pump or negatively intercepting the groundwater flow to the well. If at some future date MINE OWNER expands the MINE OWNER Facility and the active mining operations into other adjoining properties not currently zoned for earth materials extraction, then this Well Guarantee Agreement will be automatically expanded to include all parcels within 1,500 feet from those areas. MINE OWNER will repair the problem by lowering the pump, deepening the well. drilling a replacement well. and/or installing an appropriate water quality treatment system at no cost to the Owner. The undersigned Owner, in accepting this guarantee. agrees to the following conditions: The Owner grants permission to MINE OWNER or its representative to inspect and evaluate the current condition of the well as part of a baseline water well inspection survey. The Owner grants permission to MINE OWNER or its representative to perform water level measurements of the well or collect water quality samples (in addition to the baseline water well inspection survey) on an as needed basis for the purpose of creating background data for the well, and to assess potential complaints. The Owner agrees to notify within twenty-four (24) hours of discovery of the reduction of water supply, depletion of the well or degradation in water quality so that MINE OWNER and a third - party hydrogeologist (as a Licensed Professional Geologist in the State of Virginia) can verify and/or document any occurrences noted during quarrying at the MINE OWNER Facility that may have contributed to the reduction of water supply or well depletion. The third -party hydrogeologist shall document the reduction of water supply, depletion of the well or degradation in water quality. Further, the hydrogeologist will make a determination as to the cause of the reduction of water supply, depletion of the well or degradation in water quality only for purposes of determining the appropriate repair or remediation. MINE OWNER shall be responsible for supplying temporary potable water for human consumption, and potentially. water hauling for other uses (as appropriate) until the problem is corrected. MINE OWNER shall be allowed by the Owner to evaluate the well and conduct such reasonable tests as it deems necessary to verify the cause of the reduction of water supply, depletion of the well or degradation in water quality. MINE OWNER agrees to bear all reasonable expenses that result from said reduction of water supply or well depletion; including, but not limited to temporary potable water supply for human consumption, household use, water hauling for other potential uses (as appropriate), well and pump modification, new well construction, and legal fees expended in implementing this Well Guarantee Agreement. The owner shall notify MINE OWNER prior to undertaking remedial activities or incurring expenses that later may be borne by MINE OWNER. Repair costs due to worn or defective pumps, electrical cabling, and piping are specifically EXHIBIT excluded from this guarantee. The terns of the Well Guarantee Agreement are binding during the active life of the said MINE OWNER Facility, including one year following cessation of mining activities. Upon the expiration of one year following completion of quarrying activities at the MINE OWNER Facility, this Well Guarantee Agreement shall be considered null and void. Owner: Date: MINE OWNER: Title: Date: Local homeowners within 1,500 feet of the property line of the proposed expansion will be invited to take part in a pre -expansion survey of their domestic water wells. Within _ days after rezoning is approved, each property owner within the 1,500 ft. radius of the proposed expansion will be sent an informational newsletter explaining the purpose of the Survey. A second letter, which will include a short scheduling form for owners to fill out and return to Carmeuse Lime & Stone, will be sent out within _ days after the newsletter, and a public information meeting will be held as a follow up. As the scheduling forms are received, the property owners will be contacted by Carmeuse personnel to coordinate a day and time that is convenient to conduct the survey. The Survey generally will consist of a short, in -person or phone, interview with the resident, property owner, or other knowledgeable party to gain information on the history of their well. The interview will followed by a physical inspection of the well. This includes obtaining the water level, pump setting depth and total depth. Existing driller's logs will also be examined. All sampling will be conducted in accordance with governing approved testing procedures for potable water wells. Field parameters measured at the time of collection include pH, Specific Conductance, Temperature, and Turbidity. The samples will be packed in ice and transported under chain -of -custody to a third party, accredited analytical laboratory for analysis. The samples will be analyzed at the laboratory for pertinent biological and chemical constituents. These include Total Coliform, Alkalinity, Chloride, Sulfate, Nitrate, Phosphorus, Potassium, Sodium, Magnesium, Calcium, Iron, and Manganese. Each well will also be tested to determine its Specific Capacity, which will be used as a baseline for well yield estimations at that particular location. Well water at each respective well will be purged at a measured flow rate (variable for each well) for a specific time interval (also variable for each well) using the existing pumping system currently in place. The water level in each well will be measured during the testing period. Typically the well will be purged at a flow rate of less than 5 to 10 gallons per minute for approximately 30 minutes or less. The Specific Capacity for each test will be calculated using the average pumping rate during the test divided by the water level drawdown incurred at the well during the test. Copies of the resulting reports will be provided to the property owner, as well as being maintained by Carmeuse and the designated third party performing the evaluation. EXHIBIT a En��.::, 7 ... 9 t� / a� �: b.- w �.,.. w...... y:.. S PIER A �FDe., -1 FLil i, rr v9 .,.,. _ f� LECJFND LLr��l ttn 'RICK _ MAY • �iATYN 91bM16 EX6NY1lKF46 GT{4W9E NT® VIFWSHED [A HORIZONTAL SCAL ' 1' - 600' VERTICAL SCALE 1' - 300' KEY MAP NO SCALE . �.,......... 0-1\T Alin eraIs Chemstone fagnnn Suwpra Rw�rrf lc�tl.co�� Mana«la Frederick County, Virginia MAY 2006 • %SETAT 9 6FYBTl 040S OT/@IN'E NOTM VIEWSHED IB HORIZONTAL SCALE 1' - 600' VERTICAL SCALE 1' - 300' ' ✓ram ��, r ��..��� E a ' KEY MAP NO SCALE O-N Minerals Chemstone Frederick County, Virginia MAY 2008 VIEWSHED 2 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1' - 600' VERTICAL SCALE. I' - 300' KEY MAP NO SCALE O-N Minerals Chemstone Frederick County, Virginia MAY 2008 W�*TAENOVM 6 EWM4 ME% O IPA%E NOT®. VIEWSHED 3 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1* - 600' VERTICAL SCALE r - 300' & j 14 X, j / � �� � Y� jkC 1 ")c oil N KEY MAP No SCALE 0-/'\T Minerals . Cb emstone l Frederick County, Virginia MAY 2008 . . .. .......... - VEOETArPN.44DV9t 15 WrW U#LM OTMOMM WrED. VIEWSHED 4A SCALE l' - 300' %N7 v 4 A, 14 KEY MAP NO SCALE O-N M. inerals C hemstone pt Frederick County, Virginia MAY 2008 VIEWSHED 4B SCALE: 1' - 300 P'- , -5 1 . KEY MAP NO SCALE U--NT Minerals Cbemstone Frederick County, Virginia MAY 200E —aQ_04 m4o�_eC��--- --- —------------------ .e w. •m,.m x.°o aw .•w .m e.m .m e.m e..o + n•m u•m u.m wee +ae ».m +•ic +e+a. a a, x°.cc ram i. TT+ +. x+m ia.00'x>•mae.m a. • vF AT" MOW 0 E IW WIEEB txR♦Bt,MBE NOi®. VIEWSHED 5A SCALE: 1' - 300' i Pa r+oe Nar rla Axa�\la �e'1 `r�rrPc jI [+p.w.rv. L.vvyrv. Pbn :Itvla I I _ -eras J `�. •� r�l � 117 / fi. ali r�x KEY MAP NO SCALE O-N Minerals Chemstone Frederick County, Virginia MAY 2008 VIEWSHED 5B SCALE, P - 300' KEY MAP NO SCALE O-N Minerals Cbemstone Frederick County, Virginia MAY 2008 .... . . . ... ---------- ------- VIEWSHED 6 SCALE V - 300' L2 h" A KEY MAP NO SCALE O-N Minerals Cbemstone Frederick County, Virginia MAY 2008 . xa .— — a Jamie ItaEm on eT Nareo. P VI^^• re 1. Fv.� l F. . S...r+r.. Panora 1o�Ac•a• ucn l.Ne. ' I - - ---------------- VIEWSI-IED 7 SCALE; 1' - 300' KEY MAP NO SCALE _O-N Minerals Chemstone Frederick County, Virginla MAY 2008 ZTTRZATCT4'P" 52 KEY MAP NO SCALE 0-lN Minerals Cbemstone 1-'r80arICJK uounry, virginia MAY 2008 .V[.'ETAl1(JIISgMA1B FJF0:FAl(: LL•LS6UiYBMA9E MDiHI VIEWSHED 9 j j re. eee as �'w KEY MAP NO SCALE O-N Minerals Chenastone Frederick County. Virginia MAY 200E I March 30, 2012 Mr. Ron Mislowsky, PE Patton I larris Rust & Associates l 17 E. Piccadilly St. Winchester, VA 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: REZONING #01-11, CARMEUSE NA CLEARBROOK PINS: 44-A-83, 44-A-83A AND 33-A-144 (portion of) Dear Ron: This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of December 14, 2011. The above -referenced application was approved to rezone 92+/- acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. The properties, with addresses of 508 Quarry Lane, 3004 Martinsburg Pike and 3180 Martinsburg Pike, are located between the intersections of Route 1 1 with Brucetown Road (Route 672) and Walters Mill Lane (Route 836) in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The area being rezoned is further identified on the accompanying plat, PIN #33-A-144 Zoning Boundary, and extends the existing EM zoning from its current location to the west with no remnant RA land in between the FM zoning. This is expressed by notation on the plat and agreed to by the County. The proffer statement, dated February 8, 2011 with last revision on July 12, 2011, that was approved as a part of this rezoning application is unique to the above referenced properties and is binding regardless of ownership. Enclosed is a copy of the adopted proffer statement for your records. Pursuant to §165.102.06E, the County Attorney has presented the written proffer to the Frederick County Clerk of Circuit Court for recordation. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the approval of this rezoning application. Sincerely,{ 4"1 Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad Attachments cc: Graystone Corp. of Virginia, PO Box 2530, Winchester, VA 22604 Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Stonewall District Supervisor Gary Oates and Stan Crockett, Stonewall District Planning Commissioners Jane Anderson, Real Estate Commissioner of Revenue Rod Williams, County Attorney w/Proffer and Resolution 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 REZONING: CD PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT RL4 01-11 Rural Areas (RA) to Extractive Manufacturing (EM) PROPERTY: 92 Acres +/-; "hax Map Parcels 44-A-83 and 44-A-83A and a portion of Tax Map Parcel 33-A-144 (the "Properties") RECORD OWNER: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime & Stone APPLICANT: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime & Stone ("Applicant") PROJECT NAME: Winchester/Clearorook ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: February 8, 2011 REVISION DATE(S): June 2, 2011, Junc 21, 2011, July 12, 2011 The undersigned Applicant hereby proffers that the use: and development of the portions of the above -referenced parcels, which are requested to be rezoned, the portions requested to be rezoned being shown on the attached and incorporated plat identified as "Exhibit 1,- shall b: in strict conformance with the following conditions., which shall supersede all other proffers on !-i Properties that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above -referenced EN1 conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant, these proffers shall he deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon fiord rezoning of the Properties with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may he contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the clay following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Properties adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. O CD f`J 1. Land Use 1.1 The Properties shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining ("DMM") of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy ("VDMME"), and shall therefore conform to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 1.2 The Applicant hereby proffers not to engage in the following use on the Properties: Asphalt and concrete mixing plants. 2. Site Development 2.1 The Properties' access via public secondary roads shall be limited to the existing quarry entrance on Brucetown Road (Route 672) unless another entrance is agreed upon by Frederick County or VDOT at some time in the fixture. Access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the Properties shall not be limited. 2.2 A combination of landscaping, earthen berms, and fencing shall be installed around the Properties in the areas depicted on the attached and incorporated plat identified as "Exhibit 2." The landscaping shall have a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed in a random manner to be consistent with existing vegetation patterns. Applicant proffers to plant trees in the places identified on the attached and incorporated plat within one year frorn the date of unappealable zoning approval. Historic Resources 3.1 The Applicant has completed a Phase I Archaeological Survey of. the Properties. The result of the archaeological survey is that the Properties do not have historical significance with the exception of the Martin farmhouse. The Applicant will put the Martin farmhouse into adaptive reuse in the future. In the interim, pursuant to an Instrument which is recorded in the land records of Frederick County, Mrs. Martin continues to reside in and possesses a "life estate" interest un the fannhouse. Further, a Phase II Archaeological Survey of the area adjacent to a spring near the Martin farmhouse is being conducted. 4, Dust Control 4.1 Dust from drills, muck piles, material handling, screens, crushers, conveyors, feeders, hoppers, stockpiles, load -outs, and traffic areas shall be controlled by wet suppression or equivalent, and controlled by and consistent with the terms of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality ("VDEQ") general air permit. The Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the mining operations on the Properties. 2 0 Ca Blasting, Control 5.1 All blasting associated with mining operations on the Properties shall be limited by the mining permit approved by the DMM of the VDMME. Peak Particle Velocities (PPV) associated with blasting on the Properties shall not exceed the levels stipulated by said permit. Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting on the Properties shall be remediated at the Applicant's expense. 6. Traffi c 6.1 The Applicant proposes as part of this rezoning to not install entrances for vehicular traffic on Route 11 unless agreed by Frederick County or VDOT at some time in the future. The Applicant proffers to continue to use its existing entrance on Brucetown Road (Route 672). The result of the use contemplated by the rezoning is that there will be a reduction in existing trips -from the Properties that currently enter and exit on Route l l . In the future, given that there will be no vehicular trips to and from Route 11 from the Properties, the number of vehicular trips will decrease from not only the existing status but also what would be contemplated should the Properties be developed or zoned to any other use including, but not limited to, industrial which is what is currently depicted on the County's Comprehensive Plan for the Properties. 6.2 within the fifty foot (50') setback from Route 11, the Applicant agrees to dedicate up to twenty feet (20') to Frederick County or the Virginia Department of Transportation within thirty (30) days of demand of said dedication from either Frederick County or the Virginia Department of Transportation for the purposes of expansion of Route 11 (Valley Pike) to install additional lanes of travel and other improvements associated with the Route 11 (Valley Pike) expansion. Upon said dedication the remaining land in the setback shall be unaffected and shall continue to serve as a buffer and screening between the operations of the quart' and the right-of-way. In the event the dedication and subsequent development of said land shall adversely affect the aforementioned buffer and screening then the. Applicant shall at its discretion alter, amend or relocate the aforementioned buffer and screening. Operational Noise Abatement 7.1 The Applicant will make all reasonable efforts to locate mining machinery in the quarry pit or behind berms. 8. Li htin 8.1 There shall be no affixed lighting structures above -ground on the berms other than as may be required for or provided by regulations that affect the plant operations, including, but not limited to, Mine Safety Health Administration ("MSHA"), VDMME, and any other governmental or regulatory body that oversees mining O CD CD operations. Lighting used for devices or machines that convey materials or for pit crushing facilities and other mining activities is permitted. Conveying and pit crushing facilities shall also be interpreted as including such other devices or activities that perform similar or related functions that may come into use and/or existence at some time in the future while the extractive mining use is still in effect on the Properties. In addition to the above, all lighting will be installed in such a manner that there will be no spillover beyond any property line of the Applicant onto adjacent properties not owned by the Applicant. 9. Air Permit 9.1 The Applicant shall maintain its existing general air permit controlling emissions in accordance with the VDEQ standards and also see that the existing general air permit covers all activities conducted on the rezoned Properties. 10. Enviroimlent 10.1 In addition to compliance with the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System water discharge permit already in place, the Applicant agrees to work with a recognized environmental entity of the Applicant's choosing during its operations to ensure that the water emissions from water flowing from the quarry operations on the Properties is of a quality that satisfies the requirements of all applicable discharge permits. CD CD (ZD (A Respectfully submitted, O-N MINERALS (CIIEMSTONE) COMPANY d/b/a CARMBUSE LIME & STONE Its: 1�; �. G; >_� ,✓tr�..w ��� COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this g7j �day of 2012, by -- t >0 (' r3 , �• -, NOTARY PUBLIC _ 6 .. I My commission expires: Registration number: ::S < 17 .: ac�9+atfp� H A iiF:G:S51188 �/30/2O�3 •' ��' CTH OF 5 CD 0 �C FRANCES G. MARTIN as holder of life estate interest in parcel 44-A-83 COMMONWEALTH OF VIR.GINIA, AT LARGE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me tivs 4.� day of .447','4 te-,y 2012, by FRANCES G. MARTIN as holder of life estate interest in parcel 44-A-83. My commission expires: Registration number: _ +,p0caaocoocncaRc \ COPP�NOTRY tzEG tt 3g2366 .. _ "r. �3 ' 11C3�l2�.rr' �- �m, .may Q • 4bd C M �SS Y 1 1 �-1 3 =L,COO�ZOO my 'nc�clm oz p A 0 D D N m D T r Z m 3 0 m N 3 u x 2 Z — n00 O� Z m rDr m C) m O Z_ o o a 'All z z<;a o0 0 Z = O rr A A — 2 < Z z_z a co Z �_ P atlon H-1, R— 6 A.s .,pc ) `" J' S " P'°nn°" `—d—p, k hll—" 0—N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE TM PARCEL A RY CLEARBROOK ZONING BOUNDARY sa-w, xtb . s.o-e�stw a a, - — _ _—__ _ CD C c a d 3 -- —wa%gf�Log cescmrn Patton Harris Rust l Aasoclalas,pc AAA CARMEUSE NA e"atn..r` s. Yom Pic" a. LanArchttscb. JOS oAi a-3-1D 117 twat rb�r sa..t CLEARBROOK EXHIBIT #2 T 54-'�• l "`°' WW fOHl AS NOTED 7 S�o-M7-717s [CAT an Owt OF t caartv o/ /0cOOOI vFKm CD RESOLUTION Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: October 17, 2012 - Recommended Approval BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: December 12, 20I2 X APPROVED ID DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING 407-12 PROFFER REVISION OF CARMEUSE NA, CLEARBROOK AND FREDERICK COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION WHEREAS, Rezoning #07-12 Proffer Revision of Cartneuse NA, Clearbrook and Frederick County Parks & Recreation, submitted by Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire, to revise the proffers associated with Rezoning 401-1 I relating to the "Site Development" section of the proffers, specifically Section 2.2, was considered. The proffer revision, originally dated February 28, 2011, with final revision dated September 28, 2012, is intended to modify the timing of the planting of the landscaping buffer adjacent to those areas currently leased and used by Frederick County as a park and citizen's convenience center. The properties, with addresses of 508 Quarry Lane, 3004 Martinsburg Pike and 3180 Martinsburg Pike, are located between the intersections of Route 11 with Brucetown Road (Route 672) and Walters Mill Lane (Route 836), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 44-A-83, 44-A-83A and a portion of 33-A-144. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on this rezoning on October 17, 2012 and forwarded a recommendation of approval; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public meeting on this rezoning on December 12, 2012, and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; NOW, TIiEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the proffers associated with Rezoning #01-11 relating to the "Site Development" section of the proffers, specifically Section 2.2. The proffer revision is intended to modify the timing of the planting of the landscaping buffer adjacent to those areas currently leased and used by Frederick County as a park and citizen's convenience, as described by the application and attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner. PDRcs. #33-12 This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. CD Passed this 12th day of December, 2012 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Gary A. Lofton Absent Ross P. Spicer Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Abstain Christopher E. Collins Aye A COVY ATTEST John . I Y Fred$r'Countv Administrator VIRGINIA: FP,- DERICK CQUN'f`I.SCT. This instrument of writing was produced to me or, 'id _atwith certificate acnnovOcrs�rm� r cto annexed was admitted to record. 'Tax unposed by Sec. 58.1-802 of and 58.1-801 have been paid, if assessable. i 6464 %�-�,1 , Clerk PDRes.1133-12 PROPOSED PRO] FEER STATEMENT REZ.ONTNC;: R Z # r1-/-2- Extractive Manufacturing (1:3M) with proffers to Extractive Manufacturing (EM) with revised proffers PROPERTY: 92 Acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 44-A-83 and 44-A-83A and a portion of Tax Map Parcel 33-A-144 (the "Properties") RECORD OWNER: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Cornnpany dJb/a Carmeuse Lime & Stone APPLICANT: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Carmeuse Lime & Stone ("Applicant") PROJECT NAME: Winchester/Clearbrook ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: February 8, 2011 REVISION DATE(S): June 2, 2011, June 21, 2011, July 12, 2011, SeptemberL, 2012 `file undersigned Applicant hereby proffers that the use and development of the portions of the above -referenced parcels, which are requested to be rezoned, the portions requested to be rezoned being shown on the attached and incorporated plat identified as "Exhibit.._]," shall be in strict. conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers on the Properties that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above -referenced EM conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant, these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Properties with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day t:ollowing entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Properties adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. Land Use L l The Properties shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral lN/iining ( DMM") of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy ("VDMMI"'), and shall therefore conform to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 1.2 The Applicant hereby proffers not to engage in the following use on the Properties: Asphalt and concrete mixing plants. Site Develop>ricnt 2.1 The Properties' access via public secondary roads shall be limited to the existing quarry entrance on Brucetown Road (Route 672) unless another entrance is agreed upon by Frederick County or VDOT at some time in the future. Access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the Properties shall not be limited. 2.2 A combination of landscaping, earthen berms, and fencing shall be installed around the Properties in the areas depicted on the attached and incorporated plat identified as "Exhibit 2." The landscaping shall have a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed in a random manner to be consistent with existing vegetation patterns. Applicant proffers to plant trees in the places identified on the attached and incorporated plat within one year from the date of unappealable zoning approval. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section 2.2, however, the Applicant shall not be required to comply with such provisions with respect to such areas as are currently used �y Frederick County as a part{ and citizens' convenience center under agreement with the Applicant. With respect to such areas currently used by Frederick Counfy as a park and citizen's convenience center, the Applicant proffers fa comply with the terms of this Section 2.2 within one year of the termination of the agreement allowing for the uses between Frederick County and dre Applicant. 3. Historic Resources 3.1 The Applicant has completed a Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Properties. The result of the archaeological survey is that. the Properties do not have historical significance with the exception of the Martin farmhouse. The Applicant will put the Martin farmhouse into adaptive reuse in the fixture. In the interim, pursuant to an Insti-tnnent which is recorded in the land records of Frederick County, Mrs. Martin continues to reside in and possesses a "life estate'' interest in the farmhouse. Further, a Phase II Archaeological Survey of the area adjacent to a spring near the Martin farmhouse is being conducted. W C c� 4. Dust_Control 4.1 Dust from drills, muck piles, material handling, screens, crushers, conveyors, feeders, hoppers, stockpiles, load -outs, and traffic areas shall be controlled by wet suppression or equivalent, and controlled by and consistent with the terms of the. Virginia Department of Envirotunental Quality ("VDEQ") general air permit. The Applicant shall renrediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the mining operations on the Properties. Blgsting Control 5.1 All blasting associated with mining operations on the Properties shall be limited by the mining permit approved by the DMM of the VDMME. Peak Particle Velocities (PPV) associated with blasting on the Properties shall not exceed the levels stipulated by said permit. Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting on the Properties shall be remediated at the Applicant's expense. 6. Traffic 6.1 The Applicant proposes as part of this rezoning to not install entrances for vehicular traffic on Route 11 unless agreed by Frederick County or VDOT at some time in the future. The Applicant proffers to continue to use its existing entrance on Brucetovvn Road (Route 672). The result of the use contemplated by the rezoning is that there will be a reduction in existing trips from the Properties that currently enter and exit on Route 11. In the future, given that there will be no vehicular trips to and from Route 11 from the Properties, the number of vehicular trips will decrease from not only the existing status but also what would be contemplated should the Properties be developed or zoned to any other use including, but not limited to, industrial which is what: is currently depicted on the County's Comprehensive Plan for the Properties. 6.2 Within the fifty foot (50') setback from Route 11, the Applicant agrees to dedicate up to twenty feet (20') to Frederick County or the Virginia Department of Transportation within thirty (30) days of demand of said dedication from either Frederick County or the Virginia Department of Transportation for the purposes of expansion of Route 11 (Valley Pike) to install additional lanes of travel and other improvements associated with the Route 1.1 (Valley Pike) expansion. Upon said dedication the remaining land in the setback shall be unaffected and shall continue to serve as a buffer and screening between the operations of the quarry and the right-of=way. In the event the dedication and subsequent development of said land shall adversely affect the aforementioned buffer and screening then the Applicant shall at its discretion alter, amend or relocate the aforementioned buffer and screening. 7. Operational Noise Abatement 7.1 The Applicant will make all reasonable efforts to locate mining machinery in the quarry pit or behind berms. Li htin 9.1 There shall be no affixed lighting structures above -ground on the berms other than as may be required ibr or provided by regulations that affect the plant operations, including, but not limited to, Mine Safety Health Administration ("MSHA"), VDMME, and any other governmental or regulatory body that oversees mining operations. bighting used for devices or machines that convey materials or for pit crushing facilities and other mining activities is permitted. Conveying and pit crushing facilities shall also be interpreted as including such other devices or activities that perform similar or related functions that may come into use and/or existence at some time in the future while the extractive mining use is still in effect on the Properties. In addition to the above, all lighting will be installed in such a manner that there will be no spillover beyond any property line of the Applicant onto adjacent properties not owiied by the Applicant, Air Pen -nit 9.1 The Applicant shall maintain its existing general air permit controlling emissions in accordance with the VDEQ standards and also see that the existing general air permit covers all activities conducted on the rezoned Properties. 10. Environment 10.1 In addition to compliance with the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System water discharge permit already in place, the Applicant agrees to work with a recognized environmental entity of the Applicant's choosing during its operations to ensure that the water emissions from water Mowing from the quarry operations on the Properties is of a quality that satisfies the requirements of all applicable discharge permits. 0 Respectfully submitted, CD o-) O-N MINERALS (CI-IEMSTONE) COMPANY d/b/a CnRMEUSE LIME & STONE B James E. Bottom Its: Area Operations Manager COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE COUNTY OF �`:'- rJ : �. r:-,. to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me. this\ -tea f day o cr' s •�� by James I. Bottom, Area Operations Manager of 0-N Min!�r�ls (Chemstone) Company d/b/a Caimeuse Lime & Stone. �q��v4i OCd eCC� To �r C ( d� o�v��l �t`IOTARY''o�PG+a PUBLIC My commission expires:-- REG 4 362366 Registration number: : ANY CG4i1�ISSIOfd ' mp °, 11/30/20= 0 a�D78o,P6-,lLTH s �e$ccleW 5 H O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) TAt PARCEL 33-A-144 CLEARBROOK ZONNG BOUNDARY t. POOR ORIGINAL c3 �n ry 4.0 I - I.ANASLAPEBERM ...oP>t: APPROK.10E-1 HIGH'.. • t (IL-J �� / 8hI5tINUQLv111tY � r0PV!,%I IONS' � LIFE CSTAIE \ B �4, Mir D q D i U CDc A O rn O D m x I co N a CD 1 -I a.or waif e �waw.•, A awr � c s.rxwv, ilA no ,..a.uv "0" D w Aw .la. no" itTMG -fW"Ur n 3kn u� e Tv'"Tam 1glw H a arnw. m m 'nw mum "u at M na■ tine 2490 14 DWW JI mu V*J0 ~ Sna Ml. Wt A a V" nur •wr rnws, N",rt 4 ir�art WAN r k Iyy,' gar �, ♦" ,�"�% y.1 ;;ttj.kf .y rb« e r"F .i% ,� 'x8 p �a f h i9 • x f.i „" r g, J '+r ,st �-,)rin'k"� t s 71 V 12 13C a) 11,2 r6l C �� 0 s 90' tree 30' berm litni ..�: N. ,yam ' _ .�� • � •E ,` + r !f f/ry:+• } •�RLF3 : , 4• ` I w.I,., .1.1C' is ��-•` s �`-.,lr/!'1..: I is . - - . �� - �tl .. _. �f'a;rT 0 CosfRID]ERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 May 29, 2008 Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire PO Box 2740 Winchester, VA 22604 RE: REZONING 903-06, O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) Portions of Parcels 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 Dear Mr. Lawson: This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of May 28, 2008. The above -referenced application was approved to rezone 394.2 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District, with proffers, for a quarry. The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west and adjacent to Hites Road (Route 625), and is bisected by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624), in the Back Creek Magisterial District. The proffer originally dated June 13, 2005 and revised last on May 27, 2008 which was approved as a part of this rezoning application is unique to this property and is binding regardless of ownership. Enclosed is a copy of the adopted proffer statement for your records. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the approval of this rezoning application. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad Enclosure cc: O-N Minerals, PO Box 71, Strasburg, VA 22657 Patrick Sowers, P.E., PHR&A, 117 E. Piccadilly St., Ste. 200, Winchester, VA 22601 Gary A. Lofton, Board of Supervisors, Back Creek District Cordell Watt and Greg Unger, Back Creek Planning Commissioners Jane Anderson, Real Estate Commissioner of Revenue 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 REZONING APPLICATION #03-06 O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: May 22, 2008 (Original prepared on March 20, 2006, May 22, 2006, and April 14, 2008) Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director BOARD OF SUPERVISORS UPDATE FOR 05/28/08 MEETING The following is a chronology of events that have occurred since the Board of Supervisors tabled this request at your April 23, 2008 meeting. The Applicant provided a revised Draft Proffer Statement to County dated May 14, 2008. Staff and Mr. Mitchell reviewed and commented on revised proffers dated May 14, 2008 and met with Applicant on May 19, 2008 (Mr. Mitchell provided a review letter dated May 19, 2008). The Applicant provided a revised Draft Proffer Statement to County dated May 20, 2008. Staff and Mr. Mitchell reviewed and commented on revised proffers dated May 20, 2008 and met with Applicant on May 21, 2008 (Mr. Mitchell provided a review letter dated May 21, 2008). The Applicant provided a revised Final Proffer Statement to County dated May 22, 2008. Mr. Mitchell reviewed the Final Proffer Statement dated May 22, 2008 and states that the Applicant has made an effort to address the staff comments and his legal review comments. Further, that the Applicant has made numerous revisions to the Proffer Statement and has improved the Proffer Statement. The Proffer Statement is in the appropriate legal form. Mr. Mitchell has provided an update of his legal review in the attached letter dated May 22, 2008; letter attached. The following is a summary of the changes that the Applicant has made to their application and is based upon the Applicant's Proffer Statement dated May 22, 2008. The Applicant has reduced the total acreage sought to be rezoned from 639.13 acres to 394.2 acres, a reduction of 244.93 acres. The Applicant has modified their GDP to reflect the reduced acreage and has specifically incorporated the following into the Proffer Statement; the additional phasing plans and view shed plats, the berming and landscape recommendations of the VA State Forester, the exhibit which clarifies the 8 acre dedication, and the well and blasting survey and agreements. The Applicant has proffered to limit the truck loads to 86 per day, except under certain circumstances, in which event it will be limited to 200 per day. The Applicant has made a number of additional changes to address the comments offered by Mr. Mitchell which are further described in Mr. Mitchell's May 22, 2008 proffer review letter. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 2 Based upon an evaluation of the May 22, 2008 Proffer Statement, Mr. Mitchell has also provided an opinion to the Board that the Board is not required to hold another public hearing before acting on this conditional rezoning application with the revised proffers and reduced acreage. Please see attached letter dated May 22, 2008. Ll HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW & MITCHELL WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) 7 S 307 EAST MARKET STREET THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 0. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAx 540-652-4304 DAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.com STEVEN F JACKSON May 22, 2008 HAND -DELIVERED Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 Re: Chemstone -- Middletown [O.M. Minerals (Chemstone) Company] Proposed Proffer Statement -- Updated Review Dear Mike: I am in receipt of the Applicant's Proposed Proffer Statement, revised as of May 22, 2008. This will update my proffer review letter of May 19, 2008 which reviewed the Proposed Proffer Statement revised as of May 14, 2008. Since my letter of May 19, we have had two extensive meetings with the Applicant's representatives and attorney, in which staff comments and my legal review comments have been addressed. As a result of those meetings, the Applicant has, in my view, made numerous revisions in response to our comments and has improved the Proffer Statement. In addition, the Applicant has reduced the total acreage sought to be rezoned from 639.13 acres to 394.2 acres, a reduction of 244.93 acres. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy, AICP May 22, 2008 Page 2 You will find enclosed an update of my legal review based on the May 22, 2008 revised Proffer Statement. The enclosed document contains my May 19 review comments, annotated with updated comments reflecting the May 22 revised Proffer Statement. Very truly yours, Robert T. Mitchkll, RTM/glh Enclosure CC: Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire, via fax COMMENTS ON MAY 14, 2008 REVISED PROFFER STATEMENT General: 1. I would recommend that the "PROPERTY" heading of the Proposed Proffer Statement, in referring to the Tax Map Parcels, be revised to state as follows: "Tax Map Parcels 83-A-109 ("Parcel 109") and 90-A-23 ("Parcel 23") (collectively, the "Properties"). In addition, the Proposed Proffer Statement should be consistent throughout in the manner in which it refers to the respective parcels. Updated Comment: The Applicant has made the suggested changes in the heading. 2. In the second paragraph the proffer statement references a GDP dated March 18, 2008. However, the GDP plats submitted with the March 18, 2008 Proposed Proffer Statement are dated "June 2007". The reference to the date of the GDP needs to be corrected. Updated Comment: The Applicant has corrected the GDP date. 3. The next to the last sentence of the second paragraph should more specifically identify what is being submitted as the GDP. I would suggest language along the following lines: "The Applicant attaches and incorporates the GDP, which includes a plan titled Generalized Development Plan; a plan titled Overall Plan; four plans titled Phase I Plan, Phase II Plan, Phase III Plan and Phase IV Plan; and ten viewshed plats titled Viewshed IA, Viewshed 113, Viewshed 2, Viewshed 3, Viewshed 4A, Viewshed 413, Viewshed 5A, Viewshed 513, Viewshed 6, Viewshed 7 and Viewshed 8." Updated Comment: The Applicant has included the suggested language. 4. In the last sentence of the second paragraph the Applicant states "The Applicant submits its operations and activities will be in general conformance with the Generalized Development Plan." The usual reference to a GDP in a proffer statement is to proffer that the development will be in "substantial conformity" with the GDP. 0 0 Accordingly, I would recommend that the last sentence of the second paragraph be revised to state as follows: "The Applicant proffers that its operations and activities and development of the Properties will be in substantial conformity with the GDP." Updated Comment: The Applicant has included the suggested language. 5. The third sentence in the second paragraph states: "Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with the State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void." The Applicant is in a better position than the County to determine whether or not any of its proffers are not in conformity with the State or Federal regulations, and this sentence should be deleted. Updated Comment: No change. Items in violation of state and/or federal regulations would be unenforceable in any event. In my review of the proffers, I do n.ot find proffers which would likely be inconsistent with state or federal regulations. 6. In a number of places in the Proposed Proffer Statement (second paragraph on Page 1, Proffer 2.3, Proffer 5.1, Proffer 9.1, Proffer 9.2) a reference is made to an exhibit as "Exhibit 55.On the eve of final action on this proffered rezoning, all exhibits should be numbered and the exhibit numbers set forth in the proffers. A complete and final Proffer Statement, with all exhibits, must be before the Board at the time final action is taken on the rezoning. Updated Coininent: The exhibits referenced in the ProfferStatefnent have been labeled and provided. Proffer 2.3 (Berms): 1. The revised proffer is, at best, confusing and incomplete. The revised proffer states "The berm depicted on the Phase I plat shall be installed within 10 years of the approval of the rezoning." However, the Phase I Plan depicts two berms, "BERM A" and "BERM B". Further, this would seem to indicate that mining operations would commence on Parcel 23 immediately (See Proffer 15.1), but that the berm would not be created until up to 10 years later. Further, the proffer makes no reference to the Viewshed plats which are a part of the GDP and which presumably establish the height and location of the berm or berms. Therefore, it is my opinion that this proffer needs to be amended to address the foregoing issues. 2 2. The revised proffer purports to address my prior comment that the proffer is not specific as to the landscaping to be installed by adding the sentence, "Furthermore, the plantings, including but not limited to, the descriptions of the plants to be installed on the berms are more specifically described in the attached and incorporated `Exhibit '." First of all, the words "the plantings, including but not limited to" should be deleted from the sentence. Further, staff should review the exhibit (I was not provided a copy) to determine if the plants proposed to be installed are satisfactory. 3. The sentence regarding the overburden stock pile has been added. It should be noted that the reduction in height of the stock pile does not have to occur for 5 years, and, further, the Applicant is only obligated to reduce the height to thirty feet, which may be higher than the adjacent tree line. Updated Conzn7ent: Proffers 2.2 and 2.3 (forinerly Proffer 2.3) have been reivorded in accordance with our suggestions, and has substantially addressed the above conanaents on this proffer. Proffer 3.1 (8-acre Historic Site): 1. The revised proffer changes the grantee of the site to the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, Inc. My recommendation is that it be conveyed to Belle Grove, Inc., for the reasons set forth in my April 11, 2008 letter revising my April 4, 2008 proffer view letter as to this proffer. Undated CoInnient: No change. 2. It would appear that any necessary plat work to delineate the 8-acre site has already been done, or could be quickly done. Accordingly, there should be a commitment to dedicate the 8 acre site within 60 days of final rezoning. Undated Connnent: The Applicant has revised the proffer to dedicate the 8- acre site u;ithin 60 days. 3. Further, if the 8-acre site is to be promptly dedicated, I question the need or advisability of the Applicant placing restrictions on that 8 acre site, 91 0 0 particularly without specifying the restrictions in the proffer and without any commitment that the restrictions placed on the site would be acceptable to the grantee of the dedication. Updated Coninient: The Applicant has provided a copy of the restrictions to be placed on the property (Exhibit 4). 4. IN A NOTE TO THIS PROFFER THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THE 8-ACRE SITE "IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPERTY TO BE REZONED". THIS WOULD BE A CHANGE IN THE APPLICANTS' APPLICATION AS TO THE PROPERTY REQUESTED TO BE REZONED. THE APPLICANT SHOULD SPECIFICALLY AMEND ITS REZONING REQUEST IN WRITING, AND NOT SOLELY BY A PARENTHETICAL NOTE IN AN INDIVIDUAL PROFFER. FURTHER, THE GDP, AND PERHAPS OTHER EXHIBITS, WILL NEED TO BE AMENDED TO SHOW THAT THE 8-ACRE SITE IS NOT PART OF THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE REZONED. Updated Comn7en.t: The zoni�Zg plats (Exhibit 1) show that the 8-acre site is not a part of the property to be rezoned. Proffer 3.2 (Archeological Survey): 1. It would seem that it would have been advisable for the Archeological Survey to Have been conducted prior to the rezoning application, so that all historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects on the property would be located and identified in order for the impacts of the proposed rezoning on those historic features to be evaluated. Updated Comment: No change. 2. The proffer contains no commitment as to how any such historic features identified will be dealt with and protected in the development and use of the property. Updated Coininent: No change. 11 • 0 3. There is no commitment in the proffer to conduct further phases of the study if warranted from the information developed from the Phase I Study. Updated Comment: No change. 4. This proffer previously provided for a Phase I Archeological Survey within one year of final rezoning or prior to any land disturbance on the Properties. However, the May 14 revision changes the time period to do the survey from one year to 18 months. Further, the May 14 revision permits mining activities on a "portion of the Properties" on which a survey has been done, but before a survey has been done on all of the Properties. The "portion of the Properties" is not defined, and may be construed to mean a portion of one of the two parcels. At the very least, there should be a commitment to not commence any land disturbance on Parcel 23 or Parcel 109 until the survey is completed for that parcel. Updated C07717nent: No substantial change. This proffer does commit to an archeological survey being completed on anyportion of the propero} on which mining activities are to be conducted, before such activities are commenced. Proffer 3.3 (Cemeteries): 1. The Applicant, in response to the comment in my April 4 proffer review letter that the proffer should include a provision that the cemeteries will remain in an undisturbed state following the historical restoration, has added the following: "After the historical restoration, the Applicant will follow the recommendations of Applicant's historian." This sentence has been added with respect to both cemeteries. It should be noted that the Applicant is stating that it will following the recommendations of its own historian. Updated Comment: No change. 2. With respect to the second cemetery, reference is made to a right of way, which the Applicant proffers to open. There is no commitment of the timing of the opening of that right of way. Updated Comment: TheApplicant has committed to improving the right-of-way within 12 months of the completion of the cemetery restoration, and to maintain the right-of-way once opened. 9 ! 0 3. Further, the proffer provides that it will be open for access by "the relatives" of those in the cemetery. I recommend substituting the word "visitors" for the words "the relatives". Updated Comment: The Applicant explains that the subject cemetery contains only a few family graves, and is not a cemetery of historical importance or interest. Applicant has changed the term "relatives" to "descendants ". 4. In the last sentence the words "it is anticipated that" should be deleted from the beginning of the sentence. Updated Comment: The Applicant has deleted those words. Proffer 5.1 (Monitoring Wells): (I was not provided with a copy of the exhibit referenced in this revised proffer. The exhibit must be included with the Proffer Statement, and it should be reviewed by staff.) Updated Comment: The location of the monitoring wells are shown on the Overall Plan of the GDP. Proffer 5.2 (Impact on Wells): By having the phrase "Subject to and consistent with the provisions of paragraph 9.2" at the beginning of the first sentence, it may limit the responsibility of the Applicant to remediate adverse impacts to wells to those properties which opted for a pre -mining survey under Proffer 9.2. It is my recommendation that that phrase be deleted from the beginning of Proffer 5.2. Updated Comment. No change. Proffer 6.1 (Dust Control): This proffer does not describe how and by whom "adverse impacts" to surrounding properties caused by dust will be determined. Updated Comment: No change. The Applicant indicates that dust control is regulated by government regulations. Proffer 8.1 (Traffic): 1. By the adding of the first three sentences in this proffer in the May 14 revision, it would appear that what the Applicant is proffering that truck loads will be C • 0 limited to 86 truck loads per day, averaged over the prior 30 days, except in the event of "emergency or circumstances", in which event truck loads will be limited to 200 per day, averaged over the prior 30 days. It would seem that this portion of the proffer could be more clearly and simply stated in the proffer. Undated Comment: The language of the Proffer is not changed. The Applicant is proffering to limit truck loads to 86 per day, except under certain circumstances, in which event it will be limited to 200 per day. 2. The "emergency or circumstances" exception to the truck load limits would appear to be very difficult for the County to document in enforcing this proffer. Undated Coml�zent: No change. 3. The last sentence of this revised proffer is so vague as to be unenforceable as a proffer. Undated Connnen.t: The last sentence has been deleted. Proffer 9.1 (Pre -Blast Surveys -Buildings): (I was not provided with a copy of the exhibit referenced in this revised proffer. The exhibit must be included with the Proffer Statement, and it should be reviewed by staff.) Undated Comment: The exhibit is identified (Exhibit S). Proffer 9.2 (Pre-MiningSurveys-Wells): urveys-Wells): I was provided with two documents which would seem to apply to this revised proffer, although only one exhibit is referenced in the proffer. One document appears to be the procedures for the survey, and would appear to be the document referenced in the proffer as an exhibit. The second document is titled "Well Guarantee Agreement". It is not clear if this document is meant to be incorporated into the proffer. If so, it needs to be referenced in the text of the proffer. Not knowing the status of this document, I have not undertaken to do a legal review of it. However, I did note that it states that the 7 0 Applicant will "replace or replenish" a well negatively impacted in such a way "as to render it unsuitable for its existing use". This would seem not to cover a situation where the output of a well (gallons per day) is decreased, but the well is still usable. Updated Connnent: The two exhibits are identified (Exhibits 6A and 6B). Proffer 9.3 (Insurance): The staff should consider whether the $1,000,000.00 policy limits are adequate. In any event, given the long term of prospective mining operations, the policy limits should be subject to an escalator, perhaps every five years. This proffer should also contain a provision that -the County will annually be provided a certificate of insurance from the insurance carrier. Updated Connnent: The Applicant has revised this Proffer to address these coinnzents. Proffer 14.2 (Trees): Based on my discussions with Mr. Lawson, it appears that this proffer is meant to apply to trees located on portions of the parcels which are not being rezoned. It would appear that all of Parcel 23 is being rezoned (except, now, for the 8-acre site), and, therefore, this proffer is meant to apply to the portion of Parcel 109 which is not being rezoned. This proffer needs to be reworded to specifically identify the location of the area of trees which is the subject of this proffer. Also, the area or areas of trees referenced in this proffer should be located and identified on the GDP, with a reference in the proffer to the GDP. (My review of the Tax Map would indicate that none of the parcels adjoining Parch 23 or Parcel 109 are titled to the same entity which owns Parcels 23 and 109. Further, no other parcels are made subject to these proffers. Therefore, this Applicant could not effectively proffer to maintain trees on any parcels other than Parcels 23 and 109.) Updated Connnent.: This proffer now references the GDP plat showing the location of the trees. Proffer 15 (Phasing): This proffer needs to reference the Phasing Plans made a part of the GDP, and to proffer that the phasing will be substantial conformity with the Phasing Plans of the GDP. Updated Connnent: Thisproffer now references the Phasing Plans ofthe GDP. 0 0 • HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A RkTMERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) 7 S 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST SOSCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-562-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 540-852-4304 PLEASE REPLY TO: JAM ES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON May 22, 2008 P. O. BOX 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0846 Mr. John Riley, County Administrator HAND DELIVERED County of Frederick 107 North Kent Sheet Winchester, VA 22601 Re: O.M. Minerals (Chemstone) Rezoning Application (RZ #03-06) Dear John: =-� I have been asked to provide my legal opinion as to whether the revised proffers (revised after the public hearing) and the reduction in the acreage requested to be rezoned in the above -referenced rezoning require a farther public hearing. A public hearing was held on this rezoning application on April 23, 2008. The Applicant's Proffer Statement was duly filed prior to the public hearing. Following public conullents at the public hearing the public hearing was closed. Action on the rezoning application was continued, giving the Applicant the opportunity to address issues raised at the public hearing. Subsequently, the Applicant has filed revised proffers, and has reduced the area requested to be rezoned fiom 639.13 acres to 394.2 acres. I have reviewed the revised proffers and have provided an updated legal review of the revised proffers. i 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Mr. Jolun R. Riley May 22, 2008 Page 2 My review of the proffers indicates that the proffers and the reduction in acreage of the property requested to be rezoned do not increase the intensity of the use of the property from that on which the public hearing was held, and actually represents a less intense use of the property, as 244.93 acres less of the property is sought to be rezoned and would remain zoned RA, clearly a less intense use of that portion of the property. Virginia Code § 15.2-2285(C) provides that before adopting an amendment to the zoning ordinance, the governing body shall hold a public hearing thereon, "after which the governing body may make appropriate changes" in the proposed amendment. Specifically as to rezoning amendments, § 15.2-2285(C) states that "no land may be zoned to a more intensive use classification than was contained in the public notice without an additional public hearing ..." In interpreting this language in § 15.2-2285(C), the Supreme Court of Virginia in Board of Supervisors v. Pyles, 224 Va. 629 (1983) stated: "When the governing body rezones to a use less intensive than the one sought in the subject application, upon which notice of hearing has been given, a second public hearing is not required. This is because as a practical matter any citizen interested in preventing the less intensive use would or should be present to be heard at the hearing on the request for the more intensive use." Therefore, based on Virginia Code § 15.2-2285(C) and the Pyles case, it is my opinion that the Board of Supervisors is not required to hold another public hearing before acting on this conditional rezoning application with the revised proffers and reduced acreage. Very truly yours, Robert T. Mitchell, RTM/ks/glh Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 3 ***STAFF REPORT FROM THIS POINT FORWARD HAS NOT BEEN MODIFIED SINCE YOUR 04123108 MEETING*** BOARD OF SUPERVISORS UPDATE AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR 04/23/08 MEETING. The Planning Commission had a considerable amount of discussion regarding this application and numerous issues and concerns were raised by the Commission. Fifty-seven (57) citizens spoke during the Public Hearing for this request. The Commission recognized conflicts with the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan as identified in the staff report and acknowledged significant issues and impacts associated with the request that had not been satisfactorily addressed by the Applicant. These included the following: - Potential impacts associated with the scope and more intensive use of properties. - Historic resource concerns (HRAB) -View shed coordination and mitigation -Cultural Resource Surveys - Environmental impacts. - Rural view shed impacts. - Transportation impacts on Route 625, its intersection with Route 11, and the Town. - Potential groundwater, dust, and blasting impacts and controls on adjacent properties. Ultimately, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of denial to the Board of Supervisors. Following the Commission's review, the Applicant has provided a revised Proffer Statement. However, the modifications in the Proffer Statement are relatively limited and focus upon recognition of the two historical cemeteries discovered on the property and a phasing plan for the quarry. In summary, while the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application addresses several of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, more significant elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Board of Supervisors should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. These would include: 1) The Potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties and the scope of the use. 2) The recommendations of the Historic Resources Advisory Board, particularly regarding view shed coordination and mitigation and Cultural Resource Surveys 3) The potential groundwater, dust, and blasting and view shed impacts on adjacent properties. 4) Transportation impacts, particularly within the Town of Middletown. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 4 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: April 5, 2006 Tabled 60 days June 7, 2006 Recommended Denial Board of Supervisors: April 23, 2008 Tabled 30 days May 28, 2008 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. LOCATION: The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west and adjacent to Hites Road (Route 625), and is bisected by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential South: EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Use: Shenandoah County East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural PROPOSED USES: Quarry Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 5 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 757. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Global Stone Chemstone Corporation rezoning application dated June 13, 2005 address transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization and off - site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Will not directly effect fire and rescue. Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: Demolition permit required prior to removing any existing structures. No additional comments required. Public Works Department: Refer to page 4, Environmental Features: The discussion indicated that an environmental report prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) was included with the impact statement as Appendix "A". A copy of this report was not included with our submittal. Please provide us with a copy of this report for our review. Refer to page 6, Soils/Geology: The geology discussion should be expanded to include hydrogeology and the impact of the project on the local groundwater. In particular, the subdivisions which rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. General: The impact analysis has not addressed one very important item related to a rezoning from RA to EM. That item is the impact or effect of blasting on adjacent residential buildings. This issue should also be expanded to include the impact of dust on adjacent residential dwellings. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority: The Frederick County Sanitation Authority supports this rezoning request. The Authority will use these pits, when abandoned, as a source of water supply under an agreement with Global Stone Chemstone Corporation, dated March 2, 2000. Larger pits will provide a more abundant supply and reliable source of water. Larger pits are also more cost effective for the Authority to develop as a water supply. That benefits the residents of Frederick County that depend upon the Authority for water service. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Health Department has no objection if there is to be no increase in water use which would require sewage disposal. GIS: No road/name requirements noted. Any road network that provides primary access to four or more occupied business structures shall be names. Numbering will be assigned as applicable. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 6 Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Winchester Regional Airport: Allowed uses under this rezoning should not effect airside operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Town of Middletown: The Middletown Town Council provided the County with a resolution opposing this rezoning request. Please see attached resolution dated May 8, 2006 Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached correspondence from Mr. Bob Mitchell dated April 4, 2008 and April]], 2008. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Please seethe attached letter dated January 3, 2006, signed by Candice K Perkins, Planner H. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Middletown Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. I-]] T.and tT.cn The property for which the rezoning is being requested is located within the Rural Areas of Frederick County. This land use designation is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as all areas outside of the designated Urban Development Area. The primary land uses in the Rural Areas are agriculture and forests. The primary growth pattern consisting of widely scattered, large lot Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 7 residential development. Many residents of Frederick County are attracted to the natural beauty and special lifestyle found in rural portions of the County. Excessive or inappropriate development in these areas can reduce their value and attractiveness. At the same time, the rural areas play an important role in the County's economy through the income generated by agriculture. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-55] The subject property contains areas of prime agricultural soils which are generally located in the limestone belt running north -south through the County. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the value to the County's economy of the limestone resources within the County and the extraction of these natural resources. Within the Business and Industrial Area policies it is recognized that policies are needed and standards should be developed concerning how to deal with new requests for large mining operations [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-11, 6-72]. The Rural Areas Conclusion states that most of the County will continue to be rural areas used for agriculture, forests, or low density residential uses. Certain types of business uses may be located at scattered rural locations if safe access is available, and if adverse impacts on surrounding uses and the rural environment can be avoided. These rural business and industrial uses should be those that provided services to rural areas or that are more appropriate in rural areas than urban areas. The locations for such business would include major intersections or locations with recent or existing business activity [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-60] Two of the identified goals of the Rural Area policy are to maintain the rural character of areas outside the UDA and to protect the rural environment [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-76]. Environment The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need to promote environmental issues and protect the enviromment in several locations. Specific goals of the Environmental Chapter include identifying and protecting important natural resources and protecting the natural environment from damage due to development activity. After describing the physical characteristics of the County, the Environment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan addresses Water Supply. Issues concerning water quality, quantity, use, and protection of water resources are directly related to land development activities. Water supplies are needed to support development, while surface and groundwater are potentially affected by development activities [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3]. Major sources of water used in the County are groundwater and the North Fork of the Shenandoah River. In 2000, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority entered a seventy year lease with Global Stone Chemstone Corporation (Global). Global owns quarries at Clearbrook, Middletown, and Strasburg. The lease provides the water from these quarries as a source of supply and transfers title of the quarries to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority when the mining operations are complete. The agreement has provided a viable long term source of water for the County [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3] • 0 Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 8 Groundwater is the major source of water supply in the rural portions of the County and provides a potential alternative source for urban areas. In all, over half the population of the County relies on groundwater as the sole source of water supply. The most productive aquifers in the County are the limestone -carbonate aquifers [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3, 5-4]. History The property for which the rezoning is being requested is located adjacent to Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield. Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield are historic sites in Frederick County that are listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. Cedar Creek is identified as one of six battlefields of great national importance that are located in Frederick County and Winchester. The Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County further identifies both sites as potentially significant properties. In addition, the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property as being within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek. Significant portions of Cedar Creek, along with Third Winchester and Kernstown battlefields provided the critical mass and the foundation for the Battlefield Network Plan which was adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on December 13,1995, and subsequently incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Excerpts from the Battlefield Network Plan have been provided for your information. The Battlefield Network Plan and the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley were important catalysts for the designation of the regional Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District which was created by Congress in 1996. More recently, the efforts of the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Foundation and the National Park Service continue to fiirther historic preservation efforts relating to the civil war battlefields located in Frederick County and the broader region. To address the historic preservation policy goal of protecting the historic resources in Frederick County, The Comprehensive Plan provides that the Iistoric Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) review development proposals which potentially impact significant historic resources and that the HRAB's information and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB facilitated the involvement of the historic preservation stakeholders in the review of this rezoning request. The recommendation of the HRAB accompanies this report and will be discussed in greater detail later in the report. Identified implementation methods for promoting the preservation and protection of Civil War Battlefield resources include the preservation and protection of the historical appearance and character of the key battlefield sites, their viewsheds, and their approaches, and the coordination of the battlefield efforts with efforts to protect and preserve natural, visual, and environmental resources [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 2-11-13]. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 9 Transportation The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan does not cover this portion of the County. The properties are located in the Rural Area of the County. A large portion of the roads within the County are currently inadequate to meet the needs of the areas they serve. There is a need to insure that improvements to existing rural roads continue to be made in a systematic way and that new rural roads are provided as needed [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 7-1]. In general, the Comprehensive Plan states that a Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments within the County. The applicants Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) seeks to address the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning request. However, the TIA does not account for the character of the truck traffic and does not evaluate the heavy truck traffic's impact on the context of the streets within the Town of Middletown. 3) Site Suitability/Environment Both properties contain enviromnentally sensitive areas. The applicant has identified wetlands, streams, and floodplains, and areas of mature woodlands on the properties. Exhibits have been provided that depict these environmental features. Any disturbance of identified environmental resources would occur in conformance with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations. Cedar Creek forms the Southern boundary of the property. Cedar Creek, with its steep slopes, cliffs, and associated floodplain is a significant environmental resource for Frederick County and the adjoining Shenandoah County. Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook are the existing streams that traverse the subject properties. Both streams have associated floodplain designations. It must be recognized that the proposed mining operation would most significantly impact Middle Marsh Brook which would be relocated to allow for the excavation of the mining pit. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. Multiple soil types are located on the sites. The site contains soil types that are considered prime agricultural soils. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. It is recognized that the limestone deposits that underlie the properties provide the ideal geological conditions for Extractive Manufacturing use. In addition, the most productive aquifers in the County are the limestone -carbonate aquifers that are present in this area. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 10 4) Potential Impacts Potential Impact Summary_ The County is familiar with the operation and practices of the existing Middletown Quarry operation and recognizes that the purpose of the rezoning request is to enable the expansion of the existing limestone ore extraction operation onto adjacent properties, utilizing this natural resource. However, lacking a commitment that seeks to further define the scope of operations, this application should be evaluated carefully and with the understanding that the use of the properties could be more intensive than that described in the applicant's impact statement. In evaluating the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application it is very important to recognize that the applicant has proffered a commitment to not engage in several land uses permitted within the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. However, the use of the property as enabled by the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District, beyond those land uses which would be eliminated, would have a major impact both on -site and off -site. Significant land uses, meeting the applicable development standards, would be permitted within the district based upon the application as submitted. Consideration should be given to the maximum possible intensity of EM (Extractive Manufacturing) use identified in the County's Zoning Ordinance (a copy of the EM (Extractive Manufacturing District has been provided for your review). The impacts associated with this rezoning request may be significant and should be understood. The applicant should be prepared to continue to address the mitigation of the impacts associated with this rezoning request, in particular, those impacts and issues identified by the reviewing agencies, Commission, and Board of Supervisors. Guarantees in the form of proffered conditions have not been offered to ensure that the impacts generated by this application are limited and consistent with the discussion in the Impact Statement. The applicant has the ability to address this through the Proffer Statement. When considering the acreage potential, the dimensional requirements, and the EM District uses, it is possible that facilities located adjacent to and with access from Chapel Road could result, as could facilities located within 50 feet of the adjacent RA zoned property surrounding the site. The scope of the impacts could exceed the projections identified and accommodated in the impact statement and TIA. Frederick County's Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Amendment Process seek to ensure that the impacts of a particular Zoning Amendment are fully identified, analyzed, and addressed before an amendment is approved. It is essential that the impacts are known prior to the rezoning, so the mitigation or avoidance of identified impacts can be recognized in the request and proffer statement. In general, the proffer statement and generalized development plan provide the Applicant with the opportunity to further define the scope of the land use activity on the property. Limiting the potential acreage of development, new facility construction, and further limiting the type of uses on the property would limit the potential impacts of the EM development of this property. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 11 It is evident that many of the potential impacts of this request are unknown and have not been clearly identified in the impact analysis. The potential scope of the impacts are not frilly understood. The most significant example of this with this application is the historic and cultural resources. A. Historic Resources The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application during their December 20, 2005 meeting. Invited to attend the meeting by the HRAB were representatives of the various historical and cultural groups considered stakeholders in relationship to the historical resources in the vicinity of the rezoning. The following stakeholder groups were represented: Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, National Park Service, and the Town of Middletown. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, information provided by the applicant as well as information provided by various groups that were in attendance of the meeting. The 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property in question as being located within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek. The property also contains the site where the Nieswanger Fort once stood. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The HRAB expressed concern that the proposed rezoning was not protecting the viewshed of the battlefield and the Belle Grove property as well as the archeological resources present on the Cedar Creek Battlefield and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. The HRAB felt that the applicant still needs to address many issues with this rezoning before it should be considered by the Plamling Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB expressed that they could support the approval of this project if the suggestions offered as a result of the HRAB meeting are considered by the applicant in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources (Please see HRAB letter dated January 3, 2006, signed by Candice K Perkins, Planner II). The applicant has modified their rezoning application in an effort to address two of the nine comments suggested by the HRAB. However, many of the valid recommendations offered by the HRAB have not been addressed. Two of the most significant and constructive comments offered by the HRAB (the first two comments in the letter from the HRAB) should be further satisfied to ensure that the potential impacts associated of the rezoning are appropriately addressed. Presently, they have not been addressed in a manner that satisfies the concerns expressed by the HRAB. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 12 The opportunity has been provided for the applicant to work with the identified stakeholders, Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, and the National Park Service, to prepare a view shed mitigation plan that addresses the unique view sheds and approaches critical to their particular points of view. Understanding their points of view, a tailored approach that integrates the natural landscape with customized berming and landscaping would promote an approach to the view shed management that mitigates the visual impacts of the mining operations in an effective manner. A customized approach to the buffering, berming, and landscaping would be more appropriate than the present approach proposed in the proffer statement. In certain locations, particularly on the southern property (90-A-23), designating areas of non disturbance would preserve the existing landscape and by taking advantage of the topography effectively mitigate the visual impacts of the mining operations. A strategic approach to the location and size of the waste stockpiles identified on the exhibits should also be a consideration. Current practice at the existing facility with regards to the stockpiling of overburden should be avoided in the future. Approaches to addressing the visual impacts of the proposed operations should be more detailed and should be incorporated into the proffer statement. The applicant has provided for the dedication of approximately eight acres as an historic reserve. This is in an area where archeological resources associated with the Belle Grove Plantation have previously been identified. A time frame has been provided for the dedication of this acreage. However, an appropriate recipient has not been identified in the latest proffer statement. Previously, the Applicant had proffered the dedication to Belle Grove. This is the entity recommended to be the recipient by the County Attorney. The HRAB suggested that a Phase 1 Archeological Survey should be done on the property focusing on core battlefield areas and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. If warranted subsequent studies should be performed. The applicant has proffered to complete a Phase 1 Archeological Survey of the property in the future. However, no commitments have been made beyond a Phase 1 Survey. Further, this survey is proffered to occur after the rezoning of the property rather than before. The goal of the HRAB comments is to enable the mining operations to expand in a manner which is not detrimental to the historical context of the surrounding landscape. Further, to promote an approach that is mutually beneficial to the applicant, historic preservation stakeholders, and the adjacent community. The HRAB comments provide the opportunity for O-N Chemstone to continue to address the needs of the community, minimizing the impacts of their operations in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding community, in a manner described in their Impact Statement. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 13 Subsequent to the Planning Commission's review of this application, two historic cemeteries have been identified by the Applicant, the historic Tabler and Nisewander Family Cemeteries. A report regarding these cemeteries is provided with your agenda B. Transportation Much of the analysis in the Impact Statement is based upon the continuation of the existing practices of the Middletown quarry operation. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the impact statement suggests that the vehicle trips would increase by more than double from the existing count of 506 vehicles per day to 1,305 vehicle trips per day. A more significant increase in Global Stone truck traffic is anticipated in the TIA from 19 trucks per day to 80 per day and an increase of 56 customer truck trips per day. It should be recognized that a different combination or additional uses may further increase the traffic impacts associated with this request. As evidenced at the existing Strasburg facility, additional traffic impacts could be experienced from a more intensive use of the property than is currently envisioned. The Applicant has proposed a restriction to the truck traffic. However, this would still enable a considerable amount of traffic, particularly, heavy truck traffic. In addition, the mechanism to administer this proffer is problematic to the County as it creates an undesirable, ongoing enforcement issue. This should be avoided. Primary access to the site is depicted as being from the existing site entrance along Route 625 (5"' Street) to U.S. Route 11, Main Street in the Town of Middletown. The Town has expressed their opposition to the increase of truck traffic through Middletown. Previously, a significant amount of discussion regarding the inter -site transfer of materials via a conveyor belt system is offered in the impact statement. This approach should not presently be part of the consideration of this rezoning request. As demonstrated in the TIA, a level of service C or better would be achieved at the intersection of Route 11 and Route 625 (5"' Street). Consideration should be given to the character of the traffic generated from the facility and utilizing the aforementioned intersection. The traffic will be predominantly large, heavy truck traffic which would have a greater impact on the rural and small town context of the streets within Middletown. Noise and dust from the heavy truck traffic has been an issue in the past and would likely continue to be in the future. B. Mining Operations and Community Impacts Associated with mining operations is the potential for a variety of impacts that may affect surrounding properties and land uses. The Division of Mineral Mining of the Virginia Department of Mines is responsible for permitting mining operations within the State of Virginia including the operations of O-N Chemstone at the Middletown Quarry. The EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provides additional local requirements that seek to minimize the impacts associated with Extractive Manufacturing uses. Provisions and performance standards are provided to protect surrounding uses from adverse impacts. Appropriate landscaping or screening may be required by the Zoning Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 14 Administrator or Planning Commission within any required yard setback area in order to reasonably protect adjacent uses from noise, sight, dust, or other adverse impacts. The County Engineer reviewed the request and provided input expressing concerns regarding the geological impacts and the potential hydrological impacts, in particular the impact of the project on the local groundwater which includes the adjacent subdivisions that rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. With regards to the geology discussion, the impact or effect of blasting on adjacent residential buildings should be fully considered as should the impact of dust from the mining operations on adjacent residential dwellings. The Impact Statement did not fully address these potential impacts. As a result of the input of the County Engineer, the applicant has included proffers that seek to address the groundwater, dust, and blasting concerns associated with this rezoning request. In addition, mechanisms have been proffered to help resolve issues that may occur in the future. In addition to the potential impacts of the proposed mining operations on the view shed from the historical perspective, serious consideration should be given to the visual impacts on the rural landscape from the perspective of the adjacent residential landowners and from the perspective of residents and visitors traveling along Chapel Lane which bisects parcel 83-A-109 and the proposed mining operation. Summary of Impacts: - Potential impacts associated with the more intensive use of properties - Historic Resource Concerns (HRAB) -View shed coordination and mitigation -Cultural Resource Surveys - Environmental Impacts - Rural view shed. - Transportation impacts on Route 625, its intersection with Route 11, and the Town. - Potential groundwater, dust, and blasting impacts and controls on adjacent properties. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated March 18, 2008 (Previous revisions dated June 13, 2005, January 16, 2006, February 8, 2006, February 17, 2006, and August 28, 2006) Please see the comments provided by Mr. Bob Mitchell regarding this latest proffer Statement April 4, 2008 and April 11, 2008. The applicant has provided that the property shall be developed with EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Land uses. The Applicant has further restricted several EM (Extractive Manufacturing) land uses. 0 0 Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 14 With regards to site development, the applicant has attempted to limit access to the existing site entrance, has proffered distance buffers, earthen berms, and landscaping to minimize the impacts to the view shed of the surrounding community. It should be understood that no minimum standards have been offered to ensure that the site development proffers will minimize the potential impacts of the mining operations on the surrounding community and address the expressed concerns of the HRAB. An eight acre historic reserve to be dedicated to a recognized historic group has been proffered by the applicant. The County Attorney has recommended that this entity be Belle Grove. A limited Phase 1 Archeological Survey has been proffered by the applicant. No commitments have been made beyond a Phase I Survey. Further, the survey would only occur following the approval of the rezoning. The resources, and impacts to these resources if any, should be known prior to rezoning. The Applicant has proffered to preserve the two cemeteries that were identified on the property. These cemeteries were only recognized following the public input provided during the Planning Commission review process. The Applicant has proffered to preserve these resources within the context of the mining operation. The Applicant has proffered to keep its mining operations at least 200 feet from Cedar Creek. No other commitment regarding the protection of this resource has been provided The applicant has guaranteed to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority rights to the groundwater resources in accordance with existing agreements between the applicant and the FCSA. The applicant has stated their intent to monitor, minimize the impacts, and remediate any impacts associated with groundwater, dust, and blasting; has proposed to perform voluntary pre - blast surveys on adjacent properties and wells; and has included a bonding mechanism as security. An additional proffer has been included following the Planning Commission's review which seeks to address the phasing of mining activities. Mining in the Northern Reserve would occur immediately following the approval of the rezoning; mining in the area south of Chapel Road would commence no earlier than ten years from the date of the rezoning; and mining in the area north of Chapel Road would commence no earlier than twenty years from the date of the rezoning. • 0 Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 16 APPENDIX A — PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW INFORMATION STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 04/05/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application addresses many of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been frilly addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the following: 1) The Potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties. 2) The recommendations of the Historic Resources Advisory Board, particularly regarding view shed coordination and mitigation and Cultural Resource Surveys 3) The potential groundwater, dust, and blasting and view shed impacts on adjacent properties. 4) Transportation impacts, particularly within the Town of Middletown. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 04/05/06 MEETING: Planning Staff provided an overview of the application. This was followed by a presentation by the applicant of their project. During the Planning Commission's initial discussions, Commissioners wanted to know which State agency, the Department of Mines and Minerals (DMM) or the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), was responsible for overseeing aquifer protection, particularly, the quality and quantity protection measures. Commissioners suggested that a fund or bond be set up in escrow if a determination of responsibility for well damage had to be contested. In addition, they suggested that an agent of the County be assigned as a designated mediator in remediation situations. Berms were discussed and the case was made for smaller berms with flatter slopes in order to be more viewshed-friendly. Higher berms would be necessary in certain limited cases, while a minimum height was also suggested to conceal the height of a truck. It was suggested that the language should state, "...an average of 30 feet with higher berms as required for proper viewshed conditions." Commissioners commented that the applicant's proffer statement seemed to be too general and they would have preferred to see more specificity, particularly dealing with the placement and monitoring of seismographs, the eight -acre reserve area for Belle Grove, a detailed plan showing the berins, a detailed phasing plan, and buffer details. • 0 Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 17 Due to the Commission's Bylaws requiring a mandatory 11:00 p.m. adjournment, the Planning Commission did not have enough time to hold the public comment portion of the hearing. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to table the rezoning for 60 days, until June 7, 2006. (All members of the Planning Commission were present.) PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE FOR 06/07/06 MEETING: Staff has not received any materials from the applicant in modification of the O-N Minerals Rezoning Application, RZ03-06. The concerns and issues identified during the Planning Commission's initial discussions regarding this application, and the issues identified in the initial staff report, remain un- addressed. The Public Hearing for this application was not held during the 04/05/06 Plamling Commission meeting due to time constraints. As a result, the Commission should satisfy the Public Hearing requirements at the 06/07/06 meeting. The information offered during the Public Hearing should also be a consideration of the Planning Commission during their evaluation of this rezoning application. Since the initial 04/05/06 meeting at which the O-N Minerals Rezoning Application was considered, staff has been provided with numerous correspondence regarding this rezoning application. This additional public comment, in addition to an updated comment in the form of a resolution from the Town of Middletown, is included with this rezoning application package for your information. In addition, at the request of the applicant, staff met with Mr. David Benner, Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy to discuss the role his department plays in permitting and monitoring proposed and existing operations such as the Chemstone Middletown facility. Staff is confident that the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy will effectively carry out their responsibilities and duties. However, their responsibilities and duties are limited to the permitting and monitoring of the mining operations. It was made very clear that coordination with other State Agencies through the permitting process was minimal. Further, it was made clear that the Department's involvement with the adjacent property owners was limited and that in no way does the Department take a position in resolving conflicts that may arise between adjacent property owners and mining companies. The responsibility of addressing impacts that may be realized by properties in the vicinity of mining operations would rest with the affected property owner. The locality would have the responsibility of monitoring impacts and enforcing compliance in cases where the locality accepted proffered conditions aimed at mining operation impact mitigation. Please find attached to end of this report additional correspondence from various sources including The Town of Middletown, L. Preston Bryant, Commonwealth of Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources, and Mr. Woodward S. Bousquet. Rezoning 903-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 18 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 06/07/06 MEETING: Fifty-seven citizens spoke at the Planning Commission's public hearing on June 7, 2006. Of the 57 citizens, 55 persons spoke in opposition to the rezoning and two spoke in favor of the rezoning. Included in the 55 persons who spoke in opposition were representatives of various historic, environmental, and state agencies, such as the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, the Belle Grove Plantation, the National Park Service at Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park, the Headwaters Conservation for the Potomac Conservancy, and the Greater Middletown Business Association. Many speakers belonged to a citizens group called Preserve Frederick, some were local business owners, and other speakers were simply residents of Middletown and the surrounding area. Letters were received from the Commonwealth of Virginia's Secretary of Natural Resources, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the Belle Grove Plantation, along with numerous citizen letters and petitions. Following is an abbreviated summary of the concerns raised by speakers in opposition to the rezoning. Representatives for the historic, environmental, and state agencies expressed concern that the request to expand mining operations and change the zoning on 639 acres would negatively impact the historic view shed and landscape. Agency representatives encouraged the quarry to undertake a comprehensive view shed analysis and present a written plan and timeline to mitigate, remove, screen, and/or plant the existing large waste pile to the northwest of Belle Grove, which was visible from both the Belle Grove and Cedar Creek property and was already problematic in terms of the historic landscape. Public health and safety issues were raised concerning increased truck traffic through Middletown and along Valley Pike. Concern was raised that the increase in heavy commercial vehicles would envelope the community in constant background noise and added air pollution, which currently deposits a grey layer of fine limestone particles and diesel soot on most exterior surfaces. Problems with existing truck traffic through Middletown were expressed, noting the challenge faced by both residents and tourists alike. The Greater Middletown Business Association noted that Middletown's retail businesses derive the majority of their income from tourism and it was critical that the community continues to be a desirable destination for tourists. Concern was expressed for the air quality and fugitive dust emissions, noise, and vibration from blasting, particularly to Belle Grove. Regarding the environment, a recent report published in conjunction with Shenandoah University, detailed the ecological and historic context of the Cedar Creek Watershed. The report revealed the existence of sensitive eco-systems, supporting a variety of unique plant species and mature hardwood forests on adjacent property. The possibility that similar ecosystems and rare plant communities could exist on the Chemstone property was raised, along with the concern about the impact of a larger and more intensive quarry operation, or other permitted uses under EM District zoning, on the water quality and aquatic life in Cedar Creek. Efforts to preserve or restore forested buffers along Watson Run, Middle Marsh Brook, and Cedar Creek were encouraged to prevent any influx of water into these waterways which could choke off the diverse aquatic life. Terrestrial and aquatic habitats within the proposed proj ect's area were identified and concern was raised that state -threatened and endangered wildlife species, such as the bald eagle, wood turtles, and various bird species could be affected. 0 • Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 19 Speakers from the citizens group, Preserve Frederick, were in opposition to the rezoning and raised many issues regarding the inadequacies of the application, non-conformance with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan, impacts to water, as well as quality of life, air quality, public health, traffic, the environment, and negative economic impacts. Some of the specifics of the public's concerns included: The Comprehensive Plan states that measures aimed at increasing the appeal of areas to tourists and businesses need to be developed and implemented; however, the sharp increase in industrial traffic and pollutants from the mining operation will not create small-town ambiance, which is the key economic ingredient to the success of Middletown's businesses and tourism. Negative visual impacts, traffic, and noise will erode the Town's assets of Main Street, the National Park, the Battlefield, and its rural character. Further, over 1,300 dump truck trips per day will in no way help to minimize congestion of the main corridor to this quaint, one -light town. Nothing was more contradictory to the guidelines of the Comprehensive Policy Plan than a heavy, dirty industrial corporation operating within a rural, historic national park and battlefield community; it was a clearly incompatible land use. Local business owners were concerned that the destruction of the landscape, the dust, and the increased truck traffic with its noise and fumes, will have a very negative affect on out-of-town visitors and will jeopardize their businesses and livelihoods. Roads in this area are not constructed for large amounts of heavy truck traffic and over -sized vehicles. Numerous health issues were raised; expansion of quarry mining operations will be detrimental to public health and safety. Operations will be too close to residences, increased safety hazards were named dealing with fly rock from blasting, increased truck traffic, and safety to children. It was noted that truck traffic emissions will have severe health consequences for the community and statistics were quoted indicating that diesel exhaust is one of the greatest public health risks of all air pollutants. It was reported that diesel combustion releases fine particles and gases, called soot, which are typically smaller than 2.5 microns; this fine particulate matter is an air -quality contaminant regulated under the Clean Air Act. Diesel soot contains many toxins and can be inhaled into the deepest parts of the lungs where it is able to enter the bloodstream; a considerable number of associated respiratory illnesses were named. A police officer spoke about road traffic safety. He expressed concern about quarry trucks, some of which are 75-feet long and weighing up to 80,000 pounds, which can often be seen exceeding the posted speed limit and barreling down back country roads with tight curves, unsafe shoulders, and hills. It was noted that families travel these roads, along with school buses, the elderly and teenagers with new licenses. It was noted that tripling the amount of heavy industrial traffic through the countryside would be a recipe for disaster. Comments from a retired, professional geologist noted that the extension of limestone mining west and north of Middletown could bring detrimental health consequences to people living on farms and residences in proximity to the operation. In addition to occasional fly rock, blasting will open existing rock fractures or develop new fractures that could cause nearby wells to dry up and/or drain fields to malfunction. Fracturing induced by blasting could release residual clays from sinkholes and voids, thereby fouling water wells; operations of crushing, grinding, and loading brings the potential for large accumulations of dust and hazardous metals. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chem stone) May 22, 2008 Page 20 Citizens in the health profession expressed concern for water -borne pollutants and toxic elements; tests on local well systems from 1995 through 2006 revealed occasional high levels of toxic elements, including nitrate, cadmium, iron, and lead. Percentages of the elements found were quoted and the health problems associated with these levels were named. Other citizens in the health profession expressed concern for air -borne pollutants and fine particulate matter generated by limestone mining operations and extraction. Because of the westerly -prevailing winds, it was believed that residents of Middletown and students at Lord Fairfax Community College and Middletown Elementary School would be directly exposed to far greater emissions from the blasting, extraction, and refining of minerals. Health problems such as asthma, chronic obstructive lung diseases, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis were mentioned. It was noted that O-N Minerals was already the known leading contributor for emissions. Some residents stated that when they purchased their property years ago, they approached quarry operators about their plans for this property and were told it would be left as a buffer area. Residents did not believe view shed mitigation would shield their homes from quarry dust, dirt, and particle matter. The applicant had been quoted as saying that 10 million gallons of water a day would be pumped from the property and residents were concerned about their private wells and local springs. Liability issues were raised and who would pay for potential damages. Devaluation of properties was an issue. The fact that O-N Minerals had not offered any restrictions on other EM District uses was a concern. A citizen spoke of a 125-year-old family cemetery located north of Chapel Road, near an abandoned farmhouse. Citizens asked why the County continued to allow residential development to occur all through this part of the valley, if they knew the property could be mined in the future. It was noted that Middletown's old, rich history and architecture are not conducive to industrial infrastructure changes. One citizen commented that numerous quarry companies have owned this land over 50 years; he questioned why they waited all this time to apply for a rezoning. Middletown was not the same place it was 52 years ago and considerable changes have taken place since the 693 acres were sold to Chemstone. The Town now has a national historic park; it has a thriving national heritage of historic importance, and a rapidly growing number of residential developments. The financial status of O-N Minerals was commented on by a few of the citizens. They quoted operating figures about the company which indicated O-N was functioning under a considerable debt load and had to sell assets. Also raised was the fact the applicant was a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos -induced illnesses and silica. Citizens questioned how this could affect the company's financial future and their obligations to meet proffers or successfully resolve future cases. Citizens asked what recourse would be available, if the company failed to perform promised proffers. Liability issues on many levels were raised as a future problem. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority's connection to the land use application was raised numerous times and citizens expressed the need for all agreements to be thoroughly examined. Citizens Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 21 commented on all of the costs the FCSA had agreed to pay, including the costs for rezoning the land, for relocating ball fields, for installing and maintaining monitoring wells, restitution for water loss from nearby wells, etc., and to hold Chemstone harmless from all issues raised by regulators or private citizens. It was noted that FCSA would then have a water storage pit with which to partially serve the UDA and Chemstone would not have the expense of filling the pits and reclaiming land. Many of the residents said they moved to Middletown to escape large commercial developments and traffic problems, and residents feared these same negative impacts would result from this rezoning and affect the quality of life they have become accustomed to. Finally, citizens called for the Commission to vote on the application at the end of discussion and not to table the application. Commission Discussion: The Commission had a considerable amount of discussion and numerous issues were raised. Commission members asked the staff to review the State's role in mediating disputes and dealing with various off -site impacts. Staff responded that discussions with DMME had determined that while the DMME regulates the operation of the mining company, along with permitting and safety issues, the scope of their involvement beyond the property or permit is very limited. In fact, the DMME is reluctant to become involved with any of the issues that may revolve around blasting or water issues. Commission members asked if O-N Minerals had submitted a CPPA application by the June 1, 2006 deadline or if the land subject to the rezoning was in any way plamled for something other than rural areas land use, such as with a text amendment. Staff replied that no comprehensive plan amendment had been submitted, nor was this area being considered for another planned land use. Commission members asked staff about remediation requirements. Staff responded that there were considerable requirements by the DMME; however, there were many opportunities to modify the requirements and approach things in a different manner. Commission members assumed that if the property changed hands after the land had been mined, as in the possibility that it would be turned over to a quasi -public entity, such as the FCSA, then the regulations would change. It was noted that FCSA was not in the business of land remediation. Commission members stated that if the rezoning was tabled, they would want a clear understanding of the agreement between the FCSA and O-N Minerals before it came back to the Commission again. Not only did they want to have a clear understanding, but thought it was important for the community because of statements that could be interpreted in different ways and could have significant liability, not only on surrounding property owners, but on the FCSA. Commissioner Thomas summarized the issues he believed were significant in the review of the rezoning. Many of the other Commissioners agreed with those issues, as follows: The traffic impact analysis submitted was woefully inadequate and needs to be redone. The use of numbers of vehicles for trip generation in the traffic impact analysis is inappropriate when 60-70% of the traffic will be 40-ton dump trucks and will not result in an accurate analysis. A route analysis needs to be done which examines the geometrics and conditions of the road, in particular, the impact of 800-900 severely - loaded 40-ton trucks on the road itself. A strip map should be included so the community understands the vehicle traffic pattern that will occur with heavily -loaded vehicles from the quarry, through 0 i Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 22 Middletown, and onto their destination. The environmental impact analysis is lacking; there was nothing within the environmental impact analysis that addressed air quality. A particulate matter study is needed with a wind -rose analysis showing the distribution of the particulate matter, the levels of particulate matter that will be experienced by the surrounding residents, and the particulate matter size that will be distributed. In light of all the nearby farms and livestock, information is needed on how the particulate matter may affect surrounding agricultural and orchard land uses; for example, the affect of particulate matter on grazing cattle and the pollination of orchard fruit trees. In addition to outside dust, dust inside homes also needs to be addressed. Particulate matter of this size will get inside new homes as well as older homes and all homes within a couple miles will have a significant dust problem within the home. Regarding the subj ect of determining liability for water wells and blasting damage, how will the applicant monitor existing wells from a quality and quantity standpoint and how will the existing homes be inventoried and evaluated. A plan should be developed with a process for damage assessment and appeals that doesn't require surrounding homeowners to invest an extensive amount of money hiring lawyers and suing. Due to the significant size of this project, a bonding process above the minimum State standards is needed to protect the surrounding homeowners against potential future damages and liabilities, if the company has financial difficulties and moves out of the area. No information was provided by the applicant regarding meetings with surrounding property owners; neighborhood meetings should take place to convey the applicant's plan, how the property owners will be protected, and what the applicant's blasting plan will be. Since the biggest potential problems will come from areas outside of the quarry site, and the State only regulates on -site, permitted areas, something significantly more than the minimum State -regulated requirements is needed. For example, one seismograph in a blasting area with this kind of topography is substantially inadequate; there should be three -to -five for every blasting plan. The liability for surrounding homeowners for water wells and blasting needs to be substantially expanded. The applicant needs to examine allowed uses in an EM area and consider what is realistically going to be done there and the uses that are not going to be needed should be taken out through a proffer to avoid confusion by adjoining property owners about what can be done here. Another significant item is the life of the quarry operation; specifically, will it be a five-year operation or a 50-year operation, and what is the applicant's phase plan for development of the quarry and the extent of that development. Is it the applicant's intent to proceed down the Valley with this operation and are there plans for remediation of areas left behind as the operation moves along, or are the areas left open through the entire process. Has the applicant considered a mining operation versus an open quarry? Although a mining operation would have less impact on the visual area and produce less dust, it still has the same amount of impact on blasting and water wells. In addition, issues raised by other Commissioners included a desire for some type of bonding process established for well issues, so that the burden of proof did not fall on local residents. They wanted to see increased buffer distances to keep the operation further away from residences. The subject of the unsightly appearance of dirt piles that may exist for 25 to 50 years was also raised. In addition, they wanted the applicant to revisit the issues raised by the HRAB, the Town of Middletown, and Public Works. Some Commission members doubted that the applicant could address the issues raised in 90 days or a year in terms of the kind and amount of analysis that was needed in this case. The comment was made that if the applicant did proceed with all of the studies, they were not sure whether the results would Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2008 Page 23 make a difference, because fundamentally, this was a land use issue. It was pointed out that the time for expansion of this quarry and the industrial use of these particular properties has long passed; the surrounding community is clearly residential at this point in time. It was noted that the Commission had previously asked for additional information 60 days ago and nothing was produced. Commission members believed the rezoning needed to be considered in the spirit of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Members commented that the public's presentation was far better than what was provided by the applicant, in terms of the information provided and organization. Commissioners believed the concerns raised by the public were valid and required mitigation, which could only be accomplished by denying the rezoning; they were adamant that no amount of proffers could make this proposal acceptable for them. Other comments included the observation that the application was not clear as to whether the operation would be limited to an active core area or even how much quarrying the applicant planned to do. It was suggested that a revised application and proffer could result in a minor amount of rezoned land with protections; it was pointed out that the residents and historic areas have no protections today. Commission members had concerns about sending the application forward to the Board of Supervisors in its present state because it was so incomplete and lacking that the Board would have nothing to review. Those Commission members were concerned about doing a disservice to both the Board and the citizens without allowing the applicant to go back and improve the application with a phasing plan, or offering a commitment to a smaller area, or providing protections for surrounding areas. Still other Commissioners argued that they did not hear anything during the public hearing that made them think something could be done with this proposal to make it compatible as a land use. A motion to recommend denial of the rezoning application was made, seconded, and passed by a majority vote, as follows: YES (TO REC. DENIAL): Watt, Morris, Oates, Wilmot, Ours, Kriz, Kerr, Mohn NO: Unger, Manuel, Light, Thomas (Note: Commissioner Triplett was absent from the meeting.) HITE ORCHARDS IN' • sOE+s I WD�D6µE aRNj r4 "el tiB Ij I r O .y ff ^9 � / \ff rUv 1-4 3 6 N E Iosc ~3 aRyE'n ko� /ie IMF ?DaP DR4/ ��,• T ♦ EG e"•S ES A EO Ap �� ' A ' • ePe . v ENGLISH, D-DM / El A EN-S. DA'.nDY C1lemstone } JA •, (1rr 83 A 109 zj f9i s fa : 4 t4W ♦D E g r • yr, a � . ,PY£ r F eo Ch—tone rf 83 A 109 / ' ! liy. D PF, qMN it '1RD,ej�YE7S A 11 ' �✓ Y]Nx.11 MA0.rNl - A MEL. RON4 1.AiE ELLE n A 1M 1 MINERALS(CNEFISTONE) COMPANY p VC EI A 11 MAE.LC tiJ vc ` yy gyp. 71 q A 1 OEMSTM STONE PRODUCTS, CO. r� GMT GENSTAR STONE PR O E k .E EE A V • GARREtF fARYS LLC p .lt:((//�r,r�r/ 4f9< 4f/C Op EE A A GAMfIi FARMS LlG I n y 4GI7 p R / iPZ-7 on NYP F-- a Bt (Bu.rr.F. N.yNDI D.hk1) . MS (M.ak.l BNPP.rI °"Iric1) REZ # 03 - 06 �u.•" N ~•'® 82 (B..YIu.. G.n.nl DWNcO RI (R..ManWl, R.nn.E C.mmunRy p.hktl B3(B,,,.F..I—M.I7r.n.W,DYMd) RS(It,W—lRecrutlon.ICo—*yD—) 0 - N Minerals ( Chemstone ) •T• N •c•^M EM (E—e M.nW.dwMS DNNkG O RA(R—I M... DYtr I .w o .n ME(MpNerEUuwti.np.) O RP(RnYanlwlP.rlwm.nuDatrkO ( 83 - A - 109, 90 - A - 23 ) 0— N MI (II14U.1141. LpM DNekO ♦ 1) , „ • w 0 Mi (lrqutrul. G —1 ENN—) (,•<4: 1 D 150 1500 3 000 I� O (Monde Mome ComnunM DntrkO Feet , wp p Rt (B--... Rmob—ld D. -) MS (M,d..l S. ,I Dub-) R E Z # 03 - 06 RZ (B.—... G.—.1 DxbH) • R4 (Ra.Mentul, --d C.--ty D,V -) Q �oY • 9](B.-- )nEu.bul711—oDrmW) • R5(Reu-WR.—W.-IC.—"D. -) 0 - N Minerals (Chemstone ) ��' ��� • EM(EN.—M.n.t. ,.g D,.b-) Q RA(R.uI--DHnc1) -,� ,� • RE(Ryba E--DsV-) O RP(R.—.tnl Pei«ounce Dub-) ( 83 - A - 109, 90 - A - 23 ) AO, • M1 (IMu.Vul. lqM DnbH) 0...� ~TM Q M2 RnEu.hul. General DgbH) . I 0 750 1,500 _ 0— ~ .n • MMI (MRDM Rbm. CormunitY WhH) Feel , 0 0 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA o be completed bjy ,Planning Stuff f �, Fee Amount Paid Zoning Amendment Nu ber /D D4 Date Received 7t .) PC Hearing Date r 6 -�-9�F D _ J30S Hearing Dateff _ /� �� t �lGt5j The following infor ination shall be Provided by the gj)plicant: All parcel identification. numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained front the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Dent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Telephone:540-465-6819 Address: 1696 Oranda Road, P . 0. Box 71 Strasburg, Virginia 22657 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Address: 3. Contact person if other than above Telephone: Name: Patrick sowers, P.E. (PHR+A) Telephone: 540-667-2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed to property X Impact. Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X [. 9 • 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) 6. A) Current Use of the Property: 13) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: See Attached PARCEL ID NUMBER USE Undeveloped Qugm ZONING 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of adjacent to Middletown. Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east and Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road Route 625), and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The (Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). 2 Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number(s) 83-A-109 & 90-A-23 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: Back Creek Middletown Middletown Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School: Sherando Aylor Middletown 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 691 RA BM 691 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Single Family Home Non -Residential Lots Office Retail Restaurant Number of Units Proposed Townhome Multi -Family Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Warehouse Other 78 acres —quarry pits 3 40 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) kAowledge. Applicant/ Date Owner inerals (Chemstone) 4 ADJOINERS CHEMSTONE - MIDDLETOWN Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2'd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name Address Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: Keith A. & Linda A. McNeely 443 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-10 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Mark A. & Karen Griffith 411 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-9 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Fred & Shirley Potter 379 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-8 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Steven M. & Deborah M. Miller 357 Westernview Dr Property #: 84-6-7 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Donald J. & Donna W. Hopkins 325 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-6 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Lawrence E. & Wendy J. Hamilton 277 Westernview Dr Property #: 84-6-5 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Jeanne Rapa & Shellie L. Sellards 241 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-4 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Kevin D. & Elizabeth M. Barrington 205 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-3 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Gary S. & Dale A. Nichols 1405 Handley Ave Property #: 84-A-7 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Richard A. & Janet S. Dye 11310 Vale Rd Property #: 84-A-12 Oakton, VA 22124 Name: H & E, LC 1832 Chapel Rd Property#: 84-A-17 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Jennifer L. Nichols 1875 Hites Rd Property#: 84-A-17A Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Edith M. Renner 152 Veterans Rd Pro ert #: 91-A-7 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Garrett Farms, LLC 508 Veterans Rd 84-A-16 Middletown, VA 22645 -Property#: Name: Timothy D. & Lisa M. Rickman Rt 1, Box 695 #: 91-A-7A Swords Creek, VA 24649 -Property Name: Carlton R. Boyer 156 N Eberly St #: 83-A-107 Strasburg, VA 22657 -Property Name: Carlton R. Boyer 156 N Eberly St Property #: 83-A-108B Strasbur , VA 22657 Name: Dennis F. Boyer 165 Drover Ln 83-A-108B Middletown, VA 22645 -Property#: Name: Deborah R. Dorman 9345 River View Rd 83-A-106 Broomes Island, MD 20615 -Property#: Name: Rock Builders, Inc P.O. Box 1146 83-A-103B Berryville, VA 22611 -Property#: Name: Garrett Farms, LLC 508 Veterans Rd Property #: 90-A-20 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Richard A. McDonald 470 Meadow Mills Rd Property#:. 90-A-30 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Meadow Mills Union Chapel RR 1 Box 446 Property #: 90-A-29 Edinburg, VA 22824 Name: Joseph L. & Frances Kenny 516 Meadow Mills Rd Property #: 90-A-29A Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Thomas G. II & Cornelia E. Lekas 536 Meadow Mills Rd Property#: 90-A-28 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Albert H. Hodson 536 Meadow Mills Rd Property#: 90-A-27 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Ave NW Property#: 90-A-33 Washin ton, DC 20036 Name: Malcom & Mildred G. Brumback 420 Belle Grove Rd Property #: 90-A-26 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Barry L. Bowser P.O. Box 221 Property #: 90-A-25 Middletown, VA 22645 I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and the best of my (our) kAowledge. L.J v4.2°.7TSC � G} = I',CGW PW se r G SP/KE SET O,-/' B!v06E • P01,W7- 149.25 Acres ��{ '.N A11' �J`� I` TIJ r . a. 0—N Minerals Chemstone Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc c , I �,' Southern Reserve Boundary Exhibit 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 p \O a VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 U FREDERICK COUNTY, IORCINIA L28 L30 N / '� � GgRC /F N F SNgpp�NV J.J. PI KERALE pcDB 205, PG 151 L10 �/ do / 23Q0h Y °moo-10 CO0� �cP 2aUdQo� a V. � m 2 �O n QC15 5 CV 4(16 �r ROV '�07 C13 aLl s\ / , RICHA R N/F 0g 48j0PC 692 R. YE �5 co Q �4 �aa z� �"' PORTION OF w PIN 83-A-109 21,339,227 SF oZ o PIN 83-A�J n REMAINDEJA 489.8812 AC N w o 2,159,2849.5702w Z Y9 36� I LINE TABLEC34� ko F Q o a SEARING 39'53'03`E LENGTH 506.08' D& 9 566 Pe , CG i8'51'18"F 423.76 G 51j N 640.55' Z m 1296.56' O 24.61' -�' I , 762.00' 1030.98' 198.00, J�ti1FS 1774.42' <3� 3699.27' A q1675.02' G�F RF� 578.15' T 954.20' f 0/S 321.85' 179.03' �c NOTES: 53.16' GRAPHIC SCALE 1. FREDERICK COUNTY PIN: 0 500 1000 2000 83-A-109 2. PROPERTY OUTLINE, ADJOINING IN FEEL' ) PROPERTY OWNERS, AND MERIDIAN 1 inch - 1000 1t. SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE PLAT ATTACHED TO DEED OF EXHIBIT BARGAIN AND SALE RECORDED IN A PORTION OF THE DB 620, PG 186 AMONG THE LAND PROPERTY CONVEYED TO RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, N RPORATIO VIRGINIA. INFORMATION SHOWN DEED BOOK CHEMSTONE CORPORATION HEREON IS NOT BASED ON A PAGE IO CURRENT FIELD RUN SURVEY. BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 3. NO TITLE REPORT. SCALE: 1" = 1000' DATE: FEB. 15, 2006 Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 100.30' 100.30' 100.30' 16.05' 54.16' 20.56' 23.07' 966.26' 1655.16' 83412' 569.68' 1346.03' 1490.67' 2939.60' 196.47' 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 191 . 31, 108 Winchester, Virginia 22601 62.27' + T 540.667.2139 PH 1629.81' F 540.665.0493 SHEET 1 OF 1 3 0 x m N a Ic a • L� § 165-83 ZONING § 165-85 Additional landscaped areas may be required to ensure that all unused areas are landscaped and to improve the general appearance and use of the site. In no case shall more than 25% of the site be required to be landscaped in the B2 Business General Zoning District. ARTICLE XI EM Extractive Manufacturing District § 165-84. Intent. The intent of the Extractive Manufacturing. District is to provide for mining and related industries, all of which rely on the extraction of -natural resources. Provisions and performance standards are provided to protect surrounding uses from adverse impacts. It is also the intent of this article to avoid the encroachment of incompatible uses on the borders of the EM District. § 165-85. Permitted uses. The following uses shall be allowed: A, Surface or subsurface mining of rock, metal and nonmetallic ores. B. Oil and natural gas extraction and/or pumping, including storage of production produced on the site. No refining is allowed. C. Sand and gravel mining and processing. D. Crushed stone operations. E. Manufacture and processing of cement, lime and gypsum. (Cont'd on page 16625) 16624.9 12-15-2004 C� • § 165-85 ZONING § 165-88 F. Asphalt and concrete mixing plants. G. Brick, block and precast concrete products. H. Farming, agriculture, orchards, nurseries, horticulture, dairying and forestry. I. Accessory uses. J. Business and directional signs. K. Public utilities, including poles, lines, distribution transformers, pipes, meters and sewer facilities. § 165-86. Performance standards. All uses shall conform to applicable state or federal regulations governing noise and vibration. The Zoning Administrator may require the submission of a copy of data submitted to state or federal agencies pertaining to these performance standards with the required site plan. § 165-87. Landscaping. Appropriate landscaping or screening may be required by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission within any required yard setback area in order to reasonably protect adjacent uses from noise, sight, dust or other adverse impacts. § 165-88. Setback and yard requirements. A. Front setback. (1) All principle and accessory structures shall be set back seventy- five (75) feet from any road, street or highway right-of-way. (2) Excavations shall be no closer than one hundred (100) feet from any road, street or highway right-of-way. The Planning Commis- sion may reduce the required front setback for excavation to fifty (50) feet if it determines that, through the use of measures, such as landscaping or screening, the effective protection afforded to adjacent properties has not been reduced. 16625 § 165-88 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-90 B. Side and rear setbacks. All principle and accessory structures shall be set back at least twenty-five (25) feet from any side or rear property boundary. (1) No structure shall be closer than one hundred (100) feet from any property line zoned RA, RP, R4, R5 or MH1. The Planning Commission may reduce this required setback to fifty (50) feet if it determines that, through the use of measures, such as landscaping or screening, the effective protection afforded to adjacent properties has not been reduced. (2) Excavations shall be no closer than one hundred (100) feet from any property zoned RA, RP, R4, R5 or MH1. No excavation shall be located closer than two hundred (200) feet from any dwelling or platted residential subdivision. The Planning Commission may reduce these required setbacks to fifty (50) feet if it determines that, through the use of measures, such as landscaping or screening, the effective protection afforded to adjacent properties has not been reduced. (3) All crushing or screening machinery shall be set back at least three hundred (300) feet from any property boundary. If such equipment is fully enclosed within a building which maintains the effective protection afforded adjacent properties, the Planning Commission may reduce this yard requirement to a minimum of two hundred (200) feet. § 165-89. Height limitations. No structure shall exceed forty-five (45) feet in height. § 165-90. Additional requirements. All uses in the EM District must conform with all state, federal and local regulations. All mining operators shall submit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the operations plan required by state agencies with the required site plan. 16626 REZONING APPLICATION #03-06 O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: March 20, 2006 (Updated May 22, 2006) Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: April 5, 2006 Tabled 60 days June 7, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: June 28, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. LOCATION: The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758) and west and adjacent to I Iites Road (Route 625). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential South: EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Use: Shenandoah County East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural PROPOSED USES: Quarry • Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Corporation (Phone) 540-465-6819 (Address) 1696 Oranda Road P.O. Box 71 Strasburg VA 22657 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Deed Book 620 on Page 186 and is described as Deed Book 476 on Page 105 and is described as Parcel: Lot:109 Block: A Section: 83 Subdivision: Parcel: Lot:23 Block: A Section: 90 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: fame) Patton Harris Rust & Associates pc (Phone) 540-667-2139 (Address) 117E Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester Virginia 22601 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including X Rezoning (including proffers) _ Conditional Use Permits Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) _ Subdivision Site Plan My attomey-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, Imo/ have hereto set m our) land seal this .20Tday of VA4 2001� , /A Signature( State of Virginia, City/County of a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction ore aid, certi that the person(s) o signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and as acknowledged the same, �, before me in th jurisdiction aforesaid this ��' Ca —day of-)2,4 J , 2f0()'9 . cC)�I_A�W &'0�' M Commission Expires: 1gl Y —� ary Public • - Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Corporation (Phone) 540-465-6819 (Address) 1696 Oranda Road, P.O. Box 71, Strasburg, VA 22657 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Deed Book 620 on Page 186 and is described as Deed Book 476 on Page 105 and is described as Parcel: Lot:109 Block: A Section: 83 Subdivision: Parcel: Lot:23 Block: A Section: 90 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: 46 Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (Phone) 540-667-2139 (Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester, Virginia 22601 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including X Rezoning (including proffers) _ Conditional Use Permits Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) _ Subdivision Site Plan My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. �� / In witness thereof, I have hereto set m our nd and seal this ,20 day of VM,r , 2004, Signature(s) State of Virginia, City/County of To- -- YV--U a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction ore aid, certi ry that the person(s) o signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and has acknowledggeejd the sam before me in th jurisdiction aforesaid this,? o , 2M0 . � ' M Commission Ex Tres: �� Y p tary Public 0 Rezoning 403-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 757. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Global Stone Chemstone Corporation rezoning application dated June 13, 2005 address transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the LT.E Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization and off - site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Will not directly effect fire and rescue. Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: Demolition permit required prior to removing any existing structures. No additional comments required. Public Works Department: Refer to page 4, Environmental Features: The discussion indicated that an enviromnental report prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) was included with the impact statement as Appendix "A". A copy of this report was not included with our submittal. Please provide us with a copy of this report for our review. Refer to page 6, Soils/Geology: The geology discussion should be expanded to include hydrogeology and the impact of the project on the local groundwater. In particular, the subdivisions which rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. General: The impact analysis has not addressed one very important item related to a rezoning from RA to EM. That item is the impact or effect of blasting on adjacent residential buildings. This issue should also be expanded to include the impact of dust on adjacent residential dwellings. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority: The Frederick County Sanitation Authority supports this rezoning request. The Authority will use these pits, when abandoned, as a source of water supply under an agreement with Global Stone Chemstone Corporation, dated March 2, 2000. Larger pits will provide a more abundant supply and reliable source of water. Larger pits are also more cost effective for the Authority to develop as a water supply. That benefits the residents of Frederick County that depend upon the Authority for water service. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Health Department has no objection if there is to be no increase in water use which would require sewage disposal. GIS: No road/name requirements noted. Any road network that provides primary access to four or more occupied business structures shall be names. Numbering will be assigned as applicable. 0 Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 3 Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Winchester Regional Airport: Allowed uses under this rezoning should not effect airside operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Town of Middletown: The Middletown Planning Commission, while not opposed to the project, is opposed to the increase of truck traffic through Middletown and has concerns about the effect of excavation on the water table. Please see revised comment and resolution. Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter dated ALlarch 27, 2006firom Mr. Bob Mitchell. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Please seethe attached letter dated darnitaiy 3, 2006, signed by Candice E. Perkins, Planner IL Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Middletown Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. I -1 J Land Use The property for which the rezoning is being requested is located within the Rural Areas of Frederick County. This land use designation is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as all areas outside of the designated Urban Development Area. The primary land uses in the Rural Areas are agriculture and forests. The primary growth pattern consisting of widely scattered, large lot residential development. Many residents of Frederick County are attracted to the natural beauty 0 0 Rezoning 403-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 4 and special lifestyle found in rural portions of the County. Excessive or inappropriate development in these areas can reduce their value and attractiveness. At the same time, the rural areas play an important role in the County's economy through the income generated by agriculture. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-55] The subject property contains areas of prime agricultural soils which are generally located in the limestone belt running north -south through the County. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the value to the County's economy of the limestone resources within the County and the extraction of these natural resources. Within the Business and Industrial Area policies it is recognized that policies are needed and standards should be developed concerning how to deal with new requests for large mining operations [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-11, 6-72]. The Rural Areas Conclusion states that most of the County will continue to be rural areas used for agriculture, forests, or low density residential uses. Certain types of business uses may be located at scattered rural locations if safe access is available, and if adverse impacts on surrounding uses and the rural environment can be avoided. These rural business and industrial uses should be those that provided services to rural areas or that are more appropriate in rural areas than urban areas. The locations for such business would include major intersections or locations with recent or existing business activity [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-60] Two of the identified goals of the Rural Area policy are to maintain the rural character of areas outside the UDA and to protect the rural environment [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-76]. Fi,m irn Y1n9P mt After describing the physical characteristics of the County, the Environment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan addresses Water Supply. Issues concerning water quality, quantity, use, and protection of water resources are directly related to land development activities. Water supplies are needed to support development, while surface and groundwater are potentially affected by development activities [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3]. Major sources of water used in the County are groundwater and the North Fork of the Shenandoah River. In 2000, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority entered a seventy year lease with Global Stone Chemstone Corporation (Global). Global owns quarries at Clearbrook, Middletown, and Strasburg. The lease provides the water from these quarries as a source of supply and transfers title of the quarries to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority when the mining operations are complete. The agreement has provided a viable long term source of water for the County [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3] Groundwater is the major source of water supply in the rural portions of the County and provides a potential alternative source for urban areas. hl all, over half the population of the County relies on groundwater as the sole source of water supply. The most productive aquifers in the County are the limestone -carbonate aquifers [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3, 5-4]. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 5 HiS' my The property for which the rezoning is being requested is located adjacent to Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield. Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield are historic sites in Frederick County that are listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. Cedar Creek is identified as one of six battlefields of great national importance that are located in Frederick County and Winchester. The Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County further identifies both sites as potentially significant properties. In addition, the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property as being within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek. Significant portions of Cedar Creek, along with Third Winchester and Kernstown battlefields provided the critical mass and the foundation for the Battlefield Network Plan which was adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on December 13, 1995, and subsequently incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Excerpts from the Battlefield Network Plan have been provided for your information. The Battlefield Network Plan and the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley were important catalysts for the designation of the regional Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District which was created by Congress in 1996. More recently, the efforts of the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Foundation and the National Park Service continue to further historic preservation efforts relating to the civil war battlefields located in Frederick County and the broader region. To address the historic preservation policy goal of protecting the historic resources in Frederick County, The Comprehensive Plan provides that the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) review development proposals which potentially impact significant historic resources and that the HRAB's information and recommendations are forwarded to the Plamling Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB facilitated the involvement of the historic preservation stakeholders in the review of this rezoning request. The recommendation of the HRAB accompanies this report and will be discussed in greater detail later in the report. Identified implementation methods for promoting the preservation and protection of Civil War Battlefield resources include the preservation and protection of the historical appearance and character of the key battlefield sites, their viewsheds, and their approaches, and the coordination of the battlefield efforts with efforts to protect and preserve natural, visual, and environmental resources [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 2-I1-13]. Transportation The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan does not cover this portion of the County. The properties are located in the Rural Area of the County. A large portion of the roads within the County are currently inadequate to meet the needs of the areas they serve. There is a need to insure that improvements to existing rural roads continue to be made in a systematic way and that new rural roads are provided as needed [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 7-1 ]. R Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 6 In general, the Comprehensive Plan states that a Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments within the County. The applicants Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) seeks to address the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning request. 3) Site Suitability/Environment Both properties contain environmentally sensitive areas. The applicant has identified wetlands, streams, and floodplains, and areas of mature woodlands on the properties. Exhibits have been provided that depict these environmental features. Any disturbance of identified environmental resources would occur in conformance with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations. Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook are the existing streams that traverse the subject properties. Both streams have associated floodplain designations. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. Multiple soil types are located on the sites. The site contains soil types that are considered prime agricultural soils. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. It is recognized that the limestone deposits that underlie the properties provide the ideal geological conditions for Extractive Manufacturing use. In addition, the most productive aquifers in the County are the limestone -carbonate aquifers that are present in this area. 4) Potential Impacts Potential Impact Summary. In evaluating the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application it is very important to recognize that the applicant has not proffered a commitment to the use of the property beyond those which would be enabled by the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. All land uses, meeting the applicable development standards, would be permitted within the district based upon the application as submitted. The County is familiar with the operation and practices of the existing Middletown Quarry operation and recognizes that the purpose of the rezoning request is to enable the expansion of the existing limestone ore extraction operation onto adjacent properties, utilizing this natural resource. However, lacking a commitment that seeks to further define the scope of operations, this application should be evaluated carefully and with the understanding that the use of the properties could be more intensive than that described in the applicant's impact statement. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 7 Consideration should be given to the maximum possible intensity of EM (Extractive Manufacturing) use identified in the County's Zoning Ordinance (a copy of the EM (Extractive Manufacturing District has been provided for your review). The impacts associated with this rezoning request may be significant and should be understood. The applicant should be prepared to address the mitigation of the impacts associated with this rezoning request, in particular, those impacts and issues identified by the reviewing agencies. Guarantees in the form of proffered conditions have not been offered to ensure that the impacts generated by this application are limited and consistent with the discussion in the Impact Statement. The applicant has the ability to address this through the Proffer Statement. When considering the acreage potential, the dimensional requirements, and the EM District uses, it is possible that facilities located adjacent to and with access from Chapel Road could result, as could facilities located within 50 feet of the adjacent RA zoned property surrounding the site. The scope of the impacts could exceed the projections identified and accommodated in the impact statement and TIA. A. Historic Resources The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application during their December 20, 2005 meeting. Invited to attend the meeting by the HRAB were representatives of the various historical and cultural groups considered stakeholders in relationship to the historical resources in the vicinity of the rezoning. The following stakeholder groups were represented: Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, National Park Service, and the Town of Middletown. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, information provided by the applicant as well as information provided by various groups that were in attendance of the meeting. The 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property in question as being located within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek. The property also contains the site where the Nieswanger Fort once stood. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The HRAB expressed concern that the proposed rezoning was not protecting the viewshed of the battlefield and the Belle Grove property as well as the archeological resources present on the Cedar Creek Battlefield and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. The HRAB felt that the applicant still needs to address many issues with this rezoning before it should be considered by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB expressed that they could support the approval of this project if the suggestions offered as a result of the HRAB meeting are considered by the applicant in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources (Please see HRAB letter dated January 3, 2006, signed by Candice E. Perkins, Planner II). Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 8 The applicant has modified their rezoning application in an effort to address two of the nine comments suggested by the HRAB. However, many of the valid recommendations offered by the HRAB have not been addressed. Two of the most significant and constructive comments offered by the HRAB (the first two comments in the letter from the HRAB) should be further satisfied to ensure that the potential impacts associated of the rezoning are appropriately addressed. Presently, they have not been addressed in a manner that satisfies the concerns expressed by the HRAB. The opportunity has been provided for the applicant to work with the identified stakeholders, Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, and the National Park Service, to prepare a view shed mitigation plan that addresses the unique view sheds and approaches critical to their particular points of view. Understanding their points of view, a tailored approach that integrates the natural landscape with customized berming and landscaping would promote an approach to the view shed management that mitigates the visual impacts of the mining operations in an effective manner. A customized approach to the buffering, berming, and landscaping would be more appropriate than the present approach proposed in the proffer statement. In certain locations, particularly on the southern property (90-A-23), designating areas of non disturbance would preserve the existing landscape and by taking advantage of the topography effectively mitigate the visual impacts of the mining operations. A strategic approach to the location and size of the waste stockpiles identified on the exhibits should also be a consideration. Current practice at the existing facility with regards to the stockpiling of overburden should be avoided in the fixture. Approaches to addressing the visual impacts of the proposed operations should be more detailed and should be incorporated into the proffer statement. The applicant has provided for the dedication to Belle Grove of approximately eight acres as an historic reserve. This is in an area where archeological resources associated with the Belle Grove Plantation have previously been identified. A time frame has been provided for the dedication of this acreage. The HRAB suggested that a Phase 1 Archeological Survey should be done on the property focusing on core battlefield areas and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. If warranted subsequent studies should be performed. The applicant has proffered to complete a Phase 1 Archeological Survey of the property in the fixture. However, no commitments have been made beyond a Phase 1 Survey. It should be clarified that the Survey would be applicable to parcel 90-A-23 in addition to the stated parcel 83-A-109. The goal of the I-1RAB comments is to enable the mining operations to expand in a manner which is not detrimental to the historical context of the surrounding landscape. Further, to promote an approach that is mutually beneficial to the applicant, historic preservation stakeholders, and the adjacent community. The HRAB comments provide the opportunity for O-N Chemstone to continue to address the needs of the community, minimizing the impacts of their operations in a Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 9 manner that is compatible with the surrounding community, in a manner described in their Impact Statement. B. Transportation Much of the analysis in the Impact Statement is based upon the continuation of the existing practices of the Middletown quarry operation. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the impact statement suggests that the vehicle trips would increase by more than double from the existing count of 506 vehicles per day to 1,305 vehicle trips per day. A more significant increase in Global Stone truck traffic is anticipated in the TIA from 19 trucks per day to 80 per day and an increase of 56 customer truck trips per day. It should be recognized that a different combination or additional uses may further increase the traffic impacts associated with this request. As evidenced at the existing Strasburg facility, additional traffic impacts could be experienced from a more intensive use of the property than is currently envisioned. Primary access to the site is depicted as being from the existing site entrance along Route 625 (5"' Street) to U.S. Route 11, Main Street in the Town of Middletown. The Town has expressed their opposition to the increase of truck traffic through Middletown. A significant amount of discussion regarding the inter -site transfer of materials via a conveyor belt system is offered in the impact statement. No mention of this approach has been provided in the Proffer Statement. Therefore, this approach should not presently be part of the consideration of this rezoning request. As demonstrated in the TIA, a level of service C or better would be achieved at the intersection of Route 11 and Route 625 (5"' Street). Consideration should be given to the character of the traffic generated from the facility and utilizing the aforementioned intersection. B. Mining Operations and Community Impacts Associated with mining operations is the potential for a variety of impacts that may affect surrounding properties and land uses. The Division of Mineral Mining of the Virginia Department of Mines is responsible for permitting mining operations within the State of Virginia including the operations of O-N Chemstone at the Middletown Quarry. The EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provides additional local requirements that seek to minimize the impacts associated with Extractive Manufacturing uses. Provisions and performance standards are provided to protect surrounding uses from adverse impacts. Appropriate landscaping or screening may be required by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission within any required yard setback area in order to reasonably protect adjacent uses from noise, sight, dust, or other adverse impacts. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 10 The County Engineer reviewed the request and provided input expressing concerns regarding the geological impacts and the potential hydrological impacts, in particular the impact of the project on the local groundwater which includes the adjacent subdivisions that rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. With regards to the geology discussion, the impact or effect of blasting on adjacent residential buildings should be frilly considered as should the impact of dust from the mining operations on adjacent residential dwellings. The Impact Statement did not frilly address these potential impacts. As a result of the input of the County Engineer the applicant has included proffers that seek to address the groundwater, dust, and blasting concerns associated with this rezoning request. In addition to the potential impacts of the proposed mining operations on the view shed from the historical perspective, serious consideration should be given to the visual impacts on the rural landscape from the perspective of the adjacent residential landowners and from the perspective of residents and visitors traveling along Chapel Lane which bisects parcel 83-A-109 and the proposed mining operation.. Summary of Impacts: - Potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties - HRAB Concerns -View shed coordination and mitigation -Cultural Resource Surveys - Transportation impacts on Route 625 and its intersection with Route 11 - Potential groundwater, dust, and blasting controls on adjacent properties - Rural view shed. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated June 13, 2005 and revised January 16, 2006, February 8, 2006, and February 17, 2006 The applicant has provided that the property shall be developed with Extractive Manufacturing Land uses. With regards to site development, the applicant has attempted to limit access to the existing site entrance, has proffered distance buffers, earthen berms, and landscaping to minimize the impacts to the view shed of the surrounding community. It should be understood that no minimum standards have been offered to ensure that the site development prgffers will minimize the potential impacts of the mining operations and address the expressed concerns of the HRAB. An eight acre historic reserve to be dedicated to Belle Grove has been proffered by the applicant. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 11 A limited Phase I Archeological Survey has been proffered by the applicant. It should be clarified that this proffer is applicable to both parcels subject to the rezoning. The applicant has guaranteed to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority rights to the groundwater resources in accordance with existing agreements between the applicant and the FCSA. The proffer Statement should provide clarification that the fixture use of the property and the development of facilities to support the utilization ofthe groundwater resources are enabled by this rezoning request and Proffer Statement. The applicant has stated their intent to monitor, minimize the impacts, and remediate any impacts associated with groundwater, dust, and blasting. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 04/05/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application addresses many of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure they frilly address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been frilly addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the following: 1) The Potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties. 2) The recommendations of the Iistoric Resources Advisory Board, particularly regarding view shed coordination and mitigation and Cultural Resource Surveys 3) The potential groundwater, dust, and blasting and view shed impacts on adjacent properties. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 04/05/06 MEETING: Planning Staff provided an overview of the application. This was followed by a presentation by the applicant of their project. During the Planning Commission's initial discussions, Commissioners wanted to know which State agency, the Department of Mines and Minerals (DMM) or the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), was responsible for overseeing aquifer protection, particularly, the quality and quantity protection measures. Commissioners suggested that a fund or bond be set up in escrow if a determination of responsibility for well damage had to be contested. In addition, they suggested that an agent of the County be assigned as a designated mediator in remediation situations. Berms were discussed and the case was made for smaller berms with flatter slopes in order to be more viewshed-friendly. Higher berms would be necessary in certain limited cases, while a minimum height was also suggested to conceal the height of a truck. It was suggested that the language should state, "...an average of 30 feet with higher berms as required for proper viewshed conditions." 0 Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 12 Commissioners commented that the applicant's proffer statement seemed to be too general and they would have preferred to see more specificity, particularly dealing with the placement and monitoring of seismographs, the eight -acre reserve area for Belle Grove, a detailed plan showing the berms, a detailed phasing plan, and buffer details. Due to the Commission's Bylaws requiring a mandatory 11:00 p.m. adjournment, the Planning Commission did not have enough time to hold the public comment portion of the hearing. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to table the rezoning for 60 days, until June 7, 2006. (All members of the Planning Commission were present.) PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE FOR 06/07/06 MEETING: Staff has not received any materials from the applicant in modification of the O-N Minerals Rezoning Application, RZ03-06. The concerns and issues identified during the Planning Commission's initial discussions regarding this application, and the issues identified in the initial staff report, remain un- addressed. The Public Hearing for this application was not held during the 04/05/06 Planning Commission meeting due to time constraints. As a result, the Commission should satisfy the Public Hearing requirements at the 06/07/06 meeting. The information offered during the Public Hearing should also be a consideration of the Planning Commission during their evaluation of this rezoning application. Since the initial 04/05/06 meeting at which the O-N Minerals Rezoning Application was considered, staff has been provided with numerous correspondence regarding this rezoning application. This additional public comment, in addition to an updated comment in the form of a resolution from the Town of Middletown, is included with this rezoning application package for your information. In addition, at the request of the applicant, staff met with Mr. David Benner, Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy to discuss the role his department plays in permitting and monitoring proposed and existing operations such as the Chemstone Middletown facility. Staff is confident that the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy will effectively carry out there responsibilities and duties. However, their responsibilities and duties are limited to the permitting and monitoring of the mining operations. It was made very clear that coordination with other State Agencies through the permitting process was minimal. Further, it was made clear that the Department's involvement with the adjacent property owners was limited and that in no way does the Department take a position in resolving conflicts that may arise between adjacent property owners and mining companies. The responsibility of addressing impacts that may be realized by properties in the vicinity of mining operations would rest with the affected property owner. The locality would have the responsibility of monitoring impacts and enforcing compliance in cases where the locality accepted proffered conditions aimed at mining operation impact mitigation. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) May 22, 2006 Page 13 Please find attached to end of this report additional correspondence from various sources including The Town of Middletown, L. Preston Bryant, Commonwealth of Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources, and Mr. Woodward S. Bousquet. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. REZONING APPLICATION #03-06 O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: March 20, 2006 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: April 5, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: April 26, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. LOCATION: The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758) and west and adjacent to Hites Road (Route 625). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential South: EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Use: Shenandoah County East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural PROPOSED USES: Quarry Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 757. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Global Stone Chemstone Corporation rezoning application dated June 13, 2005 address transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization and off - site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Will not directly effect fire and rescue. Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: Demolition permit required prior to removing any existing structures. No additional comments required. Public Works Department: Refer to page 4, Environmental Features: The discussion indicated that an environmental report prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) was included with the impact statement as Appendix "A". A copy of this report was not included with our submittal. Please provide us with a copy of this report for our review. Refer to page 6, Soils/Geology: The geology discussion should be expanded to include hydrogeology and the impact of the project on the local groundwater. In particular, the subdivisions which rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. General: The impact analysis has not addressed one very important item related to a rezoning from RA to EM. That item is the impact or effect of blasting on adjacent residential buildings. This issue should also be expanded to include the impact of dust on adjacent residential dwellings. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority: The Frederick County Sanitation Authority supports this rezoning request. The Authority will use these pits, when abandoned, as a source of water supply under an agreement with Global Stone Chemstone Corporation, dated March 2, 2000. Larger pits will provide a more abundant supply and reliable source of water. Larger pits are also more cost effective for the Authority to develop as a water supply. That benefits the residents of Frederick County that depend upon the Authority for water service. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Health Department has no objection if there is to be no increase in water use which would require sewage disposal. GIS: No road/name requirements noted. Any road network that provides primary access to four or more occupied business structures shall be names. Numbering will be assigned as applicable. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 3 Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Winchester Regional Airport: Allowed uses under this rezoning should not effect airside operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Town of Middletown: The Middletown Planning Commission, while not opposed to the project, is opposed to the increase of truck traffic through Middletown and has concerns about the effect of excavation on the water table. Frederick County Attorney: No comments at this time (forthcoming). Historic Resources Advisory Board: Please see the attached letter dated January 3, 2006, signed by Candice E. Perkins, Planner 11. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Middletown Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subj ect property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The property for which the rezoning is being requested is located within the Rural Areas of Frederick County. This land use designation is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as all areas outside of the designated Urban Development Area. The primary land uses in the Rural Areas are agriculture and forests. The primary growth pattern consisting of widely scattered, large lot residential development. Many residents of Frederick County are attracted to the natural beauty Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 4 and special lifestyle found in rural portions of the County. Excessive or inappropriate development in these areas can reduce their value and attractiveness. At the same time, the rural areas play an important role in the County's economy through the income generated by agriculture. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-55] The subj ect property contains areas of prime agricultural soils which are generally located in the limestone belt running north -south through the County. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the value to the County's economy of the limestone resources within the County and the extraction of these natural resources. Within the Business and Industrial Area policies it is recognized that policies are needed and standards should be developed concerning how to deal with new requests for large mining operations [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-11, 6-72]. The Rural Areas Conclusion states that most of the County will continue to be rural areas used for agriculture, forests, or low density residential uses. Certain types of business uses may be located at scattered rural locations if safe access is available, and if adverse impacts on surrounding uses and the rural environment can be avoided. These rural business and industrial uses should be those that provided services to rural areas or that are more appropriate in rural areas than urban areas. The locations for such business would include major intersections or locations with recent or existing business activity [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-60] Two of the identified goals of the Rural Area policy are to maintain the rural character of areas outside the UDA and to protect the rural environment [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-76]. Environment After describing the physical characteristics of the County, the Environment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan addresses Water Supply. Issues concerning water quality, quantity, use, and protection of water resources are directly related to land development activities. Water supplies are needed to support development, while surface and groundwater are potentially affected by development activities [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3]. Major sources of water used in the County are groundwater and the North Fork of the Shenandoah River. In 2000, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority entered a seventy year lease with Global Stone Chemstone Corporation (Global). Global owns quarries at Clearbrook, Middletown, and Strasburg. The lease provides the water from these quarries as a source of supply and transfers title of the quarries to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority when the mining operations are complete. The agreement has provided a viable long term source of water for the County [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3] Groundwater is the major source of water supply in the rural portions of the County and provides a potential alternative source for urban areas. In all, over half the population of the County relies on groundwater as the sole source of water supply. The most productive aquifers in the County are the limestone -carbonate aquifers [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3, 5-4]. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 5 History The property for which the rezoning is being requested is located adjacent to Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield. Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield are historic sites in Frederick County that are listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. Cedar Creek is identified as one of six battlefields of great national importance that are located in Frederick County and Winchester. The Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County further identifies both sites as potentially significant properties. In addition, the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property as being within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek. Significant portions of Cedar Creek, along with Third Winchester and Kernstown battlefields provided the critical mass and the foundation for the Battlefield Network Plan which was adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on December 13, 1995, and subsequently incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Excerpts from the Battlefield Network Plan have been provided for your information. The Battlefield Network Plan and the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley were important catalysts for the designation of the regional Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District which was created by Congress in 1996. More recently, the efforts of the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Foundation and the National Park Service continue to further historic preservation efforts relating to the civil war battlefields located in Frederick County and the broader region. To address the historic preservation policy goal of protecting the historic resources in Frederick County, The Comprehensive Plan provides that the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) review development proposals which potentially impact significant historic resources and that the HRAB's information and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB facilitated the involvement of the historic preservation stakeholders in the review of this rezoning request. The recommendation of the HRAB accompanies this report and will be discussed in greater detail later in the report. Identified implementation methods for promoting the preservation and protection of Civil War Battlefield resources include the preservation and protection of the historical appearance and character of the key battlefield sites, their viewsheds, and their approaches, and the coordination of the battlefield efforts with efforts to protect and preserve natural, visual, and environmental resources [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 2-11-13]. Transportation The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan does not cover this portion of the County. The properties are located in the Rural Area of the County. A large portion of the roads within the County are currently inadequate to meet the needs of the areas they serve. There is a need to insure that improvements to existing rural roads continue to be made in a systematic way and that new rural roads are provided as needed [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 7-1]. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 6 In general, the Comprehensive Plan states that a Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments within the County. The applicants Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) seeks to address the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning request. Site Suitability/Environment Both properties contain environmentally sensitive areas. The applicant has identified wetlands, streams, and floodplains, and areas of mature woodlands on the properties. Exhibits have been provided that depict these environmental features. Any disturbance of identified environmental resources would occur in conformance with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations. Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook are the existing streams that traverse the subject properties. Both streams have associated floodplain designations. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Vir inia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. Multiple soil types are located on the sites. The site contains soil types that are considered prime agricultural soils. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. It is recognized that the limestone deposits that underlie the properties provide the ideal geological conditions for Extractive Manufacturing use. In addition, the most productive aquifers in the County are the limestone -carbonate aquifers that are present in this area. Potential Impacts Potential Impact Summary_ In evaluating the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application it is very important to recognize that the applicant has not proffered a commitment to the use of the property beyond those which would be enabled by the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. All land uses, meeting the applicable development standards, would be permitted within the district based upon the application as submitted. The County is familiar with the operation and practices of the existing Middletown Quarry operation and recognizes that the purpose of the rezoning request is to enable the expansion of the existing limestone ore extraction operation onto adjacent properties, utilizing this natural resource. However, lacking a commitment that seeks to further define the scope of operations, this application should be evaluated carefully and with the understanding that the use of the properties could be more intensive than that described in the applicant's impact statement. 0 0 Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 7 Consideration should be given to the maximum possible intensity of EM (Extractive Manufacturing) use identified in the County's Zoning Ordinance (a copy of the EM (Extractive Manufacturing District has been provided for your review). The impacts associated with this rezoning request may be significant and should be understood. The applicant should be prepared to address the mitigation of the impacts associated with this rezoning request, in particular, those impacts and issues identified by the reviewing agencies. Guarantees in the form of proffered conditions have not been offered to ensure that the impacts generated by this application are limited and consistent with the discussion in the Impact Statement. The applicant has the ability to address this through the Proffer Statement. When considering the acreage potential, the dimensional requirements, and the EM District uses, it is possible that facilities located adjacent to and with access from Chapel Road could result, as could facilities located within 50 feet of the adjacent RA zoned property surrounding the site. The scope of the impacts could exceed the projections identified and accommodated in the impact statement and TIA. A. Historic Resources The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application during their December 20, 2005 meeting. Invited to attend the meeting by the HRAB were representatives of the various historical and cultural groups considered stakeholders in relationship to the historical resources in the vicinity of the rezoning. The following stakeholder groups were represented: Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, National Park Service, and the Town of Middletown. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, information provided by the applicant as well as information provided by various groups that were in attendance of the meeting. The 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property in question as being located within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek. The property also contains the site where the Nieswanger Fort once stood. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The HRAB expressed concern that the proposed rezoning was not protecting the viewshed of the battlefield and the Belle Grove property as well as the archeological resources present on the Cedar Creek Battlefield and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. The HRAB felt that the applicant still needs to address many issues with this rezoning before it should be considered by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB expressed that they could support the approval of this project if the suggestions offered as a result of the HRAB meeting are considered by the applicant in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources (Please see HR,4B letter dated January 3, 2006, signed by Candice E. Perkins, Planner II). 0 0 Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 8 The applicant has modified their rezoning application in an effort to address two of the nine comments suggested by the HRAB. However, many of the valid recommendations offered by the HRAB have not been addressed. Two of the most significant and constructive comments offered by the HRAB (the first two comments in the letter from the HRAB) should be further satisfied to ensure that the potential impacts associated of the rezoning are appropriately addressed. Presently, they have not been addressed in a manner that satisfies the concerns expressed by the HRAB. The opportunity has been provided for the applicant to work with the identified stakeholders, Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, and the National Park Service, to prepare a view shed mitigation plan that addresses the unique view sheds and approaches critical to their particular points of view. Understanding their points of view, a tailored approach that integrates the natural landscape with customized berming and landscaping would promote an approach to the view shed management that mitigates the visual impacts of the mining operations in an effective manner. A customized approach to the buffering, berming, and landscaping would be more appropriate than the present approach proposed in the proffer statement. In certain locations, particularly on the southern property (90-A-23), designating areas of non disturbance would preserve the existing landscape and by taking advantage of the topography effectively mitigate the visual impacts of the mining operations. A strategic approach to the location and size of the waste stockpiles identified on the exhibits should also be a consideration. Current practice at the existing facility with regards to the stockpiling of overburden should be avoided in the future. Approaches to addressing the visual impacts of the proposed operations should be more detailed and should be incorporated into the proffer statement. The applicant has provided for the dedication to Belle Grove of approximately eight acres as an historic reserve. This is in an area where archeological resources associated with the Belle Grove Plantation have previously been identified. A time frame has been provided for the dedication of this acreage. The HRAB suggested that a Phase 1 Archeological Survey should be done on the property focusing on core battlefield areas and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. If warranted subsequent studies should be performed. The applicant has proffered to complete a Phase 1 Archeological Survey of the property in the future. However, no commitments have been made beyond a Phase 1 Survey. It should be clarified that the Survey would be applicable to parcel 90-A-23 in addition to the stated parcel 83-A-109. The goal of the HRAB comments is to enable the mining operations to expand in a manner which is not detrimental to the historical context of the surrounding landscape. Further, to promote an approach that is mutually beneficial to the applicant, historic preservation stakeholders, and the ad. acent community. The HRAB comments provide the opportunity for O-N Chemstone to continue to address the needs of the community, minimizing the impacts of their operations in a • Rezoning 403-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 9 manner that is compatible with the surrounding community, in a manner described in their Impact Statement. B. Transportation Much of the analysis in the Impact Statement is based upon the continuation of the existing practices of the Middletown quarry operation. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the impact statement suggests that the vehicle trips would increase by more than double from the existing count of 506 vehicles per day to 1,305 vehicle trips per day. A more significant increase in Global Stone truck traffic is anticipated in the TIA from 19 trucks per day to 80 per day and an increase of 56 customer truck trips per day. It should be recognized that a different combination or additional uses may further increase the traffic impacts associated with this request. As evidenced at the existing Strasburg facility, additional traffic impacts could be experienced fiom a more intensive use of the property than is currently envisioned. Primary access to the site is depicted as being from the existing site entrance along Route 625 (5"' Street) to U.S. Route 11, Main Street in the Town of Middletown. The Town has expressed their opposition to the increase of truck traffic through Middletown. A significant amount of discussion regarding the inter -site transfer of materials via a conveyor belt system is offered in the impact statement. No mention of this approach has been provided in the Proffer Statement. Therefore, this approach should not presently be part of the consideration of this rezoning request. As demonstrated in the TIA, a level of service C or better would be achieved at the intersection of Route 11 and Route 625 (51" Street). Consideration should be given to the character of the traffic generated from the facility and utilizing the aforementioned intersection. B. Mining Operations and Community Impacts Associated with mining operations is the potential for a variety of impacts that may affect surrounding properties and land uses. The Division of Mineral Mining of the Virginia Department of Mines is responsible for permitting mining operations within the State of Virginia including the operations of O-N Chemstone at the Middletown Quarry. The EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provides additional local requirements that seek to minimize the impacts associated with Extractive Manufacturing uses. Provisions and performance standards are provided to protect surrounding uses from adverse impacts. Appropriate landscaping or screening may be required by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission within any required yard setback area in order to reasonably protect adjacent uses from noise, sight, dust, or other adverse impacts. 0 • Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 10 The County Engineer reviewed the request and provided input expressing concerns regarding the geological impacts and the potential hydrological impacts, in particular the impact of the project on the local groundwater which includes the adjacent subdivisions that rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. With regards to the geology discussion, the impact or effect of blasting on adjacent residential buildings should be fully considered as should the impact of dust from the mining operations on adjacent residential dwellings. The Impact Statement did not fully address these potential impacts. As a result of the input of the County Engineer the applicant has included proffers that seek to address the groundwater, dust, and blasting concerns associated with this rezoning request. In addition to the potential impacts of the proposed mining operations on the view shed fiom the historical perspective, serious consideration should be given to the visual impacts on the rural landscape from the perspective of the adjacent residential landowners and from the perspective of residents and visitors traveling along Chapel Lane which bisects parcel 83-A-109 and the proposed mining operation.. Summary of Impacts: Potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties HRAB Concerns -View shed coordination and mitigation -Cultural Resource Surveys - Transportation impacts on Route 625 and its intersection with Route 11 - Potential groundwater, dust, and blasting controls on adjacent properties - Rural view shed. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated June 13, 2005 and revised January 16, 2006, February 8, 2006, and February 17, 2006 The applicant has provided that the property shall be developed with Extractive Manufacturing Land uses. With regards to site development, the applicant has attempted to limit access to the existing site entrance, has proffered distance buffers, earthen berms, and landscaping to minimize the impacts to the view shed of the surrounding community. It should be understood that no minimum standards have been offered to ensure that the site developmentproffers will minimize the potential impacts of the mining operations and address the expressed concerns of the HRAB. An eight acre historic reserve to be dedicated to Belle Grove has been proffered by the applicant. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) March 20, 2006 Page 11 A limited Phase 1 Archeological Survey has been proffered by the applicant. It should be clarified that this proffer is applicable to both parcels subject to the rezoning. The applicant has guaranteed to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority rights to the groundwater resources in accordance with existing agreements between the applicant and the FCSA. The proffer Statement should provide clarification that the future use of the property and the development offacilities to support the utilization ofthe groundwater resources are enabled by this rezoning request and Proffer Statement. The applicant has stated their intent to monitor, minimize the impacts, and remediate any impacts associated with groundwater, dust, and blasting. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 04/05/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application addresses many of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the following: 1) The Potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties. 2) The recommendations of the Historic Resources Advisory Board, particularly regarding view shed coordination and mitigation and Cultural Resource Surveys 3) The potential groundwater, dust, and blasting and view shed impacts on adjacent properties. Followin,a the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planninga Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning- this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. January 2006 Chemstone - Middletown I. APPLICATION January 2006 Chemstone - Middletown Table of Contents I. Application II. Impact Analysis III. Proposed Proffer Statement IV. Review Agency Comments V. Survey Plat and Deed VI. Tax Ticket 0 Frederick County, Virginia REZONING APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CHEMSTONE - MIDDLETOWN PROPERTY Back Creek Magisterial District January 2006 Prepared by. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. Piccadilly Street MAR 1 0 Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone:540-667-2139 Fax:540-665-0493 J A N 20 2006 REZONING APPLICATION 903-06 O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: April 14, 2008 (Original prepared on March 20, 2006 and May 22, 2006) Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director BOARD OF SUPERVISORS UPDATE AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR 04/23/08 MEETING. The Plamling Commission had a considerable amount of discussion regarding this application and numerous issues and concerns were raised by the Commission. Fifty-seven (57) citizens spoke during the Public Hearing for this request. The Cormmission recognized conflicts with the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan as identified in the staff report and acknowledged significant issues and impacts associated with the request that had not been satisfactorily addressed by the Applicant. These included the following: - Potential impacts associated with the scope and more intensive use of properties. - Historic resource concerns (HRAB) -View shed coordination and mitigation -Cultural Resource Surveys - Enviromnental impacts. - Rural view shed impacts. - Transportation impacts on Route 625, its intersection with Route 11, and the Town. - Potential groundwater, dust, and blasting impacts and controls on adjacent properties. Ultimately, the Plannin14 Commission forwarded a recommendation of denial to the Board of Supervisors. Following the Commission's review, the Applicant has provided a revised Proffer Statement. However, the modifications in the Proffer Statement are relatively limited and focus upon recognition of the two historical cemeteries discovered on the property and a phasing plan for the quarry. In summary, while the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application addresses several of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, more significant elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure they frilly address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Board of Supervisors should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. These would include: 1) The Potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties and the scope of the use. 2) The recommendations of the Historic Resources Advisory Board, particularly regarding view shed coordination and mitigation and Cultural Resource Surveys, 3) The potential groundwater, dust, and blasting and view shed impacts on adjacent properties. 4) Transportation impacts, particularly within the Town of Middletown. 0 Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 2 The following materials are provided in this package for the Board's review and infonnation. 1. Updated Staff Report 2. Appendix A, Planning Commission Review Infonnation 3. Attached Correspondance 4. Rezoning Materials 5. Verbatim section of the Planning Commission's discussion for your information Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 3 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: April 5, 2006 Tabled 60 days June 7, 2006 Recommended Denial Board of Supervisors: April 23, 2008 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. LOCATION: The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west and adjacent to Hites Road (Route 625), and is bisected by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential South: EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Use: Shenandoah County East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural PROPOSED USES: Quarry Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 4 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 757. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Global Stone Chemstone Corporation rezoning application dated June 13, 2005 address transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to continent on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization and off - site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Willonot directly effect fire and rescue. Plan approval reconunended. Department of Inspections: Demolition permit required prior to removing any existing structures. No additional comments required. Public Works Department: Refer to page 4, Environmental Features: The discussion indicated that an enviromnental report prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIL) was included with the impact statement as Appendix "A". A copy of this report was not included with our submittal. Please provide us with a copy of this report for our review. Refer to page 6, Soils/Geology: The geology discussion should be expanded to include hydrogeology and the impact of the project on the local groundwater. In particular, the subdivisions which rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. General: The impact analysis has not addressed one very important item related to a rezoning from RA to EM. That item is the impact or effect of blasting on adjacent residential buildings. This issue should also be expanded to include the impact of dust on adjacent residential dwellings. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority: The Frederick County Sanitation Authority supports this rezoning request. The Authority will use these pits, when abandoned, as a source of water supply under an agreement with Global Stone Chemstone Corporation, dated March 2, 2000. Larger pits will provide a more abundant supply and reliable source of water. Larger pits are also more cost effective for the Authority to develop as a water supply. That benefits the residents of Frederick County that depend upon the Authority for water service. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Health Department has no objection if there is to be no increase in water use which would require sewage disposal. GIS: No road/name requirements noted. Any road network that provides primary access to four or more occupied business structures shall be names. Numbering will be assigned as applicable. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 5 Department of Parks & Recreation: No cormnent. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Winchester Regional Airport: Allowed uses under this rezoning should not effect airside operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Town of Middletown: The Middletown Town Council provided the County with a resolution opposing this rezoning request. Please see attached resolution dated May 8, 2006 Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached correspondence from Mr. Bob Mitchell datedApril 4, 2008 and April 11, 2008. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Please seethe attached letter dateddanzraiy 3, 2006, signed by Candice E. Perkins, Planner H. PlanninI4 & ZoninI4: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Middletown Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 14] Land Use The property for which the rezoning is being requested is located within the Rural Areas of Frederick County. This land use designation is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as all areas outside of the designated Urban Development Area. The primary land uses in the Rural Areas are agriculture and forests. The primary growth pattern consisting of widely scattered, large lot Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 6 residential development. Many residents of Frederick County are attracted to the natural beauty and special lifestyle found in rural portions of the County. Excessive or inappropriate development in these areas can reduce their value and attractiveness. At the same time, the rural areas play an important role in the County's economy through the income generated by agriculture. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-55] The subj ect property contains areas of prime agricultural soils which are generally located in the limestone belt running north -south through the County. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the value to the County's economy of the limestone resources within the County and the extraction of these natural resources. Within the Business and Industrial Area policies it is recognized that policies are needed and standards should be developed concerning how to deal with new requests for large mining operations [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-11, 6-72]. The Rural Areas Conclusion states that most of the County will continue to be rural areas used for agriculture, forests, or low density residential uses. Certain types of business uses may be located at scattered rural locations if safe access is available, and if adverse impacts on surrounding uses and the rural environment can be avoided. These rural business and industrial uses should be those that provided services to rural areas or that are more appropriate in rural areas than urban areas. The locations for such business would include major intersections or locations with recent or existing business activity [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-60] Two of the identified goals of the Rural Area policy are to maintain the rural character of areas outside the UDA and to protect the rural environment [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-76]. Environment The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need to promote enviromnental issues and protect the enviromnent in several locations. Specific goals of the Environmental Chapter include identifying and protecting important natural resources and protecting the natural enviromnent from damage due to development activity. After describing the physical characteristics of the County, the Enviromnent Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan addresses Water Supply. Issues concerning water quality, quantity, use, and protection of water resources are directly related to land development activities. Water supplies are needed to support development, while surface and groundwater are potentially affected by development activities [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3]. Major sources of water used in the County are groundwater and the North Fork of the Shenandoah River. In 2000, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority entered a seventy year lease with Global Stone Chemstone Corporation (Global). Global owns quarries at Clearbrook, Middletown, and Strasburg. The lease provides the water from these quarries as a source of supply and transfers title of the quarries to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority when the mining operations are complete. The agreement has provided a viable long term source of water for the County [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3] Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 7 Groundwater is the major source of water supply in the rural portions of the County and provides a potential alternative source for urban areas. In all, over half the population of the County relies on groundwater as the sole source of water supply. The most productive aquifers in the County are the limestone -carbonate aquifers [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 5-3, 5-4]. Higg7 The property for which the rezoning is being requested is located adjacent to Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield. Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield are historic sites in Frederick County that are listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. Cedar Creek is identified as one of six battlefields of great national importance that are located in Frederick County and Winchester. The Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County further identifies both sites as potentially significant properties. In addition, the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property as being within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek. Significant portions of Cedar Creek, along with Third Winchester and Kernstown battlefields provided the critical mass and the foundation for the Battlefield Network Plan which was adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on December 13, 1995, and subsequently incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Excerpts from the Battlefield Network Plan have been provided for your information. The Battlefield Network Plan and the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley were important catalysts for the designation of the regional Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District which was created by Congress in 1996. More recently, the efforts of the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Foundation and the National Park Service continue to further historic preservation efforts relating to the civil war battlefields located in Frederick County and the broader region. To address the historic preservation policy goal of protecting the historic resources in Frederick County, The Comprehensive Plan provides that the Iistoric Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) review development proposals which potentially impact significant historic resources and that the HRAB's information and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB facilitated the involvement of the historic preservation stakeholders in the review of this rezoning request. The recommendation of the IIRAB accompanies this report and will be discussed in greater detail later in the report. Identified implementation methods for promoting the preservation and protection of Civil War Battlefield resources include the preservation and protection of the historical appearance and character of the key battlefield sites, their viewsheds, and their approaches, and the coordination of the battlefield efforts with efforts to protect and preserve natural, visual, and environmental resources [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 2-I1-13]. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 8 Transporlalion The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan does not cover this portion of the County. The properties are located in the Rural Area of the County. A large portion of the roads within the County are currently inadequate to meet the needs of the areas they serve. There is a need to insure that improvements to existing rural roads continue to be made in a systematic way and that new rural roads are provided as needed [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 7-1]. In general, the Comprehensive Plan states that a Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments within the County. The applicants Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) seeks to address the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning request. However, the TIA does not account for the character of the truck traffic and does not evaluate the heavy truck traffic's impact on the context of the streets within the Town of Middletown. 3) Site Suitability/Environment Both properties contain environmentally sensitive areas. The applicant has identified wetlands, streams, and floodplains, and areas of mature woodlands on the properties. Exhibits have been provided that depict these environmental features. Any disturbance of identified environmental resources would occur in conformance with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations. Cedar Creek forms the Southern boundary of the property. Cedar Creek, with its steep slopes, cliffs, and associated floodplain is a significant environmental resource for Frederick County and the adjoining Shenandoah County. Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook are the existing streams that traverse the subject properties. Both streams have associated floodplain designations. It must be recognized that the proposed mining operation would most significantly impact Middle Marsh Brook which would be relocated to allow for the excavation of the mining pit. The General Soil' Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Vir ig nia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. Multiple soil types are located on the sites. The site contains soil types that are considered prime agricultural soils. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. It is recognized that the limestone deposits that underlie the properties provide the ideal geological conditions for Extractive Manufacturing use. In addition, the most productive aquifers in the County are the limestone -carbonate aquifers that are present in this area. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 9 4) Potential Impacts Potential Impact Sununary. The County is familiar with the operation and practices of the existing Middletown Quarry operation and recognizes that the purpose of the rezoning request is to enable the expansion of the existing limestone ore extraction operation onto adjacent properties, utilizing this natural resource. However, lacking a commitment that seeks to further define the scope of operations, this application should be evaluated carefully and with the understanding that the use of the properties could be more intensive than that described in the applicant's impact statement. In evaluating the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application it is very important to recognize that the applicant has proffered a commmitment to not engage in several land uses permitted within the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. However, the use of the property as enabled by the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District, beyond those land uses which would be eliminated, would have a major impact both on -site and off -site. Significant land uses, meeting the applicable development standards, would be permitted within the district based upon the application as submitted. Consideration should be given to the maximum possible intensity of EM (Extractive Manufacturing) use identified in the County's Zoning Ordinance (a copy of the EM (Extractive Manufacturing District has been provided for you7• review). The impacts associated with this rezoning request may be significant and should be understood. The applicant should be prepared to continue to address the mitigation of the impacts associated with this rezoning request, in particular, those impacts and issues identified by the reviewing agencies, Commission, and Board of Supervisors. Guarantees in the form of proffered conditions have not been offered to ensure that the impacts generated by this application are limited and consistent with the discussion in the Impact Statement. The applicant has the ability to address this through the Proffer Statement. When considering the acreage potential,.the dimensional requirements, and the EM District uses, it is possible that facilities located adjacent to and with access from Chapel Road could result, as could facilities located within 50 feet of the adjacent RA zoned property surrounding the site. The scope of the impacts could exceed the projections identified and accommodated in the impact statement and TIA. Frederick County's Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Amendment Process seek to ensure that the impacts of a particular Zoning Amendment are fiilly identified, analyzed, and addressed before an amendment is approved. It is essential that the impacts are known prior to the rezoning, so the mitigation or avoidance of identified impacts can be recognized in the request and proffer statement. In general, the proffer statement and generalized development plan provide the Applicant with the opportunity to further define the scope of the land use activity on the property. Limiting the potential acreage of development, new facility construction, and further limiting the type of uses on the property would limit the potential impacts of the EM development of this property. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 10 It is evident that many of the potential impacts of this request are unknown and have not been clearly identified in the impact analysis. The potential scope of the impacts are not fully understood. The most significant example of this with this application is the historic and cultural resources. A. Historic Resources The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application during their December 20, 2005 meeting. Invited to attend the meeting by the HRAB were representatives of the various historical and cultural groups considered stakeholders in relationship to the historical resources in the vicinity of the rezoning. The following stakeholder groups were represented: Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, National Park Service, and the Town of Middletown. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, information provided by the applicant as well as information provided by various groups that were in attendance of the meeting. The 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property in question as being located within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek. The property also contains the site where the Nieswanger Fort once stood. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The HRAB expressed concern that the proposed rezoning was not protecting the viewshed of the battlefield and the Belle Grove property as well as the archeological resources present on the Cedar Creek Battlefield and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. The HRAB felt that the applicant still needs to address many issues with this rezoning before it should be considered by the Plamling Connnission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB expressed that they could support the approval of this project if the suggestions offered as a result of the HRAB meeting are considered by the applicant in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources (Please see HRAB letter dated January 3, 2006, signed by Candice E. Perkins, Planner II). The applicant has modified their rezoning application in an effort to address two of the nine comments suggested by the HRAB. However, many of the valid recommendations offered by the HRAB have not been addressed. Two of the most significant and constructive comments offered by the HRAB (the first two comments in the letter from the HRAB) should be further satisfied to ensure that the potential impacts associated of the rezoning are appropriately addressed. Presently, they have not been addressed in a mariner that satisfies the concerns expressed by the HRAB. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 11 The opportunity has been provided for the applicant to work with the identified stakeholders, Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, and the National Park Service, to prepare a view shed mitigation plan that addresses the unique view sheds and approaches critical to their particular points of view. Understanding their points of view, a tailored approach that integrates the natural landscape with customized berming and landscaping would promote an approach to the view shed management that mitigates the visual impacts of the mining operations in an effective manner. A customized approach to the buffering, benning, and landscaping would be more appropriate than the present approach proposed in the proffer statement. In certain locations, particularly on the southern property (90-A-23), designating areas of non disturbance would preserve the existing landscape and by taking advantage of the topography effectively mitigate the visual impacts of the mining operations. A strategic approach to the location and size of the waste stockpiles identified on the exhibits should also be a consideration. Current practice at the existing facility with regards to the stockpiling of overburden should be avoided in the future. Approaches to addressing the visual impacts of the proposed operations should be more detailed and should be incorporated into the proffer statement. The applicant has provided for the dedication of approximately eight acres as an historic reserve. This is in an area where archeological resources associated with the Belle Grove Plantation have previously been identified. A time frame has been provided for the dedication of this acreage. However, an appropriate recipient has not been identified in the latest proffer statement. Previously, the Applicant had proffered the dedication to Belle Grove. This is the entity recommended to be the recipient by the County Attorney. The HRAB suggested that a Phase 1 Archeological Survey should be done on the property focusing on core battlefield areas and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. If warranted subsequent studies should be performed. The applicant has proffered to complete a Phase 1 Archeological Survey of the property in the fixture. However, no commitments have been made beyond a Phase 1 Survey. Further, this survey is proffered to occur after the rezoning of the property rather than before. The goal of the HRAB continents is to enable the mining operations to expand in a mamier which is not detrimental to the historical context of the surrounding landscape. Further, to promote an approach that is mutually beneficial to the applicant, historic preservation stakeholders, and the adjacent community. The HRAB comments provide the opportunity for O-N Chemstone to continue to address the needs of the community, minimizing the impacts of their operations in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding cormnunity, in a manner described in their Impact Statement. 0 Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 12 Subsequent to the Planning Connnission's review of this application, two historic cemeteries have been identified by the Applicant, the historic Tabler and Nisewander Family Cemeteries. A report regarding these cemeteries is provided with your agenda B. Transportation Much of the analysis in the Impact Statement is based upon the continuation of the existing practices of the Middletown quarry operation. The Traffic hnpact Analysis (TIA) and the impact statement suggests that the vehicle trips would increase by more than double from the existing count of 506 vehicles per day to 1,305 vehicle trips per day. A more significant increase in Global Stone truck traffic is anticipated in the TIA from 19 trucks per day to 80 per day and an increase of 56 customer truck trips per day. It should be recognized that a different combination or additional uses may fin-ther increase the traffic impacts associated with this request. As evidenced at the existing Strasburg facility, additional traffic impacts could be experienced from a more intensive use of the property than is currently envisioned. The Applicant has proposed a restriction to the truck traffic. However, this would still enable a considerable amount of traffic, particularly, heavy truck traffic. In addition, the mechanism to administer this proffer is problematic to the County as it creates an undesirable, ongoing enforcement issue. This should be avoided. Primaiy access to the site is depicted as being from the existing site entrance along Route 625 (5°i Street) to U.S. Route 11, Main Street in the Town of Middletown. The Town has expressed their opposition to the increase of truck traffic through Middletown. Previously, a significant amount of discussion regarding the inter -site transfer of materials via a conveyor belt system is offered in the impact statement. This approach should not presently be part of the consideration of this rezoning request. As demonstrated in the TIA, a level of service C or better would be achieved at the intersection of Route 11 and Route 625 (5"' Street). Consideration should be given to the character of the traffic generated from the facility and utilizing the aforementioned intersection. The traffic will be predominantly large, heavy truck traffic which would have a greater impact on the rural and small town context of the streets within Middletown. Noise and dust from the heavy truck traffic has been an issue in the past and would likely continue to be in the future. B. Mining Operations and Community Impacts Associated with mining operations is the potential for a variety of impacts that may affect surrounding properties and land uses. The Division of Mineral Mining of the Virginia Department of Mines is responsible for permitting mining operations within the State of Virginia including the operations of O-N Chemstone at the Middletown Quarry. The EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provides additional local requirements that seek to minimize the impacts associated with Extractive Manufacturing uses. Provisions and performance standards are provided to protect surrounding uses from adverse impacts. Appropriate landscaping or screening may be required by the Zoning Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chernstone) April 14, 2008 Page 13 Administrator or Planning Conunission within any required yard setback area in order to reasonably protect adjacent uses from noise, sight, dust, or other adverse impacts. The County Engineer reviewed the request and provided input expressing concerns regarding the geological impacts and the potential hydrological impacts, in particular the impact of the project on the local groundwater which includes the adjacent subdivisions that rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. With regards to the geology discussion, the impact or effect of blasting on adjacent residential buildings should be fully considered as should the impact of dust from the mining operations on adjacent residential dwellings. The Impact Statement did not fully address these potential impacts. As a result of the input of the County Engineer, the applicant has included proffers that seek to address the groundwater, dust, and blasting concerns associated with this rezoning request. In addition, mechanisms have been proffered to help resolve issues that may occur in the future. In addition to the potential impacts of the proposed mining operations on the view shed from the historical perspective, serious consideration should be given to the visual impacts on the rural landscape from the perspective of the adjacent residential landowners and from the perspective of residents and visitors traveling along Chapel Lane which bisects parcel 83-A-109 and the proposed mining operation. Summary of Impacts: - Potential impacts associated with the more intensive use of properties - Historic Resource Concerns (HRAB) -View shed coordination and mitigation -Cultural Resource Surveys - Environmental Impacts - Rural view shed. - Transportation impacts on Route 625, its intersection with Route 11, and the Town. - Potential groundwater, dust, and blasting impacts and controls on adjacent properties. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated March 18, 2008 (Previous revisions dated June 13, 2005, January 16, 2006, February 8, 2006, February 17, 2006, and August 28, 2006) Please see the comments provided by Mr. Bob Mitchell regarding this latestproffer Statement April 4, 2008 and April 11, 2008. The applicant has provided that the property shall be developed with EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Land uses. The Applicant has further restricted several EM (Extractive Manufacturing) land uses. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 14 With regards to site development, the applicant has attempted to limit access to the existing site entrance, has proffered distance buffers, earthen berms, and landscaping to minimize the impacts to the view shed of the surrounding community. It should be understood that no minimum standards have been offered to ensure that the site development proffers will minimize the potential impacts of the mining operations on the surrounding community and address the expressed concerns of the HRAB. An eight acre historic reserve to be dedicated to a recognized historic group has been proffered by the applicant. The County Attorney has recommended that this entity be Belle Grove. A limited Phase 1 Archeological Survey has been proffered by the applicant. No commitments have been made beyond a Phase 1 Survey. Further, the survey would only occur following the approval of the rezoning. The resources, and impacts to these resources if any, should be known prior to rezoning. The Applicant has proffered to preserve the two cemeteries that were identified on the property. These cemeteries were only recognized following the public input provided during the Planning Conunission review process. The Applicant has proffered to preserve these resources within the context of the mining operation. The Applicant has proffered to keep its mining operations at least 200 feet from Cedar Creek. No other commitment regarding the protection of this resource has been provider. The applicant has guaranteed to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority rights to the groundwater resources in accordance with existing agreements between the applicant and the FCSA. The applicant has stated their intent to monitor, minimize the impacts, and remediate any impacts associated with groundwater, dust, and blasting; has proposed to perform voluntary pre - blast surveys on adjacent properties and wells; and has included a bonding mechanism as security. An additional proffer has been included following the Planning Commission's review which seeks to address the phasing of mining activities. Mining in the Northern Reserve would occur immediately following the approval of the rezoning; mining in the area south of Chapel Road would commence no earlier than ten years from the date of the rezoning; and mining in the area north of Chapel Road would commence no earlier than twenty years from the date of the rezoning. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 15 APPENDIX A — PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW INFORMATION STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 04/05/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application addresses many of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefiilly evaluated to ensure they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fiilly addressed by the applicant. The Planning Connnission should pay particular attention to the following: 1) The Potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties. 2) The recommendations of the Historic Resources Advisory Board, particularly regarding view shed coordination and mitigation and Cultural Resource Surveys 3) The potential groundwater, dust, and blasting and view shed impacts on adjacent properties. 4) Transportation impacts, particularly within the Town of Middletown. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 04/05/06 MEETING: Planning Staff provided an overview of the application. This was followed by a presentation by the applicant of their project. During the Plamling Commission's initial discussions, Commissioners wanted to know which State agency, the Department of Mines and Minerals (DMM) or the Department of Envirorunental Quality (DEQ), was responsible for overseeing aquifer protection, particularly, the quality and quantity protection measures. Commissioners suggested that a fund or bond be set up in escrow if a determination of responsibility for well damage had to be contested. In addition, they suggested that an agent of the County be assigned as a designated mediator in remediation situations. Berms were discussed and the case was made for smaller berms with flatter slopes in order to be more viewshed-friendly. Higher beans would be necessary in certain limited cases, while a minimum height was also suggested to conceal the height of a truck. It was suggested that the language should state, "...an average of 30 feet with higher berms as required for proper viewshed conditions." Commissioners commented that the applicant's proffer statement seemed to be too general and they would have preferred to see more specificity, particularly dealing with the placement and monitoring of seismographs, the eight -acre reserve area for Belle Grove, a detailed plan showing the berms, a detailed phasing plan, and buffer details. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 16 Due to the Commission's Bylaws requiring a mandatory 11:00 p.m. adjournment, the Planning Commission did not have enough time to hold the public comment portion of the hearing. The Planning Conunission unanimously agreed to table the rezoning for 60 days, until June 7, 2006. (All members of the Plamiing Conunission were present.) PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE FOR 06/07/06 MEETING: Staff has not received any materials from the applicant in modification of the O-N Minerals Rezoning Application, RZ03-06. The concerns and issues identified during the Planning Commission's initial discussions regarding this application, and the issues identified in the initial staff report, remain un- addressed. The Public Hearing for this application was not`held during the 04/05/06 Planning Commission meeting due to time constraints. As a result, the Commission should satisfy the Public Hearing requirements at the 06/07/06 meeting. The information offered during the Public Hearing should also be a consideration of the Planning Commission during their evaluation of this rezoning application. Since the initial 04/05/06 meeting at which the O-N Minerals Rezoning Application was considered, staff has been provided with numerous correspondence regarding this rezoning application. This additional public comunent, in addition to an updated comment in the form of a resolution from the Town of Middletown, is included with this rezoning application package for your information. In addition, at the request of the applicant, staff met with Mr. David Benner, Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy to discuss the role his department plays in permitting and monitoring proposed and existing operations such as the Chemstone Middletown facility. Staff is confident that the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy will effectively carry out their responsibilities and duties. Iowever, their responsibilities and duties are limited to the permitting and monitoring of the mining operations. It was made very clear that coordination with other State Agencies through the permitting process was minimal. Further, it was made clear that the Department's involvement with the adjacent property owners was limited and that in no way does the Department take a position in resolving conflicts that may arise between adjacent property owners and mining companies. The responsibility of addressing impacts that may be realized by properties in the vicinity of mining operations would rest with the affected property owner. The locality would have the responsibility of monitoring impacts and enforcing compliance in cases where the locality accepted proffered conditions aimed at mining operation impact mitigation. Please find attached to end of this report additional correspondence from various sources including The Town of Middletown, L. Preston Bryant, Commonwealth of Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources, and Mr. Woodward S. Bousquet. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 17 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 06/07/06 MEETING: Fifty-seven citizens spoke at the Planning Commission's public hearing on June 7, 2006. Of the 57 citizens, 55 persons spoke in opposition to the rezoning and two spoke in favor of the rezoning. Included in the 55 persons who spoke in opposition were representatives of various historic, environmental, and state agencies, such as the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, the Belle Grove Plantation, the National Park Service at Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park, the Headwaters Conservation for the Potomac Conservancy, and the Greater Middletown Business Association. Many speakers belonged to a citizens group called Preserve Frederick, some were local business owners, and other speakers were simply residents of Middletown and the surrounding area. Letters were received from the Commonwealth of Virginia's Secretary of Natural Resources, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the Belle Grove Plantation, along with numerous citizen letters and petitions. Following is an abbreviated summary of the concerns raised by speakers in opposition to the rezoning. Representatives for the historic, enviromnental, and state agencies expressed concern that the request to expand mining operations and change the zoning on 639 acres would negatively impact the historic view shed and landscape. Agency representatives encouraged the quarry to undertake a comprehensive view shed analysis and present a written plan and timeline to mitigate, remove, screen, and/or plant the existing large waste pile to the northwest of Belle Grove, which was visible from both the Belle Grove and Cedar Creek property and was already problematic in terms of the historic landscape. Public health and safety issues were raised concerning increased truck traffic through Middletown and along Valley Pike. Concern was raised that the increase in heavy commercial vehicles would envelope the community in constant background noise and added air pollution, which currently deposits a grey layer of fine limestone particles and diesel soot on most exterior surfaces. Problems with existing truck traffic through Middletown were expressed, noting the challenge faced by both residents and tourists alike. The Greater Middletown Business Association noted that Middletown's retail businesses derive the majority of their income from tourism and it was critical that the community continues to be a desirable destination for tourists. Concern was expressed for the air quality and fugitive dust emissions, noise, and vibration from blasting, particularly to Belle Grove. Regarding the environment, a recent report published in conjunction with Shenandoah University, detailed the ecological and historic context of the Cedar Creek Watershed. The report revealed the existence of sensitive eco-systems, supporting a variety of unique plant species and mature hardwood forests on adjacent property. The possibility that similar ecosystems and rare plant communities could exist on the Chemstone property was raised, along with the concern about the impact of a larger and more intensive quarry operation, or other permitted uses under EM District zoning, on the water quality and aquatic life in Cedar Creek. Efforts to preserve or restore forested buffers along Watson Run, Middle Marsh Brook, and Cedar Creek were encouraged to prevent any influx of water into these waterways which could choke off the diverse aquatic life. Terrestrial and aquatic habitats within the proposed project's area were identified and concern was raised that state -threatened and endangered wildlife species, such as the bald eagle, wood turtles, and various bird species could be affected. Rezoning 903-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 18 Speakers from the citizens group, Preserve Frederick, were in opposition to the rezoning and raised many issues regarding the inadequacies of the application, non-confor-nlance with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan, impacts to water, as well as quality of life, air quality, public health, traffic, the enviromrient, and negative economic impacts. Some of the specifics of the public's concerns included: The Comprehensive Plan states that measures aimed at increasing the appeal of areas to tourists and businesses need to be developed and implemented; however, the sharp increase in industrial traffic and pollutants from the mining operation will not create small-town ambiance, which is the key economic ingredient to the success of Middletown's businesses and tourism. Negative visual impacts, traffic, and noise will erode the Town's assets of Main Street, the National Park, the Battlefield, and its rural character. Further, over 1,300 dump truck trips per day will in no way help to minimize congestion of the main corridor to this quaint, one -light town. Nothing was more contradictory to the guidelines of the Comprehensive Policy Plan than a heavy, dirty industrial corporation operating within a rural, historic national park and battlefield community; it was a clearly incompatible land use. Local business owners were concerned that the destruction of the landscape, the dust, and the increased truck traffic with its noise and fumes, will have a veiy negative affect on out-of-town visitors and will jeopardize their businesses and livelihoods. Roads in this area are not constructed for large amounts of heavy truck traffic and over -sized vehicles. Numerous health issues were raised; expansion of quarry mining operations will be detrimental to public health and safety. Operations will be too close to residences, increased safety hazards were named dealing with fly rock from blasting, increased truck traffic, and safety to children. It was noted that truck traffic emissions will have severe health consequences for the community and statistics were quoted indicating that diesel exhaust is one of the greatest public health risks of all air pollutants. It was reported that diesel combustion releases fine particles and gases, called soot, which are typically smaller than 2.5 microns; this fine particulate matter is an air -quality contaminant regulated under the Clean Air Act. Diesel soot contains many toxins and can be inhaled into the deepest parts of the lungs where it is able to enter the bloodstream; a considerable number of associated respiratory illnesses were named. A police officer spoke about road traffic safety. He expressed concern about quarry trucks, some of which are 75-feet long and weighing up to 80,000 pounds, which can often be seen exceeding the posted speed limit and barreling down back country roads with tight curves, unsafe shoulders, and hills. It was noted that families travel these roads, along with school buses, the elderly and teenagers with new licenses. It was noted that tripling the amount of heavy industrial traffic through the countryside would be a recipe for disaster. Comments from a retired, professional geologist noted that the extension of limestone mining west and north of Middletown could bring detrimental health consequences to people living on farms and residences in proximity to the operation. In addition to occasional fly rock, blasting will open existing rock fractures or develop new fractures that could cause nearby wells to dry up and/or drain fields to malfunction. Fracturing induced by blasting could release residual clays from sinkholes and voids, thereby fouling water wells; operations of crushing, grinding, and loading brings the potential for large accumulations of dust and hazardous metals. Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 19 Citizens in the health profession expressed concern for water -borne pollutants and toxic elements; tests on local well systems from 1995 through 2006 revealed occasional high levels of toxic elements, including nitrate, cadmium, iron, and lead. Percentages of the elements found were quoted and the health problems associated with these levels were named. Other citizens in the health profession expressed concern for air -borne pollutants and fine particulate matter generated by limestone mining operations and extraction. Because of the westerly -prevailing winds, it was believed that residents of Middletown and students at Lord Fairfax Community College and Middletown Elementary School would be directly exposed to far greater emissions from the blasting, extraction, and refining of minerals. Health problems such as asthma, chronic obstructive lung diseases, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis were mentioned. It was noted that O-N Minerals was already the known leading contributor for emissions. Some residents stated that when they purchased their property years ago, they approached quarry operators about their plans for this property and were told it would be left as a buffer area. Residents did not believe view shed mitigation would shield their homes from quarry dust, dirt, and particle matter. The applicant had been quoted as saying that 10 million gallons of water a day would be pumped from the property and residents were concerned about their private wells and local springs. Liability issues were raised and who would pay for potential damages. Devaluation of properties was an issue. The fact that O-N Minerals had not offered any restrictions on other EM District uses was a concern. A citizen spoke of a 125-year-old family cemetery located north of Chapel Road, near an abandoned farn-llouse. Citizens asked why the County continued to allow residential development to occur all through this part of the valley, if they knew the property could be mined in the future. It was noted that Middletown's old, rich history and architecture are not conducive to industrial infrastructure changes. One citizen commented that numerous quarry companies have owned this land over 50 years; he questioned why they waited all this time to apply for a rezoning. Middletown was not the same place it was 52 years ago and considerable changes have taken place since the 693 acres were sold to Chemstone. The Town now has a national historic park; it has a thriving national heritage of historic importance, and a rapidly growing number of residential developments. The financial status of ON Minerals was commented on by a few of the citizens. They quoted operating figures about the company which indicated O-N was functioning under a considerable debt load and had to sell assets. Also raised was the fact the applicant was a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos -induced illnesses and silica. Citizens questioned how this could affect the company's financial future and their obligations to meet proffers or successfully resolve future cases. Citizens asked what recourse would be available, if the company failed to perform promised proffers. Liability issues on many levels were raised as a future problem. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority's connection to the land use application was raised numerous times and citizens expressed the need for all agreements to be thoroughly examined. Citizens Rezoning 403-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 20 commented on all of the costs the FCSA had agreed to pay, including the costs for rezoning the land, for relocating ball fields, for installing and maintaining monitoring wells, restitution for water loss from nearby wells, etc., and to hold Chemstone harmless from all issues raised by regulators or private citizens. It was noted that FCSA would then have a water storage pit with which to partially serve the UDA and Chemstone would not have the expense of filling the pits and reclaiming land. Many of the residents said they moved to Middletown to escape large commercial developments and traffic problems, and residents feared these same negative impacts would result from this rezoning and affect the quality of life they have become accustomed to. Finally, citizens called for the Commission to vote on the application at the end of discussion and not to table the application. Commission Discussion: The Commission had a considerable amount of discussion and numerous issues were raised. Commission members asked the staff to review the State's role in mediating disputes and dealing with various off -site impacts. Staff responded that discussions with DMME had determined that while the DMME regulates the operation of the mining company, along with permitting and safety issues, the scope of their involvement beyond the property or permit is very limited. In fact, the DMME is reluctant to become involved with any of the issues that may revolve around blasting or water issues. Commission members asked if O-N Minerals had submitted a CPPA application by the June 1, 2006 deadline or if the land subject to the rezoning was in any way plamned for something other than rural areas land use, such as with a text amendment. Staff replied that no comprehensive plan amendment had been submitted, nor was this area being considered for another plarmed land use. Connnission members asked staff about remediation requirements. Staff responded that there were considerable requirements by the DMME; however, there were many opportunities to modify the requirements and approach things in a different mariner. Commission members assumed that if the property changed hands after the land had been mined, as in the possibility that it would be turned over to a quasi -public entity, such as the FCSA, then the regulations would change. It was noted that FCSA was not in the business of land remediation. Commission members stated that if the rezoning was tabled, they would want a clear understanding of the agreement between the FCSA and O-N Minerals before it came back to the Connnission again. Not only did they want to have a clear understanding, but thought it was important for the community because of statements that could be interpreted in different ways and could have significant liability, not only on surrounding property owners, but on the FCSA. Commissioner Thomas surmnarized the issues he believed were significant in the review of the rezoning. Many of the other Commissioners agreed with those issues, as follows: The traffic impact analysis submitted was woefully inadequate and needs to be redone. The use of numbers of vehicles for trip generation in the traffic impact analysis is inappropriate when 60-70% of the traffic will be 40-ton dump trucks and will not result in an accurate analysis. A route analysis needs to be done which examines the geometries and conditions of the road, in particular, the impact of 800-900 severely - loaded 40-ton trucks on the road itself. A strip map should be included so the community understands the vehicle traffic pattern that will occur with heavily -loaded vehicles from the quarry, through Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chemstone) April 14, 2008 Page 21 Middletown, and onto their destination. The environmental impact analysis is lacking; there was nothing within the environmental impact analysis that addressed air quality. A particulate matter study is needed with a wind -rose analysis showing the distribution of the particulate matter, the levels of particulate matter that will be experienced by the surrounding residents, and the particulate matter size that will be distributed. In light of all the nearby farms and livestock, information is needed on how the particulate matter may affect surrounding agricultural and orchard land uses; for example, the affect of particulate matter on grazing cattle and the pollination of orchard fruit trees. In addition to outside dust, dust inside homes also needs to be addressed. Particulate matter of this size will get inside new homes as well as older homes and all homes within a couple miles will have a significant dust problem within the home. Regarding the subject of determining liability for water wells and blasting damage, how will the applicant monitor existing wells from a quality and quantity standpoint and how will the existing homes be inventoried and evaluated. A plan should be developed with a process for damage assessment and appeals that doesn't require surrounding homeowners to invest an extensive amount of money hiring lawyers and suing. Due to the significant size of this project, a bonding process above the minimum State standards is needed to protect the surrounding homeowners against potential future damages and liabilities, if the company has financial difficulties and moves out of the area. No information was provided by the applicant regarding meetings with surrounding property owners; neighborhood meetings should take place to convey the applicant's plan, how the property owners will be protected, and what the applicant's blasting plan will be. Since the biggest potential problems will come from areas outside of the quarry site, and the State only regulates on -site, permitted areas, something significantly more than the minimum State -regulated requirements is needed. For example, one seismograph in a blasting area with this kind of topography is substantially inadequate; there should be three -to -five for every blasting plan. The liability for surrounding homeowners for water wells and blasting needs to be substantially expanded. The applicant needs to examine allowed uses in an EM area and consider what is realistically going to be done there and the uses that are not going to be needed should be taken out through a proffer to avoid conftision by adjoining property owners about what can be done here. Another significant item is the life of the quarry operation; specifically, will it be a five-year operation or a 50-year operation, and what is the applicant's phase plan for development of the quarry and the extent of that development. Is it the applicant's intent to proceed down the Valley with this operation and are there plans for remediation of areas left behind as the operation moves along, or are the areas left open through the entire process. Has the applicant considered a mining operation versus an open quarry? Although a mining operation would have less impact on the visual area and produce less dust, it still has the same amount of impact on blasting and water wells. In addition, issues raised by other Commissioners included a desire for some type of bonding process established for well issues, so that the burden of proof did not fall on local residents. They wanted to see increased buffer distances to keep the operation further away from residences. The subject of the unsightly appearance of dirt piles that may exist for 25 to 50 years was also raised. In addition, they wanted the applicant to revisit the issues raised by the HRAB, the Town of Middletown, and Public Works. Some Commission members doubted that the applicant could address the issues raised in 90 days or a year in terms of the kind and amount of analysis that was needed in this case. The comment was made that if the applicant did proceed with all of the studies, they were not sure whether the results would Rezoning #03-06 — O-N Minerals (Chernstone) April 14, 2008 Page 22 make a difference, because fundamentally, this was a land use issue. It was pointed out that the time for expansion of this quarry and the industrial use of these particular properties has long passed; the surrounding community is clearly residential at this point in time. It was noted that the Commission had previously asked for additional information 60 days ago and nothing was produced. Commission members believed the rezoning needed to be considered in the spirit of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Members commented that the public's presentation was far better than what was provided by the applicant, in terms of the information provided and organization. Commmissioners believed the concerns raised by the public were valid and required mitigation, which could only be accomplished by denying the rezoning; they were adamant that no amount of proffers could make this proposal acceptable for them. Other comments included the observation that the application was not clear as to whether the operation would be limited to an active core area or even how much quarrying the applicant planned to do. It was suggested that a revised application and proffer could result in a minor amount of rezoned land with protections; it was pointed out that the residents and historic areas have no protections today. Commission members had concerns about sending the application forward to the Board of Supervisors in its present state because it was so incomplete and lacking that the Board would have nothing to review. Those Cornnnission members were concerned about doing a disservice to both the Board and the citizens without allowing the applicant to go back and improve the application with a phasing plan, or offering a commitment to a smaller area, or providing protections for surrounding areas. Still other Commissioners argued that they did not hear anything during the public hearing that made them think something could be done with this proposal to make it compatible as a land use. A motion to reconunend denial of the rezoning application was made, seconded, and passed by a majority vote, as follows: YES (TO REC. DENIAL): Watt, Morris, Oates, Wilmot, Ours, Kriz, Kerr, Mohn NO: Unger, Manuel, Light, Thomas (Note: Commissioner Triplett was absent from the meeting.) Note to Board of Supervisors: A verbatim section of the Planning Commission's discussion has been included at the end of your agenda for your information and to clearly translate the commission's comments which followed the public hearink. AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: June 7, 2006 - Recommended Denial BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: May 28, 2008 ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING 403-06 OF O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) WHEREAS, Rezoning 403-06 of O-N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 394.2 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers dated June 13, 2005 and final revision May 27, 2008, was considered. The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west of Hites Road (Route 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The properties are in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on April 5, 2006 with final action taken on June 7, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on April 23, 2008 with final action taken on May 28, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 394.2 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District, with proffers, for a quarry, as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owners. PDRes. #10-08 0 This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 28th day of May, 2008 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary Dove Gene E. Fisher Philip A. Lemieux Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Aye Bill M. Ewing Nay Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Nay Nay A COPY ATTEST s John R Riley, Jr r" Fredegpk County Administrator PDRes. 4 10-08 0 PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ# 03-06 Rural Areas (RA) to Extractive Manufacturing (EM) PROPERTY: 394.2 Acres +/-; Portions of Tax Map Parcels 83-A-109 ("parcel 109") and 90-A-23 ("parcel 23") (the "Properties") RECORD OWNER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE(S) O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company ("Applicant") Chemstone - Middletown June 13, 2005 January 16, 2006 March 18, 2008 May 20, 2008 February 8, 2006 April 18, 2008 May 22, 2008 August 28, 2006 May 14, 2008 May 27, 2008 The undersigned Applicant hereby proffers that the use and development of the portions of the above -referenced parcels, which are requested to be rezoned, the portions requested to be rezoned being shown on the attached and incorporated plat identified as "Exhibit I," shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers on the Properties that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above -referenced EM conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant, these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Properties with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Properties adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized • 9 Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, O-N Minerals (Chemstone)" dated May, 2008 (the "GDP"). The Applicant attaches and incorporates the GDP, which includes a plan titled "Generalized Development Plan"; a plan titled "Overall Plan"; four plans titled "Phase I Plan", "Phase II Plan", "Phase III Plan", and "Phase IV Plan"; and twelve viewshed plats titled "Viewshed IA, Viewshed 113, Viewshed 2, Viewshed 3, Viewshed 4A, Viewshed 4B, Viewshed 5A, Viewshed 513, Viewshed 6, Viewshed 7, Viewshed 8 and Viewshed 9". The aforementioned documents are and shall be incorporated by reference herein as "Exhibit 2." The Applicant proffers that its development of the Properties will be in substantial conformity with the GDP. 1. Land Use 1.1 The Properties shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining ("DMM") of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy ("VDMME"), and shall therefore conform to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 1.2 The Applicant hereby proffers not to engage in the following uses on the Properties: Oil and natural gas extraction; Asphalt and concrete mixing plants; Brick, block and precast concrete products; Cement and lime kilns; and Coal and natural gas -fired power plants or facilities which sell power to the local utility or power grid* *This is not to be interpreted as a restriction against using power plants on the Properties as necessary to support extractive mining activities. 2. Site Development 2.1 Properties' access via public secondary roads shall be limited to the existing quarry entrance on McCune Road (Route 757). Access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the Properties shall not be limited. 2.2 Earthen berms shall be installed around the active quarry pits in the location shown on the GDP. The berms shall have a maximum height of 30 feet and a minimum height of 10 feet. The berms (Berm A and Berm B) depicted on the Phase I Plan of the GDP shall be installed within 10 years of the approval of the rezoning. The berms (Berm C and Berm D) depicted on the Phase II Plan of the GDP shall be installed no later than 10 years prior to the commencement of mining north of Chapel Road. The berms shall be landscaped to minimize impacts to the viewshed of the surrounding community. Such landscaping shall consist of a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed in a random manner to be consistent with existing vegetation patterns. The description of the plants to be installed on the berms are more specifically described in the attached and incorporated "Exhibit 3." The landscaping shall be subject to reasonable approval by the Zoning Administrator of Frederick County and upon consultation with the State Forester. With respect to Berm A, located on Tax Parcel 90-A-2, not owned by the Applicant, the benn will be constructed by the Applicant as the tenant under a 100-year lease of Parcel 90-A-2, with authority under the lease to construct Berm A. 2.3 The existing overburden stock pile on the southeast corner of the current Middletown plant site shall be reduced in height to the greater of 30 feet or the height of the adjacent tree line (lying to the east) within 5 years of the approval of the rezoning. 3. Historic Resources 3.1 The Applicant shall create an 8 acre historic reserve as shown on the GDP and on Exhibit 1, within wluch archaeological resources and other historic activities have been identified. Further, the Applicant shall place restrictions on the reserve land for how the reserve will be used by the Properties' owner and future owners. A copy of said restrictions are attached and incorporated as "Exhibit 4." Said reserve land shall be dedicated to the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, Inc. within 60 days of final rezoning. [NOTE: the aforementioned 8 acre historic reserve property is not to be included in the property to be rezoned.] 3.2 The Applicant shall complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey of parcels 23 and 109. The Phase I Archaeological Survey of parcel 23 shall be completed within 12 months of the approval of the rezoning. For the remaining tracts of land, the Applicant shall complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey of a particular tract of land before any mining activities commence on that property. The Applicant may commence mining activities on a particular portion of the Properties before the completion of the Phase I survey for all of the Properties, but under any and all circumstances, no reining operations shall commence on any portion of the Properties until after the Phase I Archeological Survey has been completed on said portion of the Properties. Said survey shall locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects on the parcels. Such survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines for a Phase 1 Survey as defined in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources "GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY IN VIRGINIA - Chapter 7: Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Virginia," 1999 (Rev. Jan. 2003). 3.3 Two cemeteries have been identified on the Properties. The first cemetery is located adjacent to Chapel Road and is in an area that is not designated for mining and is also outside of the berming area. That cemetery is currently undergoing a historical restoration. After the historical restoration, the Applicant will follow the recommendations of the Applicant's historian. The second cemetery is located in the area where berming is slated to be installed. The Applicant proffers the berming will be located in such a way as to not encroach on the cemetery. This cemetery is also currently undergoing a historical restoration. After the historical restoration, the Applicant will follow the recommendations of the Applicant's historian. In addition, the cemetery is accessed through a right-of-way which is of record providing access to the cemetery from Route 625. The Applicant proffers to improve said right-of-way so that it can be used for access by the descendants of those in the cemetery within 12 months of completion of the cemetery restoration. Once said right-of- way has been improved, the Applicant will provide continued maintenance and have use of same. 4. Rights to Water Supply 4.1 The Applicant shall guarantee the Frederick County Sanitation Authority ("FCSA") rights to the water resources available on the Properties in accordance with the existing agreements between the Applicant and FCSA. 5. Ground Water 5.1 The Applicant shall install a minimum of three monitoring wells to effectively establish and monitor the groundwater level in order to avoid detrimental impacts to surrounding properties. Said wells shall be installed prior to any land disturbance of the portion of the Properties identified as parcel 109 by the GDP, and shall be located within 500 feet of the Properties' boundaries. A minimum of one monitoring well shall be installed within 500 feet of the parcel 109 Properties' boundary. The exact location of the monitoring wells is depicted on the Overall Plan of the GDP. 5.2 Subject to and consistent with the provisions of paragraph 9.2, the Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations on the Properties. Costs associated with any required remediation shall be borne by the Applicant. Furthermore, the Applicant agrees to participate in a pre -blast survey and well monitoring survey, as further described herein. The intent of the aforementioned surveys is to provide a mechanism to remediate any adverse impacts to wells and/or structures which are caused by the mining operations on the Properties. 6. Dust Control 6.1 Dust from drills, muck piles, material handling, screens, crushers, conveyors, feeders, hoppers, stockpiles, load -outs, and traffic areas shall be controlled by wet suppression or equivalent, and controlled by and consistent with the terms of the Department of Environmental Quality ("VDEQ") general air permit. The Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the mining operations on the Properties. • • 7. Blasting Control 7.1 All blasting associated with mining operations on the Properties shall be limited by the mining permit approved by the DMM of the VDMME. Peak Particle Velocities (PPV) associated with blasting on the Properties shall not exceed the levels stipulated by said permit. In addition, the Applicant agrees to have an approved blasting plan in place at all times. An example of the current blasting plan is attached. Further, in addition, the Applicant agrees that there will be no block holing or adobe blasting conducted on the Properties. Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting on the Properties shall be remediated at the Applicant's expense. 8. Traffic 8.1 The Applicant's current number of truck loads leaving the site on a daily basis is approximately 63, and the Applicant has had higher numbers of recorded truck loads leaving the plant to a total of 114 truck loads per day. The Applicant, in its proffer, is agreeing to restrict truck traffic to the Properties to 86 truck loads per day averaged over the prior 30 days, but intends to also have an ability to increase the number of truck loads in the event of an emergency or circumstances, which could be caused by issues driven by the Applicant's customers, suppliers, and/or carriers. Examples of such shall include, but are not limited to, an interruption of rail service to the site and/or any sites that are serviced by rail from the Applicant's Properties and/or any other interruption of the ability to deliver materials at the Applicant's site or any other sites which are owned, controlled, or by business relationship connected with the Applicant's site. To that end, and in any circumstance, the Applicant agrees to restrict truck traffic to the Properties to a maximum of 200 truck loads per day averaged over the prior 30 days through the scale house hauling mined materials on and/or off the proposed quarry site from the existing quarry entrance. The maximum number of truck loads will be regulated by the Applicant and its successors and/or assigns. A record of the actual number of truck loads per day shall be kept current (and maintained for one year) by the Applicant at its scale house office. Said record shall be made available in a form which confirms the number of trips and the form will be produced to Frederick County officials upon demand with reasonable notice. The Applicant proffers there will be no truck loads from the Properties on Sundays and the hours of truck loading on Saturdays will be no later than 7:00 p.m. The Applicant further proffers it will instruct all truckers as to the proper route of travel from the Properties to Route 11, which shall exclude both Belle Grove and Chapel Roads. 9. Pre -Blast Surveys 9.1 The Applicant will offer voluntary pre -blast surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent engineering firm, which will investigate and document the pre -blast conditions of the participants' residences and/or outbuildings. The Applicant and its successors and assigns will contact all citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109, and monitor the tax roles for Frederick County on an annual basis in order to contact any citizens who have recently purchased the aforementioned property. This contact will be made by the Applicant and its successor and assigns to invite citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109 to participate in the pre -blast surveys. Contact will be made by registered return -receipt letters, mailed annually from the time of the rezoning. All citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109 can, and are encouraged to, participate in the survey by contacting the Applicant and scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent engineering firm to visit the party's residence to document and survey the pre -blast condition of the party's residences/outbuildings following the procedures set forth in the attached and incorporated "Exhibit 5." If the property owner agrees to participate, the Applicant's and/or its engineering firm shall visit and inspect the party's residences/outbuildings to monitor the condition of the sarrne. A record of those pre -blast conditions will be kept by the independent engineering firm with copies retained by the Applicant and the participating property owner. In the event of a change in condition, which is alleged by the participating property owner as a result of mining operations, the engineering firm will then conduct a follow-up visit and investigation and use the pre -blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. Said analysis shall be used to determine the cause of any negative change in condition. If it is determined there is a change in condition in the residences/outbuildings, which has been caused by the Applicant's mining activities on the Properties, then the Applicant agrees to remediate and/or repair said negative change in condition to restore it to its status prior to blasting operations. In addition, the Applicant agrees to establish seismic monitoring of the proposed quarry site to monitor all blasting activities and keep records of said seismic monitoring as required by the VDMME. 9.2 The Applicant will offer voluntary well monitoring surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent well drilling firm or hydrogeologist, which will investigate and document the pre -mining conditions of the participants' wells. The Applicant and its successors and assigns will contact all citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109, and monitor the tax roles for Frederick County on an annual basis in order to contact any citizens who have recently purchased the aforementioned property. This contact will be made by Applicant and its successor and assigns to invite citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109 to participate in the well monitoring surveys. Contact will be made by sending annually registered return -receipt letters. All citizens who have property located within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109 can and are encouraged to participate in the survey by scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent well drilling firm to visit the party's residence 0 • to document and survey the pre -blast condition of the party's well following the procedures set forth in the attached and incorporated "Exhibit 6A and 6B." A record of these pre -mining conditions will be kept by the independent well drilling firm, with copies retained by the Applicant and the participating property owner. In the event a change of condition is alleged by the property owner as a result of mining operations, the Applicant will provide an interim replacement water supply as necessary to supply the property owner with water. The well drilling firm will then conduct a follow-up visit and investigation and use pre - blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. If it is determined that the status of the neighboring property owner's well has deteriorated from the condition it was in at the time of the pre -blast survey, then the Applicant agrees to restore the well to its condition existing at the time of the pre -blast survey and/or provide the adjoining property owner a replacement well of the same condition (or better) of that which existed at that time of the pre -blast survey. 9.3 In addition to the above, the Applicant agrees to maintain in force an insurance policy or other sufficient security for the period of time covering the active mining operations on the Properties and to maintain in effect for a period of one year from the date of cessation of said mining operations, and to cover the costs of any remediation and/or repair, which is required pursuant to the terms of sections 9.1 and 9.2 above. Said policy or surety shall be in the amount of no less than One Million and 00/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. Frederick County may review from time to time the amount of the policy or -surety to evaluate whether the minimum amount of $1,000,000.00 is sufficient to protect the cost of any remediation and/or repair, which is required pursuant to the terms of sections 9.1 and 9.2. In the event Frederick County believes that the amount of the policy or surety needs to be increased for the reasons set forth above, then the Applicant and Frederick County shall reach an agreement as to the proper amount of policy or surety. The approval of said increase shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or denied by either party. The Applicant shall annually provide to the County a Certificate of Insurance from the insurance carrier. 10. Reclamation 10.1 It is intended that pursuant to the terms of the agreement reached with the FCSA that at the time of cessation. of mining activities, the Properties' quarry pits shall be used by the FCSA as water reservoirs. The control of the water levels in the quarry pits shall be handed over to the FCSA. It is intended that the quarry pits at that time will contain quantities of water monitored and directed by the FCSA, and which will be conducive to the general betterment of natural habitat. 11. Noise Abatement 11.1 Operations on the Properties will not exceed the VDMME Engineering's decibel guidelines. The Applicant will make all reasonable efforts to locate mining machinery in the quarry pit or behind berms. 12. Li htin 12.1 There shall be no affixed lighting structures above -ground on the berins other than as may be required for or provided by regulations that affect the plant operations, including but not limited to, Mine Safety Health Administration ("MSHA"), VDMME, and any other governmental or regulatory body that oversees mining operations. Lighting used for devices or machines that convey materials or for pit crushing facilities and other mining activities is permitted. Conveying and pit crushing facilities shall also be interpreted as including such other devices or activities that perfoim similar or related functions that may come into use and/or existence at some time in the future while the extractive mining use is still in effect on the Properties. In addition to the above, all lighting will be installed in such a manner that there will be no spillover beyond any property line of the Applicant onto adjacent properties not owned by the Applicant. 13. Air Permit 13.1 The Applicant shall maintain its existing general air permit controlling emissions in accordance with the VDEQ standards and also see that the existing general air permit covers all activities conducted on the rezoned Properties. 14. Environment 14.1 In addition to compliance with the VPDES water discharge permit already in place, the Applicant agrees to work with a recognized environmental entity of the Applicant's choosing during its operations to ensure that the water emissions from water flowing from the quarry operations on the Properties is of a quality consistent with the water quality in Cedar Creek so as to maintain an environnent conducive to natural habitats. No additional water discharge points will be added. 14.2 The Applicant agrees that all areas currently in trees on property owned by the Applicant, which is outside of the rezoned Properties and identified on the GDP as "Middletown Woods", shall be maintained using best management practices. 14.3 The Applicant proffers to keep its mining operations at least 200 feet from the edge of Cedar Creek. 15. Phasing 15.1 The Applicant agrees that mining activities on the Properties shall occur with the following phasing and as set forth on the Phasing Plans of the GDP: After the rezoning is approved, the Applicant -will start creating beims on the newly rezoned Properties and the Applicant shall start quarrying in the area identified as parcel 23. Mining in parcel 23 shall occur from the time period commencing with the approval of the rezoning for a period of time which is estimated to be twenty years. For the newly zoned area, which is north of the existing EM zoned property, and south of Chapel Road, mining activities will commence no earlier than ten years from the date that the rezoning referenced herein is approved. For the newly zoned area, which lies north of Chapel Road, mining will commence no earlier than twenty years from the date that the rezoning referenced herein is approved. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES u Respectfully submitted, in Its: O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY —C P6� C�� 0, 2 r/­1 "3 � 0 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this � mday of 2008, by,— e s'�ihSoVt ., R PUBLIC My cormnission expires;_.'* �`�; NOTARY .' *. , Pl18Llf: ��n " Registration number: f REG # 7155256 ? Y-CO(til O •. EXPIRES 2i� •.,12/31120�,� •,�'ly�,� OF ii�i�NN� 0 0 PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ# 03-06 Rural Areas (RA) to Extractive Manufacturing (EM) PROPERTY: 394.2 Acres +/-; Portions of Tax Map Parcels 83-A-109 ("parcel 109") and 90-A-23 ("parcel 23") (the "Properties") RECORD OWNER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE(S) O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company ("Applicant") Chemstone - Middletown June 13, 2005 January 16, 2006 March 18, 2008 May 20, 2008 February 8, 2006 April 18, 2008 May 22, 2008 August 28, 2006 May 14, 2008 Mav 27. 2009 The undersigned Applicant hereby proffers that the use and development of the portions of the above -referenced parcels, which are requested to be rezoned, the portions requested to be rezoned being shown on the attached and incorporated plat identified as "Exhibit 1," shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers on the Properties that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above -referenced EM conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant, these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Properties with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Properties adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, O-N Minerals (Chemstone)" dated May, 2008 (the "GDP"). The Applicant attaches and incorporates the GDP, which includes a plan titled "Generalized Development Plan"; a plan titled "Overall Plan"; four plans titled "Phase I Plan", "Phase II Plan", "Phase III Plan", and "Phase IV Plan"; and e-levet twelvc viewshed plats titled "Viewshed IA, Viewshed 1B, Viewshed 2, Viewshed 3, Viewshed 4A, Viewshed 413, Viewshed 5A, Viewshed 5B, Viewshed 6, Viewshed 7, Viewshed 8 and Viewshed 9". The aforementioned documents are and shall be incorporated by reference herein as "Exhibit 2." The Applicant proffers that its development of the Properties will be in substantial conformity with the GDP. l . Land Use 1.1 The Properties shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining ("DMM") of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy ("VDMME"), and shall therefore conform to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 1.2 The Applicant hereby proffers not to engage in the following uses on the Properties: Oil and natural gas extraction; Asphalt and concrete mixing plants; Brick, block and precast concrete products; Cement and lime kilns; and Coal and natural gas -fired power plants or facilities which sell power to the local utility or power grid* *This is not to be interpreted as a restriction against using power plants on the Properties as necessary to support extractive mining activities. 2. Site Development 2.1 Properties' access via public secondary roads shall be limited to the existing quarry entrance on McCune Road (Route 757). Access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the Properties shall not be limited. 2.2 Earthen berms shall be installed around the active quarry pits in the location shown on the GDP. The berms shall have a maximum height of 30 feet and a minimum height of 10 feet. The berms (Berm A and Berm B) depicted on the Phase I Plan of the GDP shall be installed within 10 years of the approval of the rezoning. The berms (Berm C and Berm D) depicted on the Phase It Plan of the GDP shall be installed no later than 10 years prior to the commencement of mining north of Chapel Road. The berms shall be landscaped to minimize impacts to the viewshed of the surrounding cominunity. Such landscaping shall consist of a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed in a random manner to be consistent with existing vegetation patterns. The description of the plants to be installed on the berms are more specifically described in the attached and incorporated "Exhibit 3." The landscaping shall be subject to reasonable approval by the Zoning Administrator of Frederick County and upon consultation with the State Forester. With respect to Berm A, located on Tax Parcel 90-A-2, not owned by the Applicant, the berm will be constructed by the Applicant as the tenant under a 991.00-year lease of Parcel 90-A-2, with authority under the lease to construct Berm A. 2.3 The existing overburden stock pile on the southeast corner of the current Middletown plant site shall be reduced in height to the greater of 30 feet or the height of the adjacent tree line (lying to the east) within 5 years of the approval of the rezoning. 3. Historic Resources 3.1 The Applicant shall create an 8 acre historic reserve as shown on the GDP and on Exhibit 1, within which archaeological resources and other historic activities have been identified. Further, the Applicant shall place restrictions on the reserve land for how the reserve will be used by the Properties' owner and future owners. A copy of said restrictions are attached and incorporated as "Exhibit 4." Said reserve land shall be dedicated to the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, Inc. within 60 days of final rezoning. [NOTE: the aforementioned 8 acre historic reserve property is not to be included in the property to be rezoned.] 3.2 The Applicant shall complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey of parcels 23 and 109. The Phase I Archaeological Survey of parcel 23 shall be completed within 12 months of the approval of the rezoning. For the remaining tracts of land, the Applicant shall complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey of a particular tract of land before any mining activities commence on that property. The Applicant may commence mining activities on a particular portion of the Properties before the completion of the Phase I survey for all of the Properties, but under any and all circumstances, no mining operations shall commence on any portion of the Properties until after the Phase I Archeological Survey has been completed on said portion of the Properties. Said survey shall locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects on the parcels. Such survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines for a Phase 1 Survey as defined in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources "GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY IN VIRGINIA - Chapter 7: Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Virginia," 1999 (Rev. Jan. 2003). 3.3 Two cemeteries have been identified on the Properties. The first cemetery is located adjacent to Chapel Road and is in an area that is not designated for mining and is also outside of the berming area. That cemetery is currently undergoing a historical restoration. After the historical restoration, the Applicant will follow the recommendations of the Applicant's historian. The second cemetery is located in the area where berming is slated to be installed. The Applicant proffers the berming will be located in such a way as to not encroach on the cemetery. This cemetery is also currently undergoing a historical restoration. After the historical restoration, the Applicant will follow the recommendations of the Applicant's historian. In addition, the cemetery is accessed through a right-of-way which is of record providing access to the cemetery from Route 625. The Applicant proffers to improve said right-of-way so that it can be used for access by the descendants of those in the cemetery within 12 months of completion of the cemetery restoration. Once said right-of- way has been improved, the Applicant will provide continued maintenance and have use of same. 4. Rights to Water Supply 4.1 The Applicant shall guarantee the Frederick County Sanitation Authority ("FCSA") rights to the water resources available on the Properties in accordance with the existing agreements between the Applicant and FCSA. 5. Ground Water 5.1 The Applicant shall install a minimum of three monitoring wells to effectively establish and monitor the groundwater level in order to avoid detrimental impacts to surrounding properties. Said wells shall be installed prior to any land disturbance of the portion of the Properties identified as parcel 109 by the GDP, and shall be located within 500 feet of the Properties' boundaries. A minimum of one monitoring well shall be installed within 500 feet of the parcel 109 Properties' boundary. The exact location of the monitoring wells is depicted on the Overall Plan of the GDP. 5.2 Subject to and consistent with the provisions of paragraph 9.2, the Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations on the Properties. Costs associated with any required remediation shall be borne by the Applicant. Furthermore, the Applicant agrees to participate in a pre -blast survey and well monitoring survey, as further described herein. The intent of the aforementioned surveys is to provide a mechanism to remediate any adverse impacts to wells and/or structures which are caused by the mining operations on the Properties. 6. Dust Control 6.1 Dust from drills, muck piles, material handling, screens, crushers, conveyors, feeders, hoppers, stockpiles, load -outs, and traffic areas shall be controlled by wet suppression or equivalent, and controlled by and consistent with the terms of the Department of Environmental Quality ("VDEQ") general air permit. The Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the mining operations on the Properties. 7. Blasting Control 7.1 All blasting associated with mining operations on the Properties shall be limited by the mining permit approved by the DMM of the VDMME. Peak Particle Velocities (PPV) associated with blasting on the Properties shall not exceed the levels stipulated by said permit. In addition, the Applicant agrees to have an approved blasting plan in place at all times. An example of the current blasting plan is attached. Further, in addition, the Applicant agrees that there will be no block holing or adobe blasting conducted on the Properties. Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting on the Properties shall be remediated at the Applicant's expense. 8. Traffic 8.1 The Applicant's current number of truck loads leaving the site on a daily basis is approximately 63, and the Applicant has had higher numbers of recorded truck loads leaving the plant to a total of 114 truck loads per day. The Applicant, in its proffer, is agreeing to restrict truck traffic to the Properties to 86 truck loads per day averaged over the prior 30 days, but intends to also have an ability to increase the number of truck loads in the event of an emergency or circumstances, which could be caused by issues driven by the Applicant's customers, suppliers, and/or carriers. Examples of such shall include, but are not limited to, an interruption of rail service to the site and/or any sites that are serviced by rail from the Applicant's Properties and/or any other interruption of the ability to deliver materials at the Applicant's site or any other sites which are owned, controlled, or by business relationship connected with the Applicant's site. To that end, and in any circumstance, the Applicant agrees to restrict truck traffic to the Properties to a maximum of 200 truck loads per day averaged over the prior 30 days through the scale house hauling mined materials on and/or off the proposed quarry site from the existing quarry entrance. The maximum number of truck loads will be regulated by the Applicant and its successors and/or assigns. A record of the actual number of truck loads per day shall be kept current (and maintained for one year) by the Applicant at its scale house office. Said record shall be made available in a form which confirms the number of trips and the form will be produced to Frederick County officials upon demand with reasonable notice. The Applicant proffers there will be no truck loads from the Properties on Sundays and the hours of truck loading on Saturdays will be no later than 7:00 p.m. The Applicant further proffers it will instruct all truckers as to the proper route of travel from the Properties to Route 11, which shall exclude both Belle Grove and Chapel Roads. 0 9. Pre -Blast Surveys 9.1 The Applicant will offer voluntary pre -blast surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the Properties'- boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent engineering firm, which will investigate and document the pre -blast conditions of the participants' residences and/or outbuildings. The Applicant and its successors and assigns will contact all citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the--"- eAie-s boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109, and monitor the tax roles for Frederick County on an annual basis in order to contact any citizens who have recently purchased the aforementioned property. This contact will be made by the Applicant and its successor and assigns to invite citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 1.09 to participate in the pre -blast surveys. Contact will be made by registered return - receipt letters, mailed annually from the time of the rezoning. All citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the Rfope-rties- boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 1.09 can, and are encouraged to, participate in the survey by contacting the Applicant and scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent engineering firm to visit the party's residence to document and survey the pre - blast condition of the party's residences/outbuildings following the procedures set forth in the attached and incorporated "Exhibit 5." If the property owner agrees to participate, the Applicant's and/or its engineering firm shall visit and inspect the party's residences/outbuildings to monitor the condition of the same. A record of those pre -blast conditions will be kept by the independent engineering firm with copies retained by the Applicant and the participating property owner. In the event of a change in condition, which is alleged by the participating property owner as a result of mining operations, the engineering firm will then conduct a follow-up visit and investigation and use the pre -blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. Said analysis shall be used to determine the cause of any negative change in condition. If it is determined there is a change in condition in the residences/outbuildings, which has been caused by the Applicant's mining activities on the Properties, then the Applicant agrees to remediate and/or repair said negative change in condition to restore it to its status prior to blasting operations. In addition, the Applicant agrees to establish seismic monitoring of the proposed quarry site to monitor all blasting activities and keep records of said seismic monitoring as required by the VDMME. 9.2 The Applicant will offer voluntary well monitoring surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the ertie,'-boundaries of parcel 23 and. parcel 109. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent well drilling firm or hydrogeologist, which will investigate and document the pre -mining conditions of the participants' wells. The Applicant and its successors and assigns will contact all citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the P-rapertie-s- boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109, and monitor the tax roles for Frederick County on an annual basis in order to contact any citizens who have recently purchased the aforementioned property. This contact will be made by Applicant and its successor and assigns to invite citizens who have property within 1,500 feet of the Rrepefti:es- boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109 to participate in the well monitoring surveys. Contact will be made by sending annually registered return - receipt letters. All citizens who have property located within 1,500 feet of the RrepeF es! boundaries of parcel 23 and parcel 109 can and are encouraged to participate in the survey by scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent well drilling firm to visit the party's residence to document and survey the pre -blast condition of the party's well following the procedures set forth in the attached and incorporated "Exhibit 6A and 6B." A record of these pre -mining conditions will be kept by the independent well drilling firm, with copies retained by the Applicant and the participating property owner. In the event a change of condition is alleged by the property owner as a result of mining operations, the Applicant will provide an interim replacement water supply as necessary to supply the property owner with water. The well drilling firm will then conduct a follow-up visit and investigation and use pre -blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. If it is determined that the status of the neighboring property owner's well has deteriorated from the condition it was in at the time of the pre -blast survey, then the Applicant agrees to restore the well to its condition existing at the time of the pre -blast survey and/or provide the adjoining property owner a replacement well of the same condition (or better) of that which existed at that time of the pre -blast survey. 9.3 In addition to the above, the Applicant agrees to maintain in force an insurance policy or other sufficient security for the period of time covering the active mining operations on the Properties and to maintain in effect for a period of one year from the date of cessation of said mining operations, and to cover the costs of any remediation and/or repair, which is required pursuant to the terms of sections 9.1 and 9.2 above. Said policy or surety shall be in the amount of no less than One Million and 00/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. Frederick County may review from time to time the amount of the policy or surety to evaluate whether the minimum amount of $1,000,000.00 is sufficient to protect the cost of any remediation and/or repair, which is required pursuant to the terms of sections 9.1 and 9.2. In the event Frederick County believes that the amount of the policy or surety needs to be increased for the reasons set forth above, then the Applicant and Frederick County shall reach an agreement as to the proper amount of policy or surety. The approval of said increase shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or denied by either party. The Applicant shall annually provide to the County a Certificate of Insurance from the insurance carrier. 10. Reclamation 10.1 It is intended that pursuant to the terms of the agreement reached with the FCSA that at the time of cessation of mining activities, the Properties' quarry pits shall be used by the FCSA as water reservoirs. The control of the water levels in the quarry pits shall be handed over to the FCSA. It is intended that the quarry pits at that time will contain quantities of water monitored and directed by the FCSA, and which will be conducive to the general betterment of natural habitat. 11. Noise Abatement 11.1 Operations on the Properties will not exceed the VDMME Engineering's decibel guidelines. The Applicant will make all reasonable efforts to locate mining machinery in the quarry pit or behind berms. 12. Lighting Ming 12.1 There shall be no affixed lighting structures above -ground on the berms other than as may be required for or provided by regulations that affect the plant operations, including but not limited to, Mine Safety Health Administration ("MSHA"), VDMME, and any other governmental or regulatory body that oversees mining operations. Lighting used for devices or machines that convey materials or for pit crushing facilities and other mining activities is permitted. Conveying and pit crushing facilities shall also be interpreted as including such other devices or activities that perform similar or related fiinctions that may come into use and/or existence at some time in the future while the extractive mining use is still in effect on the Properties. In addition to the above, all lighting will be installed in such a manner that there will be no spillover beyond any property line of the Applicant onto adjacent properties not owned by the Applicant. 13. Air Permit 13.1 The Applicant shall maintain its existing general air permit controlling emissions in accordance with the VDEQ standards and also see that the existing general air permit covers all activities conducted on the rezoned Properties. 14. Environment 14.1 In addition to compliance with the VPDES water discharge permit already in place, the Applicant agrees to work with a recognized environmental entity of the Applicant's choosing during its operations to ensure that the water emissions from water flowing from the quarry operations on the Properties is of a quality consistent with the water quality in Cedar Creek so as to maintain an environment conducive to natural habitats. No additional water discharge points will be added. 14.2 The Applicant agrees that all areas currently in trees on property owned by the Applicant, which is outside of the rezoned Properties and identified on the GDP as "Middletown Woods", shall be maintained using best management practices. 14.3 The Applicant proffers to keep its mining operations at least 200 feet from the edge of Cedar Creek. • • 15. Phasing 15.1 The Applicant agrees that mining activities on the Properties shall occur with the following phasing and as set forth on the Phasing Plans of the GDP: After the rezoning is approved, the Applicant will start creating berms on the newly rezoned Properties and the Applicant shall start quarrying in the area identified as parcel 23. Mining in parcel 23 shall occur from the time period commencing with the approval of the rezoning for a period of time which is estimated to be twenty years. For the newly zoned area, which is north of the existing EM zoned property, and south of Chapel Road, mining activities will commence no earlier than ten years from the date that the rezoning referenced herein is approved. For the newly zoned area, which lies north of Chapel Road, mining will commence no earlier than twenty years from the date that the rezoning referenced herein is approved. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Respectfully submitted, O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY LOW Its: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Registration number: _ 7� 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PAR NERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) 7 a 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 540-662-4304 JAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON April 21, 2008 HAND -DELIVERED Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 PLEASE REPLY TO'. P. O. BOX 848 WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22604-0646 Re: Chemstone -- Middletown [O.M. Minerals (Chemstone) Company] Proposed Proffer Statement -- Updated Review Dear Mike: I have received a copy of a revised Proposed Proffer Statement delivered to the County on April 18, 2008, in the above matter, and this will update my proffer review letter dated April 4, 2008 (as revised by my proffer review letter dated April 11, 2008 as to Proffer 3.1). Attached to this letter is a copy of a letter dated April 18, 2008 to me from Applicant's counsel, Thomas Lawson ("April 18 Lawson Letter"), which letter offers comments on the Applicant's revisions, or lack thereof, to Proffers 1.2, 3.3, 5. 1, and 5.2. Before addressing the specific numbered paragraphs of my April 4 proffer review letter, I would offer the following general comments: A. In response to comments in my April 4 proffer review letter that the two separate parcels which are the subject of the rezoning needed to be identified in the Proffer Statement by parcel number to avoid confusion, the Applicant has revised the Proffer Statement to refer to the respective parcels by parcel number. However, 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy April 21, 2008 Page 2 the identification of the parcels by the abbreviated parcel number designation needs to be identified at the beginning. Accordingly, I would recommend that the "PROPERTY" heading of the Proposed Proffer Statement, in referring to the Tax Map Parcels, be revised to state as follows: "Tax Map Parcels 83-A-109 ("Parcel 109") and 90-A-23 ("Parcel 23") (collectively, the "Properties"). In addition, the Proposed Proffer Statement should be consistent throughout in the manner in which it refers to the respective parcels. B. The Applicant has not shown the most recent revision date in the heading of the Proposed Proffer Statement. A revision date of April 18, 2008 should be inserted in the "REVISION DATES" portion of the heading. C. In response to a comment in my April 4 proffer review letter, the Applicant has, in the last two sentences of the second paragraph of the Proposed Proffer Statement, made reference to the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). However, reference to the GDP needs to be more complete and specific, as the plats and plans submitted as the GDP would become a part of an approved proffer statement. In this regard, I offer the following continents: (1) The proffer statement references a GDP dated March 18, 2008. However, the GDP plats submitted with the March 18, 2008 Proposed Proffer Statement are dated "June 2007". The reference to the date of the GDP needs to be corrected. (2) The next to the last sentence should more specifically identify what is being submitted as the GDP. I would suggest language along the following lines: "The Applicant attaches and incorporates the GDP, which includes a plan titled Generalized Development Plan; a plan titled Overall Plan; four plans titled Phase I Plan, Phase II Plan, Phase III Plan and Phase IV Plan; and ten viewshed plats titled Viewshed IA, Viewshed 113, Viewshed 2, Viewshed 3, Viewshed 4A, Viewshed 413, Viewshed 5A, Viewshed 513, Viewshed 6, Viewshed 7 and Viewshed 8." • • HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy April 21, 2008 Page 3 (3) In the last sentence of the second paragraph the Applicant states "The Applicant submits its operations and activities will be in general conformance with the Generalized Development Plan." The usual reference to a GDP in a proffer statement is to proffer that the development will be in "substantial conformity" with the GDP. Accordingly, I would recommend that the last sentence of the second paragraph be revised to state as follows: "The Applicant proffers that its operations and activities and development of the Properties will be in substantial conformity with the GDP." The following comments are referenced to the paragraph numbers in my April 4 proffer review letter: 1. This continent is directed to the Board for its information. 2. This continent has been addressed. However, see comment A, above. 3. The Applicant has made no change in the Proffer Statement in response to this comment. 4. (Proffer 1.2) I do not find Proffer 1.2 to be a problem, assuming that the County wants the Applicant to proffer out "natural gas -fired power plants or facilities which sell power to the local utility or power grid." 5. (Proffer 2.2) The comment in my April 4 proffer review letter has been addressed by the revision to this proffer, subject to staff confirming that from the GDP it can determine the width of the distance buffers. 6. (Proffer 2.3) To some extent, the Applicant has responded to part of my comments on Proffer 2.3 by snaking reference to some of the plans in the GDP. However, the revised proffer is, at best, confusing and incomplete. The revised proffer states "The berm depicted on the Phase I plat shall be installed within 10 years of the approval of the rezoning." However, the Phase I Plan depicts two berms, "BERM A" and "BERM B". Further, this would seem to indicate that mining HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy April 21, 2008 Page 4 operations would commence on Parcel 23 immediately (See Proffer 15.1), but that the berm would not be created until up to 10 years later. Further, the proffer makes no reference to the Viewshed plats which are a part of the GDP and which presumably establish the height and location of the berm or berms. Therefore, it is my opinion that this proffer needs to be amended to address the foregoing issues. Further, the second sentence of Proffer 2.3, which states "Such landscaping shall consist of a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed in a random manner in order to be consistent with existing vegetation patterns", is not specific as to the landscaping to be installed, and the conument in my April 4 proffer review letter that the proffer state that the specific landscaping shall be subject to approval by the County at the time of site plan submittal still stands. 7. (Proffer 3.1) The Applicant has made no change in this proffer in response to comments contained in my April 4 proffer review letter, as revised by my April 11 letter recommending that this proffer provide for the dedication of the 8 acre site specifically to Belle Grove, Inc. The Applicant apparently is unwilling to do this. All of my comments on this proffer still apply. In addition, if the 8 acres is to be dedicated for historic preservation, I question why it is included in the area to be rezoned EM. 8. (Proffer 3.2) The Applicant has made no revisions in Proffer 3.2 to the address the comments in my April 4 proffer review letter. 9. (Proffer 3.3) The Applicant, in response to the comment in my April 4 proffer review letter that the proffer should include a provision that the cemeteries will remain in an undisturbed state following the historical restoration, has added the following: "After the historical restoration, the Applicant will follow the reconunendations of Applicant's historian." This sentence has been added with respect to both cemeteries. It should be noted that the Applicant is stating that it will following the recommendations of its own historian. The comments in my April 4 proffer review letter regarding the right of way and the access to the cemeteries for visitors still apply. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy April 21, 2008 Page 5 10. (Proffer 5.1) I still find Proffer 5.1 to unclear. It would appear from the attached April 18 Lawson Letter that the three monitoring wells will be installed only with respect to mining operations on Parcel 109, and that there will be no monitoring wells installed with respect to mining operations of Parcel 23. The proffer should be clarified to specifically state on which parcel the monitoring wells shall be placed. 11. (Proffer 5.2) The Applicant's revision to Proffer 9.2 has addressed one concern of this proffer (see attached April 18 Lawson Letter). However, by having the phrase "Subject to and consistent with the provisions of paragraph 9.2" at the beginning of the first sentence, it still may limit the responsibility of the Applicant to remediate adverse impacts to wells to those properties which opted for a pre - mining survey under Proffer 9.2. It is still my recontinendation that that phrase be deleted from the beginning of Proffer 5.2. 12. (Proffer 6.1) The Applicant has made no changes in this proffer in response to the continents in my April 4 proffer review letter. 13. (Proffer 8.1) My continents on this proffer are directed to staff and the Board. 14. (Proffer 9.3) The Applicant has made the revision suggested by the first sentence of my comments on this proffer. The Applicant has made no changes in the insurance provisions to address an escalator. 15. (Proffer 12.1) The Applicant addressed my concern by its revision of the first sentence of the proffer. However, the Applicant has added the second sentence, which states "Lighting used for devices or machines that convey materials or for pit crushing facilities and other mining activities is permitted." It is not clear whether this is saying that the Applicant can put lighting structures above -ground on the berms, despite the provisions of the first sentence, or whether this is talking about lighting that is actually on the devices or machines. This should be clarified. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy April 21, 2008 Page 6 16. (Proffer 14.1) My continent on this proffer is directed to staff. 17. (Proffer 14.2) Based on my discussions with Mr. Lawson, it appears that this proffer is meant to apply to trees located on portions of the parcels which are not being rezoned. It would appear that all of Parcel 23 is being rezoned, and, therefore, this proffer is meant to apply to the portion of Parcel 109 which is not being rezoned. This proffer needs to be reworded to specifically identify the location of the area of trees which is the subject of this proffer. Also, the area or areas of trees referenced in this proffer should be located and identified on the GDP, with a reference in the proffer to the GDP. (My review of the Tax Map would indicate that none of the parcels adjoining Parch 23 or Parcel 109 are titled to the same entity which owns Parcels 23 and 109. Further, no other parcels are made subject to these proffers. Therefore, this Applicant could not effectively proffer to maintain trees on any parcels other than Parcels 23 and 109.) 18. (Proffer 14.3) My continent on this proffer is directed to staff. Applicant has removed the reference to an "attached and incorporated plat". 19. (Proffer 15) This proffer still needs to reference the Phasing Plans made a part of the GDP, and to proffer that the phasing will be substantial conformity with the Phasing Plans of the GDP. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing updated comments, please contact me. RTM/ks CC: Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire, via fax LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C. 120 EXETER DRIVE, SUITE 200 POST OFFICE BOX 2740 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 TELEPHONE: (540) 665-0050 FACSIMILE: (540) 722-4051 April 18, 2008 Robert T. Mitchell, Esquire Hall, Monahan, Engle, Mahan & Mitchell P.O. Box 848 Winchester, VA 22604 THOMAS MOORE LAWSON • TLAWSONQLSPLC.COM Re: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Rezoning Our File No. 462.006 It was nice meeting with you yesterday to discuss to the Chemstone proffers. Enclosed please find a red line proffer statement which incorporates the changes we discussed in our meeting. As agreed I have noted the changes to the proffers in a red -line form. I need to point out a couple of changes which I believe capture the matters we discussed but may not necessarily have the same language that you and I discussed in our meetings. With regard to paragraph 1.2, I did not put in the public utility language used in the code which is a by -right use in the EM zoning. The reason for this is that we have an agreement with the Sanitation Authority, which is of course a public utility. As I told you previously in one of our public meetings, a member of the audience interpreted the reference to public utility to include power plants, and we have agreed to proffer out that use regardless of whether there is an interpretation that use is allowed or not. In paragraph 3.3, we revised that to put in the language you and I discussed confirming that after the cemeteries have been restored the property owner will follow the recommendations of the Applicant's historian. If you care to see that information we did provide the county with approximately 35 copies of the ECS historical report. In paragraph 5.1, we deleted the reference that you and I discussed about installing a monitoring well south of the southernmost property. The reason for this is that our hydrologist confirms that all water flows in a southerly direction as a result there will be no need to monitor the water in that area. The three monitoring wells referenced in the proffers are intended to surround the northern properties. In paragraph 5.2, I left the language "subject to and consistent with the provisions of 9.2" but I did make revisions to 9.2 to refer to pre -mining xonditions as opposed to pre -blast conditions. I believe your concern with the old language was that we were limiting the well guarantees to blast related damages. FRONT ROYAL ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 602, FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630, TELEPHONE: (540) 635-9415, FACSIMILE: (540) 635-9421, E-r1A1L: SILEKJC.ILYNXCONNECT.COM FAIRFAX ADDRESS: 10805 MAIN STREET, SUITE 200, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030, TELEPHONE: (703) 352-2615, FACSIMILE: (703) 3524190, E-MAIL: THOn1ASO.LA1vsON@YERIZON.NET Robert T. Mitchell, Esq* is April 18, 2008 Page 2 After you have reviewed the enclosed, should you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me. TML.jk cc: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Apr.19. 2008 11:54AM • No,1544 P- 1 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) 7 & 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 FAST BOSCAWEN STREET TH()MAS V. MONAIIAN (1924-1999) LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA SAMUEL U. ENGLE TELEPHONE; 703-777-1050 TELFPHONE: 540-662-3200 O. LELAND MAHAN PAX: 703-771-4113 FAX:540-662-4304 ROBERT T. MITCHEL L, JR. E-MAIL: lawyCrs@llallmonaliall.com JAMES A, ICLENKAR STEVEN f . JACKSON PLEASE REPLY TO: P.O, BOX 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA22604-0848 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET DATE: 4 n PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL TRANSMIT TO: Name: Location: Fax No.: FROM: Name: Location: Winchester, Virginia Fax No.: (540) 662-4304 MESSAGE: v e 'ed L�s �s ,f ��� S Ih 4 '� w �l C� ,� � � �Ee�y�ls 4e✓ \T r?" I'L(_ -" _�ta11 A/_Q-,A 'F— _ 111 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE) : l Z' Apr,19, 2008 11:54AM i 0 No,1544 P, 2 LA►WSON AND SILEK, P.L.C. 120 EXE71R DRIVE. SUITE 200 p0$T OFFICE BOX 2740 WINCFlESTER, VA 22604 TELEPHONE: (540) 665-0050 FACSINULE: (540) 727,4051 April 18, 2008 Robert T. Mitchell, Esquire Fall, Monahan, Engle, Mahan & Mitchell P.O. Box 848 Winchester, VA 22604 Dear Bob: TFIONtAS MOORE LAWSON •JT.WSCL L_`P 1Co Re: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Rezoning Our file No. 462.006 It was 'nice meeting with you yesterday to discuss to the Chemstone proffe . .En'in our closed please find - a red .line proffer statement which incorporates the changes form�n I needt o point meeting. As agreed 1 have noted the changes to the proffers 1n a red -line out a couple of changes which I believe capture the matters we discussed but may not necessarily have the same language that you and I discussed in our meetings. With regard to paragraph 1.2, I did not put in the public utility language used in the code which is a by -right use in the EM zoning. The reason for this is that we have an agreement with the Sanitation Authority, which is of course a public.utility. As I told you previously in one of our public meetings, a mcmbcr - of the audience interpreted the reference to. public utility to whetherere is an include power plants, and we have agreed to proffer out that us lthat tof put in thelanguage interpretation that use is allowed or not. In paragraph 3.3, we revised you and I discussed confirming that after the cemeteries have been restored the property owner will follow the recommendations of the Applicant's historian.the fE.you care to historical see e that information we did provide the county with approximately 35 copies In paragraph 5.), we deleted the reference that you and I discussed about installing a monitoring well south of the. southernmost. property. The reason for this is that our hydrologist confirms that all water flows in'a southerly direction as .a result there will be no need to monitor the water in that area. 'The three mnomitoring wells referenced uatee`pub ect to and cended to surround the northern properties. In paragraph 5.2, I left the language J nt with the' provisions of 9.2" but I did make o�? concern with the old language was thatsions to 9.2 to refer to pre -mining dnwe wetions re opposed to pre -blast conditions. I believe y limiting the well guarantees to blast related damages. FRuNT ROYAL ADDRESS-, PONT OMCE NOX 6021 FRIINT RorAL, VTROINIA 22630, TRLEPHONIC: (540) 619.9415, FMSIMILL' (640) 635.9421, l�-MAIL= S'LEKJC"LYNXCfJNNECr.CUM FA,RFAXADNUEE: 10905 MAIN STREY.7'. SUrU 200, YAIRVA:, VIWOINlA 22930,TELE1'RoNK: (703) 342-2615, FAc:s1MUX: (103) 352.4190, £•MA1X,: TIIoMA�•LAWK(jNWnRIZA)N.NET Apr`19, 2008 11:55AM • Robert T. Mitchell, Esquire April 18, 2008 Page 2 No,1544 P- 3 After you have reviewed the enclosed, should you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me. TML:jk cc: O N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Apr.19, 2008 11:55AM . • No,1544 P- 4 REZONING: PROPERTY: RECORD OWNER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE(S) PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT RZ# 03-06 Rural Areas (RA) to Extractive Manufacturing (EM) 639.13 Acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 (the "Properties") O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Chemstone - Middletown June 13, 2005 January 16, 2006 February 8, 2006 August 28, 2006 March 18, 2008 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject properties ("Properties"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, m,Mcb shall supersede all other proffers on the Properties that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above -referenced EM conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Properties with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Properties adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless. otherwise specified herein. Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, O-N Minerals (Chemstone)" dated March 18, 2008 (the "GDP"). The Applicant attaches and incorporates drawings identified Lis Exhibits . as representations of its Generalized Apr.19. 2008 11:55AM • No,1544 P. 5 Development Plan The Applicant submits its operations and activities will be in general conformance with the Generalized Development Plan. Land Use 1.1 The Properties shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, and shall therefore conform to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining of the Commonwealth of 'Virginia. 1.2 The Applicant hereby proffers not to engage in the following uses on the Properties: Oil and natural gas extraction; Asphalt and concrete mixing plants; Brick, block and precast concrete products; Cement and lime kilns; and Coal and natural gas -fired power plants or facilities which still power to the local utility oy rower Did* *This is not to be interpreted as a restriction against using power plants on the Properties as necessary to support extractive mining activities. 2. Site Development 2.1 Properties' access via public secondary roads shall be limited to the existing quarry entrance on McCune Road (Route 757). Access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the Properties shall not be limited. 2.2 Distance buffers shall be provided along the perimeter of the Properties in addition to those required by the Zoning Ordinance. The depth of said buffers shall be determined at the time of site plan submission, and will vary based upon the topography of the site boundary,: 'These buffers shall be in general conformity with the Generalized Development Plan. 2.3 Earthen berms installed around the Properties' active quarry pits shall be landscaped to minimize impacts to the viewshed of the surrounding community. Such landscaping shall consist of a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed in a random manner in order to be consistent with existing vegetation patterns. Said berms shall be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet and be of a minimum height of 1.0 feet Said berms shall be installed in the followingorder. The berm depicted on the Phase I plat shall be installed within 10 years of the approval of the rezoning.: The berm depicted on the Phase 11 plat shall be installed no later than 10 years prior to the commen.cer+lent of mining north of Chapel Road. 3. Historic Resources Apr-19- 2008 11:55AM • No,1544 P- 6 3.1 The Applicant shall create an 8 acre historic reserve as shown on the GDP, within which archeological resources and other historic activities have been identified. Further, the Applicant shall place restrictions on the reserve land for how the reserve will be used by the Properties' owner and future owners. Said reserve land shall be dedicated to a recognized historical association and/or group within one year of final rezoning. 3.2 The Applicant shall complete a Phase Y Archaeological Survey of the Properties Nef4hem Resei=ve an4*�'aa�� * Aa depicted on the GDP within Zile ,,.uA�„ t, one year of final rezoning or prior to any land disturbance of the portion of parcel 83-A-109 and parcel 90-A-23. Said survey shall locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects on the parcels. Such survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines for a Phase * 1 Survey as defined in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources "GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY TN VIRGTNIA - Chapter 7; Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Virginia," 1999 (Rev. Jan. 2003). 3.3 Two cemeteries have been identified on the Properties. The first cemetery is located adjacent to Chapel Road and is in an area that is not designated for mining and is also outside of the berming area. That cemetery is currently undergoing a historical restoration. After the historical restoration, the Applicant w-i11 follow the recommendations of the Applicanfs historian. The second cemetery is located in the area where berming is slated to be installed. The Applicant proffers the berming will be located in such a way as to not encroach on the cemetery. This cemetery is also currently undergoing a historical restoration. After Lhe historical restoration the Applicant will rollow the recommendations of the Applicant's historian. In addition, the cemetery is accessed through a right-of-way which is of record providing access to the cemetery from Route 625. The Applicant proffers to open said right-of-way so that it can be used for access by the relatives of those in the cemetery. It is anticipated that once said right-of-way has been opened, the Applicant will provide continued maintenance and have use of same. 4. Rights -to � Water Supply 4.1 The Applicant shall guarantee the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) rights to the water resources available on the Properties in accordance with the existing agreements between the Applicant and FCSA. Ground Water 5.1 The Applicant shall install a minimum of three monitoring wells to effectively establish and monitor the groundwater level in order to avoid detrimental impacts to surrounding properties. Said wells shall be installed prior to any land Apr,19, 2008 11:55AM No.1544 P. 1 disturbance of the portion of the Properties identified as parcel 83-A-109 by the GDP, and shall be located within 500 feet of the Properties' boundaries. A minimum of one monitoring well shall be installed within 500 feet of the parcel number 109 Properties' boundary. 5.2 Subject to and consistent with the provisions of paragraph 9.2, the Applicant shall rernediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations on the Properties. Costs associated with any required rernediation shall be borne by the Applicant. Furthermore, the Applicant agrees to participate in a pre -blast survey and well monitoring survey, as further described herein. The intent of the aforementioned surveys is to provide a mechanism to remediate any adverse impacts to wells and/or structures, which are caused by the mining operations on the Properties. 6. Dust Control 6.1 Dust from drills, shot piles, material handling, screens, crushers, conveyors, feeders, hoppers, stockpiles, load -outs, and traffic areas shall be controlled by wet suppression or equivalent, and controlled by and consistent with the terms of the Department of Environmental Quality general air permit. The Applicant shall remodiate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the mining operations on the Properties. 7. Blasting Control 7.1 All blasting associated with mining operations on the Properties shall be limited by the miring permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy. peak Particle Velocities (PPV) associated with blasting on the Properties shall not exceed the levels stipulated by said permit. In addition, Applicant agrees to have an approved blasting plan in place at all times. An example of the current blasting plan is attached. Further, in addition, Applicant agrees that there will be no block holing or adobe blasting conducted on the Properties. Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting on the Properties shall- be remediated at the Applicant's expense. 8. Traffic 8.1 The Applicant agrees to restrict truck traffic to the Properties to a maximum of 200 truck loads per day averaged over the prior 30 days through the scale house hauling mined materials on and/or off the proposed quarry site from the existing quarry entrance. The maximum number of trips will be regulated by the Applicant and its successors and/or assigns. A record of the actual -number of truck trips per day shall be kept current (and maintained for one year) by the Applicant at its scale house office. Said record shall be made available in a form Apr-19, 2008 11:55AM No,1544 P. 8 which confirms the number of trips and the form will be produced to Frederick County officials upon demand with reasonable notice. 9. Pre -Blast Surveys 9.1 The Applicant will offer voluntary pre -blast surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the Properties' boundaries. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent engineering firm, which will investigate and document the pre -blast conditions of the participants' residences and/or outbuildings. All citizens who have property adjacent to the Properties can and are encouraged to participate in the survey by contacting the Applicant and scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent engineering firm to visit the party's residence to document and survey the pre -blast condition of the party's residences/outbuildings. The Applicant's and/or its engineering firm shall further have the right to visit and inspect the party's residences/outbuildings to monitor the condition of the same. A record of those pre -blast conditions will be kept by the independent engineering firm with copies retained by the Applicant and the participating property owner. In the event of a change in condition, which is alleged by the adjoining property owner as a result of mining operations, the engineering firm will then conduct a follow-up visit and investigation and use the pre -blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. Said analysis shall be used to determine the cause of any negative change in condition. if it is determined there is a change in condition in the residences/outbuildings, which has been caused by the Applicant's mining activities on the Properties, then the Applicant agrees to remediate and/or repair said negative change in condition to restore it to its status prior to blasting operations. In addition, the Applicant agrees to establish seismic monitoring of the proposed quarry site to monitor all blasting activities and keep records of said seismic monitoring as required by the Virginia Division of Mines, Minerals and Energy. 9.2 The Applicant will offer voluntary well monitoring surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the Properties' boundaries. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent well drilling firm, which will investigate and document the pre .s�trzinhi conditions of the participants' wells. All citizens who have property located within 1,500 feet of the Properties' boundaries can and are encouraged to participate in the survey by contacting the Applicant and scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent well drilling firm to visit the party's residence to document and survey the pre -blast condition of the parry's well. A record of these pre-bht&tminin conditions will be kept by the independent well drilling firm, with copies retained by the Applicant and the participating property owner. In the event a change of condition is alleged by the property owner as a result of mining operations, the Applicant will provide an interim replacement water supply as necessary to supply the property owner with water. The well drilling firm will then conduct a follow-up visit and investigation and use pre -blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. If it is determined that the status of the neighboring property owner's well has deteriorated from the condition it was in at the time of the pre -blast survey, then Apr,19, 2008 11:56AM • No.1544 P. 9 the Applicant agrees to restore the well to its condition existing at the time of the pre -blast survey and/or provide the adjoining property owner a replacement well of the same condition (or better) of that which existed at that time of the pre -blast survey. ' 9.3 In addition to the above, the Applicant agrees to maintain in force an insurance policy or other sufficient security for then period of time covering the active mining operations on the Properties and to maintain in effect for a period of one year from the date of cessation of said mining operations, and to cover the costs of any remediation and/or repair, which is required pursuant to the terms of sections 9.1 and 9.2 above. Said policy or surety shall be in the amount of no less than One Million and 00/100 Dollars (S1,000,000.00) per occurrence. 10. Reclamation 10.1 It is intended that pursuant to the terms of the agreement reached with the FCSA that at the time of cessation of mining activities, the Properties' quarry pits shall be used by the FCSA as water reservoirs. The control of the water levels in the quarry pits shall be handed over to the FCSA. It is intended that the quarry pits at that time will contain quantities of water monitored and directed by the FCSA, and which will be conducive to the general betterment of natural habitat. 11. Noise Abatement 11.1 Operations on the Properties will not exceed the Virginia Department of Mines and Minerals Engineering's decibel guidelines. The Applicant will make all reasonable efforts to locate mining machinery in the quarry pit or behind berms. 12. Lighting 12.1 , There shall be no pe ae4l-y—affixed lighting structures above -ground on the berms other than as may be used required for or 'provided by regulations chat affect the laa�1 o orations including but not linii.ted to Mine Safety Health Administration "MSHA" 1, Viminia. Departnient of Mines and Minerals and Ener v v "QNWE . and aily other ?overruncntal or re latary body that oversees miniD P, operations. c _ des; wee cc +• O. y b _ ruet- H.es. Lightin used for devices or machines that convey materials or. for pit crushing facilities acid other minir activities is ermined. Conveying and pit crushing facilities shall also be interpreted as including such other devices or activities that perform similar or related fimetions that may come into use and/or existence at some time in the future while the extractive mining use is still in effect on the Properties. AprA19- 2008 11:56AM • No,1544 P. 10 I IS 13. Air Permit 13.1 The Applicant shall maintain its existing general air permit controlling emissions in accordance with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality standards and also see that the existing general air permit covers all activities conducted on the rezoned Properties. 14, Environment 14.1 In addition to compliance with the VPDES water discharge permit already in place, the Applicant agrees to work with a recognized environmental entity of the Applicant's choosing during its operations to ensure that the water emissions from water flowing from the quarry operations on the Properties is of a quality consistent with the water quality in Cedar Creek so as to maintain an environment conducive to natural habitats. No additional water discharge points will be added. 14.2 The Applicant agrees that the all areas currently in trees on property owned by the Applicant, which is outside of the rezoned Properties, shall be niaintaine-d using best mana2ernent practices. and v4iieh,�� ����,,..,, '.,1��,,j�TSUlt. J�NVSl.�vuia, �.,vy✓��,�a,,avv... ... .+ke iAtaeihed a12a�1�'� plat, [i' *Rt-3EiAt�.` 4 s not part ems—r-GixF}r}ii�+-. 14.3 The Applicant proffers to keep its mining operations at least 200 feet from the edge of Cedar Creek. - l shed and ,'Nstallee may be L1IVL VLiUV V. 15. Phasing 15.1 The Applicant agrees that mining activities on the Properties shall occur with the following phasing: After the rezoning is approved, the Applicant will start creating bernis on the newly rezoned Properties and the Applicant shall start quarrying in the area identified as the Miming in !he- Neie enamel 23 area -shall occur from the time period commencing with the approval of the rezoning for a period of time which is estimated to be twenty years. For the newly zoned area, which is north of the existing EM zoned property, and south of Chapel Road, mining activities will commence no earlier than ten years from the date that the rezoning referenced herein is approved. For the newly zoned area, which lies north of Chapel Road, mining will commence no earlier than twenty years from the date that the rezoning referenced herein is approved. Avr,19, 2008 11:56AM 9 No,1544 P- 11 SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Apr-19. 2008 11:56AM • • No,1544 P. 12 0 Respectfully submitted, O-N MINERALS (CBEMSTONE) COMPANY 6.0 Its: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit; The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2008, by My commission expires: NOTARY PUBLIC K COUN w * Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 ,.w FAX: 540/ 665-6395 September 8, 2006 Mr. Thomas Moore Lawson Lawson and Silek, P.L.C. 120 Exeter Drive, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22604 RE: Rezoning #03-06; O-N Minerals Chemstone Company Preliminary Review of Revised Proffer Statement Dated August 23, 2006 Dear Ty: The County appreciates the opportunity to review an advanced copy of the above referenced revised Proffer Statement. It is our hope that the additional comments offered by the County will be helpful to the Applicants as they continue to work on this rezoning application. General All comments previously offered by Mr. Bob Mitchell, County Attorney, in his review letter dated March 27, 2006 should be thoroughly addressed. As revised, the proffer statement does not address any of those comments offered by Mr. Mitchell. Staff would support the County Attorney's opinion that any proffer that provides a commitment to do something that is already required by Federal, State, and Local requirements, or the Applicant's Mining Permit, should be removed from the proffer statement. For purposes of clarity and understanding it would be preferable to limit the commitments in the proffer statement to those that are above and beyond the scope of any existing requirements, whether required by Code or by Permit. Land Use A generalized development plan, in conjunction with the proffer statement, is an efficient tool that the applicant could use to further clarify any commitments made as part of the rezoning application. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 RZ03-06 Revised Proffer Comments September 8, 2006 Page 2 The Applicant may want to better utilize the generalized development plan. For instance, the specific areas of land disturbance could be clarified; the location of any buffers, berms, screening, and landscaping could be identified; areas of existing mature woodlands that are to be preserved could be identified; and, the location of any additional site development improvements could be shown. The Applicant's proffer (1.2) to not engage in certain uses restates the uses as identified in the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of cement and lime kilns. It may be clearer to specifically prohibit the uses and also to use the same language that is contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The final part of the sentence does not appear to be necessary. The Applicant has previously stated that the future use of the property will be consistent with the present use of the property. Further, that no additional construction of buildings or facilities associated with the mining operation will occur on the properties for which the rezoning is being sought. To that end, the proffer statement provides the applicant with the opportunity to clarify the scope of any additional building or facility construction, beyond the mining operations, on the properties being rezoned. Due consideration should be given to buildings that may be erected by the FCSA as part of the future use of the property as a water source. In general, the proffer statement and generalized development plan provide the Applicant with the opportunity to further define the scope of the land use activity on the property. Limiting the potential acreage of development, new facility construction, and the type of uses on the property would limit the potential impacts of the EM development of this property. Site Development The Applicant's proffer (2.1) to clarify site access does not specifically address the prohibition of vehicles between the properties bisected by Chapel Road. It may be helpful to provide additional assurances that vehicular access and/or commercial entrances to and from the site will not occur in this location. The use of a viewshed analysis, as previously suggested, that addresses the unique viewsheds and approaches critical to the perspectives of the various identified historical stakeholders would be helpful. The approach could also be used for the adjacent property owners. The Applicant has the ability to proffer a specific viewshed mitigation plan. This would be preferable to the present approach, which restates existing State requirements and provides no commitment to a minimum standard designed to achieve an effective buffering, berming, and landscaping plan. RZ03-06 Revised Proffer Comments September 8, 2006 Page 3 The distance buffers and landscaped earthen berms proffered (2.1 and 2.2) would be required by current DMME regulations. Consideration should be given to providing a more sensitive approach to the unique environmental and aesthetic qualities of the area of the property adjacent to Cedar Creek. A significant riparian buffer, consisting of preservation of the mature woodland areas adjacent to Cedar Creek, would appear to be a reasonable consideration for inclusion into the generalized development plan for the property. The protection of other enviromnental features that exist on the property would also be desirable. Consideration should also be given to providing a more detailed approach to the viewshed mitigation along Chapel Road. This may include a sensitive approach to buffer and screening, along both sides of this rural road. Historic Resources With regards to the historic reserve proffer (3.1), the recipient of the historic reserve area should be identified and incorporated into the proffers and the mechanism for the dedication of the property should be more specific and timely. It may be helpful to dedicate an area of no disturbance and/or tree preservation around the site to assist in preserving the integrity of the dedicated historical area. It was previously noted that the mature woodlands between the dedicated area and the ridgeline above the dedicated area provide a good area for such a preservation buffer and is beyond the area proposed for mining operations. The proffer to complete a Phase 1 archeological survey of the property (3.2) appears to be for only one of the two properties. It should be clarified that the Survey would be applicable to parcel 90-A-23 in addition to the stated parcel 83-A-109. The applicant has proffered to complete a Phase 1 Archeological Survey of the property in the future. However, as noted by Mr. Mitchell, no commitments have been made beyond a Phase 1 Survey and the proffer does not address what protection will be afforded to any historic sites, buildings, structures, or objects identified in the archeological survey. A commitment to any necessary additional surveys consistent with the guidelines of the Department of Historic Resources may be appropriate. Staff would concur that the preferable chronology would be to have the Phase 1 Archeological Survey completed prior to the rezoning, so that any historical elements could be addressed as part of the rezoning process. Special attention should be provided to addressing the burial sites that are located on the property. These features were not identified in the Applicant's Impact Statement. It would be desirable to deal with the unique concerns of these features ahead of, and independent from, the Cultural Resource Surveys. R7-03-06 Revised Proffer Comments September 8, 2006 Page 4 Rights to Water Supply. Proffer 4.1 appears to be an umlecessary proffer, based upon the understanding that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority already has an agreement in place which secures the ground water resources of the property. Transportation Proffer 8.1 does not appear to provide for a valid independent and indisputable mechanism for monitoring a proffered limitation on truck traffic. The Applicant has not addressed the potential impacts associated with the anticipated truck trips on the existing street system. In particular, the nature of the truck trips within the Town of Middletown. In addition, the inter -site activity of heavy equipment and vehicles could be addressed further within the Proffer Statement. Ground Water / Dust Control / Blasting Controls The proffer (5,1) to install a minimum of three monitoring wells would be more effective if the locations of the wells were identified and independently determined to be appropriate. Given the geological features of the immediate area, it is presently questionable as to how many wells would be necessary, and which locations would be appropriate. Further, impacts associated with the development of Parcel 90-A-23 and the residential properties adjacent to this parcel, in particular in the Meadow Mills area, should also be a consideration. The proffer should be clarified to identify if the wells are to be located on the property or on adjacent property within 500' of the property line. Proffer 5.2 does not describe how the adverse impacts would be determined and who would determine that they were caused by mining operations on the property. Further, the proffer does not describe how they would be remediated, and who would determine the scope of the costs associated with any remediation. The above comment is generally applicable to all of the proffers that attempt to address the nuisance impacts associated with the mining of the property. Lacking more specificity, it would appear as though a third party would be necessary in interpreting and determining the details of the resolution of the proffers. Ultimately, this may involve the County and the Court system, both of which would be undesirable. Lacking the needed specificity, the enforceability of the proffers is questionable. The burden of enforceability would be the County's. An alternative approach for the application and proffer statement may be to seek to better understand the potential impacts associated with the proposed mining operations and seek to avoid them by refining the potential scope of mining operations. RZ03-06 Revised Proffer Comments September 8, 2006 Page 5 The second paragraph of Proffer 5.2 should be removed, as it is a descriptive narrative. The commitment is described in Proffer 9.1. Proffer 6.1 is required by the Applicant's permit. When the term surrounding properties is used in the proffer statement, greater definition as to what properties would be included as surrounding properties should be provided. Proffer 6.2 does not appear to make sense as a sentence. Regardless, any adverse impacts should be avoided. Proffer 7.1 identifies two specific methods of blasting that are proposed to be prohibited. Further definition of these methods should be provided, as should the avenue for regulation. Would this be the responsibility of the DMME through their permitting process, or would it be the responsibility of the County as this may exceed the requirements of the DMME? The mechanism for voluntary pre -blast surveys, Proffer 9.1, should be established prior to the acceptance of the proffer statement. Further, the properties that are immediately adjacent should be clearly defined. Would this include property owners adjacent to either properties or only Parcel 83-A-109? Also, who would bear the expense involved in determining that changes in condition are caused by the Applicant's mining operations? There may be an expense in resolving these issues that would be borne by the adjacent property owners. The monitoring of blasting activities is required by the Applicant's permit. Proffer 9.2 should ensure that a well provided in replacement of a well that was damaged due to mining operations be fully operational. This may entail a well that is not in the same condition as that which existed at the time of any pre -blast survey. For instance, a new well may need to be deeper to ensure a sustainable production of water for the property owner. Proffer 9.3, which addresses bonding, is not clearly written and does not provide information on the mechanism of implementation. The proffer appears to only be applicable if the property owners agree to participate in 9.1 and 9.2, and if it was determined that it was caused by the Applicant's mining operations. It may be helpful if the Applicant could provide information about their current bonding status with the DMME, their participation in the Minerals Reclamation Fund (MRF), and the potential costs associated with remediation and repair of adjacent wells and properties. Many of the proffers noted above lack detail sufficient enough to make the Proffer Statement enforceable. 6W RZ03-06 Revised Proffer Comments September 8, 2006 Page 6 Reclamation It may be helpful for the Applicant to demonstrate how the ultimate design and layout of the properties would occur upon the cessation of mining operations and subsequent use of the property as a water source. The reclamation plan should be designed so any reclamation activities and materials would be located in their final natural position. A phased approach to the timing and placement of reclamation materials may be desirable to address the buffering, screening, and berming components of any viewshed mitigation plans that are provided with this application. Again, the Generalized Development Plan may be helpful in achieving this objective. Proffer 10.2 may be unnecessary. Proffers 11.1, 12.1, and 13.1 are redundant, as they are required by the Applicant's permit. Environmental Proffer 13.2 could be clarified with regards to the discharge point onto Cedar Creek. The existing discharge point is located on property that is not part of this rezoning request. Any additional discharge points from all of the properties owned by the Applicant could be prohibited. As stated previously, the above comments are provided to assist the Applicant in their ongoing improvement of this rezoning application. The comments do not constitute an all-inclusive list of all of the issues associated with this rezoning application. Rather, it is an effort to recognize the more apparent issues. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, i Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director MTR/bad cc: Mr. John Riley, Jr., County Administrator. Mr. Richard Shickle, Chairman, Frederick County Board of Supervisors Mr. Spencer Stinson, .O-N Minerals Global Chemstone r • HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PARTNER5HIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) 7 a 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 0. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-562-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 540-662-4304 JAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL Iawyers@hallmonahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON April 4, 2008 HAND -DELIVERED Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22604-0848 Re: Chemstone -- Middletown [O.M. Minerals (Chemstone) Company] Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Mike: I have reviewed the above -referenced proposed Proffer Statement with a revision date of March 18, 2008. (By letter dated March 27, 2006, I had previously reviewed a Proposed Proffer Statement with a revision date of February 17, 2006 in this rezoning.) It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. This Rezoning Application is for two separate, non-contiguous parcels. It is important to note that, as submitted, the proposed proffers do not apply separately for each parcel, and the proffers would not apply if one of the parcels, but not the other, were rezoned. 2. The two parcels are not consistently identified in the proffers, including references to "Northern Reserve", "Middle Marsh", and "Northern Property". References to the parcels should be changed throughout the Proffer Statement to the parcel number of the respective parcels. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy, AICP April 4, 2008 Page 2 3. The third sentence in the second paragraph states: "Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with the State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void." The Applicant is in a better position than the County to determine whether or not any of its proffers are not in conformity with the State or Federal regulations, and this sentence should be deleted. 4. In proffer 1.2, the Applicant is proffering out certain permitted uses in the EM zoning district. The first three uses proffered out are listed as permitted uses in the EM district in § 165-85 of the Zoning Ordinance. The fourth use proffered out ("Cement and lime kilns") would appear to be included under permitted use E ("Manufacture and processing of cement, lime and gypsum"). However, the fifth use proffered out ("Coal and natural -fired power plants") is not a listed permitted use in the EM district, and its inclusion is further complicated by the fact that the Applicant reserves the right to use power plants as necessary to support extractive mining activities. Unless it can be otherwise explained, the fifth listed use should be deleted. 5. In proffer 2.2, the Applicant is proffering distance buffers in addition to those required by the Zoning Ordinance, and further provides that the buffer shall be determined at the time of site plan submission. However, the proffer provides no minimum as to, and gives the County no control over, what the depth of those buffers will be. The second sentence of this proffer should be amended to read as follows: "The depth of said buffers shall be approved by the County at the time of site plan submission, and may vary based upon the topography of the site boundary." 6. With respect to proffer 2.3, the Applicant submitted with the proposed proffer statement ten (10) Viewshed exhibits. However, the proffers make no reference to those exhibits. If the Applicant is proffering to construct the berms in accordance with the exhibits, then this proffer should provide that earthen berms shall be installed around the Properties' quarry pits in substantial conformity with the Viewshed exhibits subntted with the proposed proffer statement. Otherwise, the first sentence of proffer 2.3 would need to read as follows: "Earthen berms shall be installed around the Properties' active quarry pits, the design and construction of which shall be approved by the County at the time of site plan submittal, and said HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy, AICP April 4, 2008 Page 3 berms shall be landscaped to minimize impacts to the viewshed of the surrounding community. "Further, the second sentence of proffer 2.3 should be amended to insert after the word "shall" the following: "be approved by the County at the time of site plan submittal and". 7. In Proffer 3.1, the Applicant proffers to dedicate an 8 acre historic site to a "recognized historical association and/or group" with one year of final rezoning. It would appear that any necessary plat work to delineate the 8-acre site has already been done, or could be quickly done. Accordingly, there should be a commitment to dedicate the 8 acre site within 60 days of final rezoning. Further, if the 8-acre site is to be promptly dedicated, I question the need or advisability of the Applicant placing restrictions on that 8 acre site, particularly without any commitment that the restrictions placed on the site would be acceptable to the grantee of the dedication. Also, as the 8 acre site is in proximity to the Belle Grove/Cedar Creels Battlefield historic site, the proffer should provide for the dedication of the 8 acre site specifically to the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, or its assignee. (I note that the October 17, 2006 Proffer Statement which I previously reviewed, provided for the 8 acre site to be dedicated to the Belle Grove Foundation.) 8. Proffer 3.2 provides for a Phase I Archeological Survey within one year of final rezoning or prior to any land disturbance on the Properties. First of all, it would seem that it would have been advisable for the Archeological Survey to have been conducted prior to the rezoning application, so that all historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects on the property would be located and identified in order for the impacts of the proposed rezoning on those historic features to be evaluated. Further, the proffer contains no commitment as to how any such historic features identified will be dealt with and protected in the development and use of the property. Also, there is no commitment in the proffer to conduct further phases of the study if warranted from the information developed from the Phase I Study. 9. Proffer 3.3 references two cemeteries on the Properties. The first cemetery is located adjacent to Chapel Road. The initial version of this current Proffer Statement provided that "That cemetery will remain in an undisturbed state." • HALL, MONAHAN, E,NGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy, AICP April 4, 2008 Page 4 This proffer was subsequently amended to delete the foregoing language and to insert the language "That cemetery is currently undergoing a historical restoration." It is not clear whether the historical renovation is being done by the Applicant or others. That should be specified in the proffer. Further, the proffer should still include a provision that the cemetery will remain in an undisturbed state following the said historical restoration. With respect to the second cemetery, reference is made to a right of way, which the Applicant proffers to open. There is no commitment of the tinting of the opening of that right of way. Further, the proffer provides that it will be open for access by "the relatives" of those in the cemetery. I recommend substituting the word "visitors" for the words "the relatives". Also, in the last sentence the words "it is anticipated that" should be deleted from the beginning of the sentence. 10. I find Proffer 5.1 to be unclear. It appears to say that of three monitoring wells, one will be installed within 500 feet of the "Northern Properties' boundary." It is not clear whether this is referring to the northern parcel, or whether it is referring to the "Northern Reserve" as labeled in another location in the Proffer Statement. (This is an example of why all parcel references should be to the parcel number.) Further, the proffer provides that the wells shall be installed prior to any land disturbance on parcel A-3-A-109, which is the parcel identified in Proffer 15.1 on which mining activities will continence no earlier than 10 years from the date of the rezoning. This would appear to indicate that mining activities may be conducted on Parcel 90-A-23 for 10 years before any monitoring wells are installed. Also, this proffer should provide for the County to have access to the information from the monitoring wells. 11. In Proffer 5.2, the phrase "Subject to and consistent with the provisions of 9.2" at the beginning of the first sentence should be deleted. The inclusion of the phrase would appear to limit the responsibility to remediate adverse impacts to wells to those properties which opted for a pre -blast survey under Proffer 9.2. It should not be so limited, and, further, the responsibility for remediating adverse impacts to wells goes to all mining activities, not just blasting. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy, AICP April 4, 2008 Page 5 12. Proffer 6.1, concerning dust control, does not describe how and by whom "adverse impacts" to surrounding properties caused by dust will be determined. 13. It should be noted that the restriction on truck traffic in Proffer 8.1 is a maximum of 200 truckloads per day "averaged over the prior 30 days through the scale house hauling mine materials on and/or off the proposed quarry site from the existing quart' entrance." By averaging over the prior 30 days, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays are included in the averaging, which days may or may not have traffic comparable to week days. Further, it should be determined whether truck trips through the scale house hauling mine materials would include all truck traffic entering and leaving the Property. 14. In Proffer 9.3, the word "a" before the words "period of time" should be changed to the word "the". Also, the staff should consider whether the $1,000,000.00 policy limits are adequate. In any event, given the long term of prospective mining operations, the policy limits should be subject to an escalator, perhaps every five years. This proffer should also contain a provision that the County will annually be provided a certificate of insurance from the insurance carrier. 15. The staff should detenmine in Proffer 12.1, regarding prohibition on lighting structures on the berms, whether the exceptions to the prohibition swallow the prohibition. 16. In Proffer 14.1, the County should determine whether it is satisfactory for the Applicant to choose the "recognized environmental entity" to check water emissions. 17. It is not clear what is being proffered in Proffer 14.2. It seems to be referring to an area outside of the property proposed to be rezoned, which would appear to mean on property not owned by the Applicant. Also, the proffer provides that the area being referred to "is more specifically described in the attached and incorporated plat". Whatever plat is being referred to needs to be more specifically described. • HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy, AICP April 4, 2008 Page 6 18. In Proffer 14.3, the County should determine whether the 200 foot setback for mining operations from the edge of Cedar Creek is adequate. Further, as in Proffer 14.2, the Applicant needs to specifically describe the "attached and incorporated plat". 19. With respect to Proffer 15 (Phasing), it is noted that there was submitted with the Proffer Statement exhibits of four phasing plans. Proffer 15 does not make any reference to those exhibits. 20. The Proffer Statement makes reference to a Generalized Development Plan (GDP). While the Generalized Development Plan submitted is short on details, the Proffer Statement should provide that the development of, and mining operations on, the Properties shall be in substantial conformity with the MDP. It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of all of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the proposed rezoning, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is nny understanding that this review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. It would be my reconunendation in this rezoning that the staff and the Planning Commission carefully review all of the proffers, including, without limitation, proffers involving Site Development, Historic Resources, and Traffic, to determine if the proposed Proffer Statement adequately addresses impacts. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact 11104 RTM/ks HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) & MITCHELL THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) 7 a 307 EAST -MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAx 540-662-4304 NAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON April 1 1 , 2008 Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director 1-�rederirlc Cou t" Del.-lart-n-lent of PlanniticY ;eT Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 Re: Chemstone -- Middletown [O.M. Minerals (Chemstone) Company] Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Mike: Subsequent to my April 4, 2008 proffer review letter to you in the above matter, I have been advised that as to the eight -acre historic site referenced in Proffer 3.1, that that site had previously been offered to Belle Grove, Inc. by Chemstone, that Belle Grove Inc. has conducted extensive archaeological studies on that site, and that the foundation of the mills of the Hite Family of Belle Grove is located on the site. Based on the foregoing, I would amend my recommendation in paragraph 7 of my proffer review ietter to recommend that Proffer 3.1 provide for the dedication of the eight -acre site specifically to Belle Grove, Inc. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing, please contact me. With kind regards, I am y yours, Roliert T. Mitchell, RTM/glh • • January 3, 2006 Mr. Chuck Maddox, Jr. P.E. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pe 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 RE: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Rezoning Proposal Location: The subject parcels are situated generally west and adjacent to the Town of Middletown. Property Identification Numbers (PINs):53-A-90, 91 Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas) Dear Mr. Maddox: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning • proposal during their meeting of December 20, 2005. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, information provided by the applicant as well as information provided by various groups that were in attendance of the meeting. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property in question as being located within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek and the property (691 acres) also contains the site where the Nieswanger Fort once stood. It is the intent of the applicant to rezone this property to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Zoning District to accommodate the expansion of the quarry operation. I Ile FIRAB expressed concern that the proposed rezonnig Was 11oi l;ro(CGting, the vlev%slled of file battlelield and the Belle Grove property as well as the arcbeological resources present on the Cedar Creek Battlefield and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. The HRAB felt that the applicant still needs to address many issues with this rezoning before it should be considered by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB could support the approval of this project if the following suggestions are considered in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources: • A Phase I Archeological Survey needs to be done on the site, focusing on core battlefield areas and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. If warranted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, subsequent studies should be performed. (Please II/III). • A detailed Viewslhed Mitigation Analysis/Plan needs to be completed that will show the effects of the new quarry operation from key points (critical areas and views/pull-offs to be determined by the National Park Service, Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation). This plan needs to be completed before any land disturbance is allowed on the site and implementation of any 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 E71 • Mr. Chuck Maddox Re: O-N Minerals Rezoning Proposal January 3, 2006 Page 2 suggestions that may result fi•om the plan should be given a proffered timeline. In addition, the viewshed study should also ensure that views from Chapel Road are not impaired. • Cedar Creek should be bridged so that quarry trucks can use this route instead of going through historic Middletown and passing by the Belle Grove entrance. • The conveyer system being discussed should be studied further to ensure that it does not impact the viewshed or create noise issues. The amount of traffic this system will alleviate should be provided as well. The applicant should propose a plan for the conveyer system that will not have a huge visual impact on the surrounding landscape. • A timeline for the removal of the existing stockpile of dirt (overburden) that can be seen from the Cedar Creek Battlefield needs to be provided with this proposal. • Strategic landscaping needs to be looked at, as well as preserving natural existing landscaping, as opposed to high berms to try to screen the operation. A detailed landscaping study needs to be done for the site. • The location for the overburden from the new quarry operation needs to be provided so that large piles . of dirt similar to the current operation are not present, maximum elevations for new berms need to be proffered. A documented plan for any new berms and overburden stockpiles needs to be provided. • Perimeter fencing and lighting details need to be provided so that they do not affect the adjacent historic uses. • The proffers provided to the I-IRAB included an eight acre reserve for Belle Grove. The proffer states that, "Said reserve shall be set aside for future dedication to Belle Grove Foundation". This proffer includes no timeline for the dedication of the property and as provided, the dedication could never happen. A specific timeline for the dedication ofthis property needs to be provided to ensure that the Foundation is given this property. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comnitnts Itoiii the HIZAii. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins Planner II CEP/bled cc: Rhoda Kriz, Harold Lehman, I-IRAB Members Bill Ewing, Opegtion District Supervisor Mike Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director 0 L� HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1692-1972) 7 a 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 0. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 540-652-4304 JAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@hellmonehen.com STEVEN F. JACKSON DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. March 27, 2006 HAND DELIVERED Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 Re: Chemstone - Middletown (O-N Minerals Chemstone Company) Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Mike: I have reviewed the above -referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. In the first sentence of the first paragraph, it is not clear what is being addressed by the language "shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto." I assume that this is referring to previous versions of this Proposed Proffer Statement. It should be made clear that it is not referring to previous proffers that may have been approved as a part of a rezoning on this or other property owned by the Applicant. Therefore, I would suggest the above quoted language be amended to read: "shall supersede all previous versions of this Proposed Proffer Statement." 0 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy March 27, 2006 Page 2 2. It does not appear that the second sentence of the second paragraph would be applicable to these proffers, and I would reconunend that that sentence be deleted. 3. I have trouble with the third sentence of the second paragraph, which states "Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void." The Applicant is in a better position than the County to determine whether any of the proffered conditions would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and Federal regulations. In my view, this sentence should be deleted. 4. The words "and shall include the following:" should be deleted from the end of the second paragraph. 5. In paragraph 1.1 of Section 1 (Land Use), the proposed proffer would not appear to be a proffer, as it does not propose to do anything otherwise required by the zoning ordinance or state law. If the Applicant is proposing to limit the uses permitted in the EM District, that needs to be clearly stated. 6. Section 2 (Site Development): a. This proffer in paragraph 2.2 appears to merely state that the width of the distance buffers on the property shall be more than that required by the zoning ordinance. However, it does not quantify in any way the extent to which it will exceed the distance buffers required. This proffer requirement could be met by a minimal increase in the distance buffer. I question why the width of the distance buffers cannot be shown on the Generalized Development Plan. Also, this proffer does not address the issue of what screening, if any, will be placed in the distance buffers. b. With respect to paragraph 2.3, does the zoning ordinance or State or Federal regulations require earthen berms around active quarry pits? If not, then paragraph 2.3 should set forth a specific proffer that earthen berms will be HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy March 27, 2006 Page 3 installed around active quarry pits. With respect to the landscaping of the earthen berms, the staff needs to determine whether the description of the landscaping in this proffer is sufficiently specific. 7. Section 3 (Historic Resources). a. The proffer in paragraph 3.1 proposes to create an 8-acre "historic reserve", and then to "dedicate" the reserve to the Belle Grove Foundation. My assumption is that there is an 8-acre portion of the property that the Applicant is going to deed to the Belle Grove Foundation. If that is the case, I question why it should take up to one year after the rezoning to make that conveyance. Also, since I was not provided with a copy of the GDP, I do not know where the 8-acre parcel is located, and if it is located in the interior of the property, there should be included a proffer that a right of way will be conveyed, to go along with the conveyance of the 8 acres, for access by the Foundation to the 8-acre parcel. b. 3.2 provides for a Phase I Archaeological Survey within one year of final rezoning or prior to any land disturbance on a portion of the property. However, the proffer does not address what protection will be afforded any historic sites, buildings, structures, or objects identified in the Archaeological Survey. It would seem that the prefeiTable chronology would be to have the Archaeological Survey done prior to the rezoning, so that any historic elements could be addressed as a part of the rezoning process. 8. Paragraph 4.1 of Section 4 (Rights to Water Supply) would not appear to constitute a proffer, in that it appears that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority already has the rights to the groundwater resources under the "existing agreements". Perhaps something more than this was intended to be proffered. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy March 27, 2006 Page 4 9. In paragraph 5.1 of Section 5 (Groundwater) the Applicant provides for the placement of three monitoring wells on the property. However, it would seem to me that the County should have access to the information, and that the proffer should provide that the County will have access to the monitoring wells and to the data from the monitoring wells. 10. The first two sentences of paragraph 7.1 of Section 7 (Blasting Control) would not seem to constitute a proffer, and merely state that blasting will be done in accordance with the Applicant's mining permit. 11. While the second paragraph of the Proposed Proffer Statement identifies the Generalized Development Plan, there needs to be a sufficient proffer that the development of the property will be in substantial conformity with the GDP. Where in my above comments I have opined that a proposed proffer is really not a proffer, I have noted that to make the point that it does not propose to do anything above and beyond what is otherwise required. It does not necessarily mean that the statement needs to be deleted, if the County feels that it is helpful to emphasize that particular requirement. It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing con-uments, please contact me. y yours, Robert T. Mitche RTM/ks ;SOAT or ry O p 7 A A In reply refer to: 27 March 2006 United States Department of the Interior NAPARKA' SERVICE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park 7718 '/ Main St., P.O. Box 700 Middletown, Virginia 22645 Mr. Eric Lawrence, Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent St., 2Id Floor Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Lawrence: We are writing to transmit our comments regarding the O-N Minerals Chemstone Property Rezoning Request. The Chemstone property is adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park (NHP). O-N Minerals Chemstone provided us with a copy of their rezoning request and we in turn asked the National Park Service's Geologic Resources Division to prepare an analysis of the proposal. The Geologic Resources Division, based in Lakewood, Colorado, provides national leadership and specialized assistance for managing geologic resources and protecting park resources from the adverse effects of mineral development in and adjacent to national parks. The Division is staffed with geologists, minerals specialists, mining and petroleum engineers, policy and regulatory analysts, and natural resource specialists. They, in addition, consulted with an agency hydrologist to provide input on the potential impacts on water quantity. The attached memorandum references a photograph of Cedar Creek Battlefield taken in October 2005 during the annual reenactment of the Battle of Cedar Creek. A copy of the photograph is attached for your information. Please feel free to call me with any questions or concerns about the attached information. I may be reached at my office at (540) 868-9176. Sincerely, Diann Jacox Superintendent Attachments: 1. Memorandum from Geological Resources Division, National Park Service. 2. Photograph taken during 2005 Reenactment of the Battle of Cedar Creek. Cc: Spencer Stinson, O-N Minerals Chemstone Kris Tierney, Assistant County Administrator Michael Ruddy, Frederick County Deputy Planning Director TAKE PR 1 DE���f IMAMERICAI�. Un ed States Department ofte Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Geologic Resources Division P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225 TRANSMITTED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL - NO HARDCOPY TO FOLLOW L2360 March 24, 2006 Memorandum To: Diann Jacox Superintendent, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park From: Carol McCoy Chief, Planning, Evaluation & Permits Branch Geologic Resources Division National Park Service Subject: O-N Minerals Chemstone Property Rezoning Request In response to your request, the Geologic Resources Division (GRD) has reviewed several documents associated with O-N Minerals Chemstone's request to rezone 691 acres adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. Specifically, my staff reviewed Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement (June 2005), Chemstone's Rezoning Application Materials (Dec. 2005), Commonwealth of Virginia mining and mineral regulations, and Frederick County rezoning regulations and guidance. We believe that the rezoning documents submitted by O-N Minerals Chemstone do not adequately address Frederick County requirements or the impacts on the surrounding area, including the park. With this in mind, we offer the following comments for your consideration. General Comments The proposed rezoning and subsequent expansion of the limestone quarry on the O-N Minerals Chemstone Property (Chemstone) adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park may adversely impact park lands and resources. These resources include the "nationally significant Civil War landscape and antebellum plantation" and the "[t]he panoramic views of the mountains, natural areas, and waterways ... an inspiring setting of great natural beauty" (see 16 U.S.C. § 410iii-I). Unfortunately, we believe that Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement and Rezoning Application Materials do not fully address the likely impacts of the rezoning/expansion of the quarry on these valuable and unique resources. TAKE PRIDE - "AM ER CAS As you know, Cons directed the National Park Service (l0') to "encourage conservation of the historic and natural resources within and in proximity of [Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical] Park by land owners, local governments, organizations, and businesses." In accordance with this mandate and NPS policies, we recommend that you work closely with Frederick County and the Commonwealth of Virginia in the rezoning and quarry expansion processes in order to avoid, mitigate, and resolve potential resource conflicts. Specific Comments Based on our review, Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement does not include several topics required by Frederick County. These topics include "the use of surrounding land and potential economic, physical, visual, nuisance, and other impacts on surrounding properties" (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(1)), "the anticipated increase in potential population resulting from the rezoning" (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(4)), "the projected additional demand for ... public facilities" (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(5)), and a full discussion of the impacts on historic structures and sites (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(8)). Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement and Rezoning Application Materials also inadequately address the following topics: Air quality impacts from fugitive dust and equipment emissions — Chemstone's rezoning application documents do not include any analysis of possible air quality impacts. Dust generated from mining operations, crushers, conveyors, vehicles, or windblown dust fi•om the large disturbed area is not mentioned nor is possible mitigation of dust -related issues addressed. These documents should also quantify emissions from mining equipment and haul trucks, including the proposed increase in haul trucks and any other mobile or point source. Increased Haul Truck Traffic — Chemstone's Traffic Impact Analysis modeling (March 2005) suggests that the mine expansion could result in an increase of 801 truck trips per day, for a total of 1,308 truck trips in Middletown, a town of 1,200 residents. This proposed increase may detract from the quality of life and be a threat to public safety. Increased truck traffic may also negatively impact those traveling to Frederick County to visit Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park and/or other area attractions. Chemstone has suggested that it could construct a conveyor system that would decrease the amount of truck traffic required by the mine expansion. Frederick County should be encouraged to require this conveyor system as a condition of Chemstone's rezoning proposal in order to avoid the impacts of increased truck traffic in Middletown and in Cedar Creek and Belle Grove NHP. Noise and vibration — Sources of noise and vibration are also not quantified in Chemstone's rezoning application documents. Noise generated by mining operations, crushers, conveyors, and haul trucks is likely to be significant and will not be confined to the existing or rezoned property. Blasting which may take place in quarry operations will not only generate noise impacts, but also carries with it potential vibration issues which pose a threat to adjacent structures. It is important to note that Belle Grove Plantation House, built in 1797, is a Historic Landmark and is included on the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, TAKE PRIDW NAMERA CS we suggest that Fre*ck County require that Chemstone sulat a detailed noise and vibration study as part of its rezoning application to address impacts and mitigation measures for sensitive adjacent resources such as those found in Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. Night lighting Zting — Chemstone's rezoning application documents did not specify if quarry operations are conducted 24 hours per day. However, if operational or security lighting is used at the quarry site, impacts to the night sky and the historical scene may occur. Dust or other particulate matter generated at the site will exacerbate night lighting impacts to surrounding properties. Property values and historical scene — Chemstone's rezoning application documents fail to address the existing and expanded project's impact on adjacent property values and the historic scene for which this area is well known. The "historic impact assessment" contained in the December 2005 Rezoning Application Materials document states that "[w]e cannot, and have not, and do not want to save all land where history 'happened."' Such a sweeping statement fails to analyze the impacts of Chemstone's quarry operations on the historic and natural resources of Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. A photograph obtained by GRD of the October 2005 historic battle reenactment at the park clearly shows the Chemstone quarry in the background, dramatically illustrating the striking impact of modern, large scale mining operations on historic properties. We believe that the "historic impact assessment" in Chemstone's rezoning application documents should fully analyze these impacts and present acceptable methods for mitigating them. Ground and surface waters -- The section of the Rezoning Application Materials pertaining to groundwater impacts does briefly mention the subject of aquifer drawdown due to possible interception of groundwater from quarry operations, but fails to address possible surface impacts associated with aquifer drawdown other than sinkhole formation. This document also does not discuss possible impacts on water rights or groundwater quality. Further, the text of the Rezoning Application Materials implies that only the 30 wells and septic systems within 1500 feet of the Chemstone property would be affected by aquifer drawdown. However, Plate 4 of this same document indicates that a 10 foot aquifer drawdown could occur at least 9,600 feet from the potential quarry areas. For all of these reasons, we believe that the groundwater analysis as it relates to off site impacts is extremely inadequate. Possible impacts due to the disposal of the anticipated large amount of intercepted groundwater into surface waterways should also be analyzed in detail. Proffer Statement — Based on my staff's interpretation of Virginia's mining and mineral regulations, most of the conditions included in Chemstone's proffer statement would likely be required by the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy as part of the mine expansion permit or by existing agreement. With the exception of the 8-acre "historic reserve," we do not interpret the proffer statement as providing additional protection for the area's historic resources. The Geologic Resources Division appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions or if we can be of any further assistance, please contact either Kerry Moss or Julia Brunner of my staff at 303-969-2634 or 303-969-2012, respectively. TAKE PRIDE° INAM EPi%A' Q;;!q� 4 Photo taken by National Park Service on 15 October 2005 at the Battle of Cedar Creek Reenactment; digital camera; telephoto lens • �J • • Rezoning Comments - _CHEMSTONE - MIDDLETOWN Virginia Department of Transportation Mail to: Virginia Dept. of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Hand deliver to: Virginia Dept. of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Virginia Department of Transportation with their review. Attach three copies ^of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact, analysis and any other ° pertinent information. ,M~ Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates. pc Phone: (540) 667-2139 Mailing Address: ATTN: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of adjacent to Middletown. Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east and Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road Route 625), and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: EM Acreage: 691 acres Notice to VDOT — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 9 Zx o COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE GREGORYA. WHIRLEY EDINBURG, VA 22824 ACTING COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER July 19, 2005 Mr. Patrick Sowers C/O Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 Ref: Chemstone — Middletown Dear Mr. Sowers: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 757. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Global Stone Chemstone Corporation Rezoning Application dated June 13, 2005 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Llo d A. Ingram Y g Transportation Engineer LAI/rf Enclosure — Comment Sheet VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING • RezoninI4 Comments CHEMSTONE - MIDDLETOWN Frederick County Fire Marshal Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Fire Marshal Frederick Co. Fire & Rescue Dept. 107 N. Kent St. Attn: Fire Marshal Winchester, VA 22601 Co. Administration Bldg., I" Floor (540) 665-6350 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant Please fill out the information as; accurately as possible m_order to assist the:Freder�ek `'. County Fire lVlarsl?al witl his review Attacli a copy of your application form,5location map,' proffer statement im act anal sis and au other � ertinent,information P Y , Y, p Applicant's Name Mailing Address: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc. Phone: (540) 667-2139 ATTN: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester. VA 22601 • Location of Property: The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of adjacent to Middletown. • Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east and Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road Route 625), and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: EM Acreage: 691 acres Fire Marshal'sComments: Fire Marshal's Signature & Date Notice to Marsh pI Pl 4e Return This Form to the Applicant 11 • • tKVIRGIN � Control number RZ05-0005 Project Name Chemstone Address 117 E. Piccadilly St. Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning Automatic Sprinkler System No Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Not Identified Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department Office of the Fire Marshal Dian Review and Comments Date received 6/17/2005 City Winchester Tax ID Number 83-A-109,90-A-2 Additional Comments Will not directly effect fire & rescue. Date reviewed 6/30/2005 Applicant PHR&A State Zip VA 22601 Fire District 12 Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System No Requirements Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway/Aisleway Width Not Identified Date Revised Applicant Phone 540-667-2139 Rescue District 12 Election District Residential Sprinkler System No Fire Lane Required No Special Hazards No Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signature Yes John J. Bausermanr �r Title /I fI ", o 8, 1 1L), no-) T U11t, • Rezoning Comments CHEMSTONE - MID�LETOWN Frederick County Inspections Mail to: Frederick County Inspections Attn: Building Official 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5650 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Inspections Attn: Building Official 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick County Inspection's Department with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Phone: (540) 667-2139 Mailing Address: ATTN: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 • Location of Property: The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of adjacent to Middletown. is Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east and Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road Route 625), and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: EM Acreage: 691 acres Inspection's Comments: t- uM e x i ' U V alwlilflal MJS Y, Q Signature & Date: 6 No ' to Inspections— Plea eturn This orm to the Applicant 16 COUNTY of FREDERICK March 27, 2006 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates, p.c. 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Chemstone Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Patrick: Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 The revised proffer statement furnished to this office on March 21, 2006, has adequately addressed our rezoning comments dated June 29, 2005. Therefore, we grant our approval for the subject rezoning assuming that any impacts are mitigated as indicated in the revised proffer statement. Sincerely, i444 1 Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Mike Ruddy, Planning and Development file C:\Program Tiles\WordPerfect Office II\Rhonda\TEMPCONIMENTS\CIIEMSTONEREZPROSTATMT.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Jlllle LJ, LUUJ Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates, p.c. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Chemstone - Middletown Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Patrick: We have completed our review of the proposed rezoning from RA to EM and offer the following continents: Refer to page 4, Environllental Features: The discussion indicated that an environmental report prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) was included with the impact statement as Appendix "A". A copy of this report was not included with our submittal. Please provide us with a copy of this report for our review. • 2. Refer to page 6, Soils/Geology: The geology discussion should be expanded to include hydrogeology and the impact of the project on the local groundwater. In particular, the proposed expansion of the mining operation will be close to existing residential subdivisions which rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. General: The impact analysis has not addressed one very important item related to a rezoning from RA to EM. That item is the impact or effect of blasting on adjacent residential buildings. This issue should also be expanded to include the impact of dust on adjacent residential dwellings. I can be reached at 722-8214 if you should have any questions regarding the above continents. Sincerely, Harvey Elvsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Planning and Development file A:\chemstonerezcom.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Pi 0 1 Rezoning Comments CHEMSTONE - MIDDLETOWN Frederick CountySanitation Authority �f"�� t3' � P =ice f—imr, Mail to: Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 868-1061 Hand deliver to: P Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, VA JUN 20 2005 i� s Applicant : Please -fr11 out the inforrnation as accurately gas pos, . ri orderao assist the Sariitatro i Authority"with their review Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer , st.�tei pt, :, aet anaty *�, k: d any:pther_iperta-eaa.t anform" atlOn Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Phone: (540) 667-2139 Mailing Address: ATTN: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of adjacent to Middletown. Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east and Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road Route 625), and is fiirther traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: EM Acreage: 691 acres Sanitation Authority Comments: SPe P g 9 Attached Sanitation Authority Signature & Date: Notice to Sanitation Authority — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 14 Page 2 • Rezoninf4 Comments CHEMSTONE - MIDDLETOWN The Frederick County Sanitation Authority supports this rezoning request. The Authority will use these pits, when abandoned, as a source of water supply under an agreement with Global Stone Chemstone Corporation, dated March 2, 2000. Larger pits will provide a more abundant supply and reliable source of water. Larger pits are also more cost effective for the Authority to develop as a water supply. That benefits the residents of Frederick County that depend upon the Authority for water service. • 11 0 , • RezonintZ Comments CHEMSTONE - MIDDLETOWN Frederick — Winchester Health Department Mail to: Frederick -Winchester Health Dept. Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722-3480 Hand deliver to: R Mj ? `� `M tl i r Frederick -Winchester Health Dept 11 Attn: Sanitation Engineer JUN j 7 2005 107 North Kent St., Suite 201 Winchester, VA 22601 B�--________-__ (540) 722-3480 _________ Applicant :Please: fill out the iriformatlon as :accurately as possible in'ordei to Assisi the Frederick Wnicliester Heal'th.Department.With their review Attacli..`a copy of your ap:pheahon form, locat onsmap proffer statement, impact analysis; and: other pertinent information Applicant's Narne: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Phone: (540) 667-2139 Mailing Address: ATTN: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 • Location of Property: The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of adjacent to Middletown. • Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east and Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road Route 625), and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: EM Acreage: 691 acres Frederick — Winchester Health Department's Comments: S u � z Signature & Date: Notice to Health Department — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 15 • II Notice to Fire & Rescue Company — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 11 Rezoning Comments CHEMSTONE - MIDDLETOWN Frederick -Winchester Service Authority Mail to: Fred -Wine Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director P.O. Box 43 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 722-3579 Hand deliver to: Fred -Wine Service Aut: Attn: Jesse W. Moffett 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 ___._ _-.., JUN 1 7 2005 4� Applicant Please fill :out the nifonnation as accurately as possible' in order to >assist the Department of Public Works with there review Attach a :copy of your application form; location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any: other;pertinent information Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Phone: (540) 667-2139 Mailing Address: ATTN: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of adjacent to Middletown. Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east and Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road Route 625), and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: EM Acreage: 691 acres Fred -Wine Servicq Authority's Comments: Fred -Wine Service Authority's Signature & Date: 21 C ME lull M JUN 17 2G05 •Rezoning Comments BY: ------ 'C/--YYr-----o _ CHEMSTONE - MIDDLETOWN Frederick County Department of Geographic Information Services (GIS) Attn: Marcus Lemasters, GIS Director 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Phone: (540) 667-2139 Mailing Address: ATTN: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of adjacent to Middletown. • Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east and Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road Route 625), and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: EM Acreage: 691 acres • [Department of GIS Comments: No road/name requirements noted. Any road network that provic.es primary access to four (4) or more occupied business structures shall be -named. Numbering will be assigned as applicable. GIS Signature & Date: Notice to Dept. of GIS — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 19 0 0 E 7 Rezoning Comments CHEMSTONE - MIDDLETOWN Mail to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, VA 22602 (540) 662-2422 Winchester Regional Airport Hand deliver to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, VA Applicant Please fill out the u formation as;°taccurately as possible n order to assist the Winchester. R eb orial Airport with their re��iew '::Attach a chpy or your:, application` form location -map;; proffer statement;'impact analysis, and any other pertinent information Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Phone: (540) 667-2139 Mailing Address: ATTN: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of adjacent to Middletown. Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east and Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road Route 625), and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: EM Acreage: 691 acres Winchester Regional Airport's Comments Winchester Regional Airport Signature & Datet?JlQ/V�c�C� Notice to Winchester Regional Airport — Please Return This Form to the Applicant REC'D J U N 2 0 2005 17 aEGiON,q� z SERVING THE TOP OF VIRGINIA / • 0 • WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT June 24, 2005 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662-2422 Patton Harris Rust & Associates C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Sr. VP 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Rezoning Comments Chemstone — Middletown Property Back Creek Magisterial District Winchester, Virginia Dear Mr. Maddox: We have reviewed the referenced rezoning proposal. Allowed uses under this rezoning should not effect airside operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to review these plans and for supporting the Winchester Regional Airport. Sincerely, Serena R. Manuel Executive Director • • • Rezoning Comments CHEMSTONE - MIDDLETOWN Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5678 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Co. Administration Bldg., 2r'a Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant Please fill` :the inaspnerformation as accuraely bdtoout assnst ;the Department =of Parks. & Recreation with thcit revizw Attach.',a co3' of your .pplicati0n fqi rr; location map, proffer statement, impact analysis; and'any other pertinent information Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Phone: (540) 667-2139 Mailing Address: ATTN: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 • Location of Property: The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of adjacent to Middletown. is Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east and Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road Route 625), and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: EM Acreage: 691 acres Dept. of Parks & Recreation Comments: Signature & Date: .� �� ;,✓- % fir' ` Notice to a t. of Parks & Recreation — Please Recan This Form to the Applicant 12 S��Jents Au �`�OIFCP F,S� a Frederick County Public Schools Administrative Assistant to Visit us at www.frederick.k12.va.us the Superintendent • July 26, 2005 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Sowers: RE: Rezoning comments for Chemstone-Middletown Property e-mail: kapocsis@frederick.k12.va.us This letter is in response to your request for comments concerning the zoning application for the proposed Chemstone-Middletown Property project. Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Respectfully yours, Stephen Kapocsi Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent SMK/dkr cc: William C. Dean, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools 540-662-3889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604-2546 FAX 540-662-3890 SEP-27-05 11:51 PM • is P_02 Town of Middletown Mail to: Town of Middletown Attn: Town Manager P.O. Box 96 Middletown, VA 22645 (540) 969-2226 ao, I dR1ya to., Tow,, of Middletown Attn: Town Manager Mick letown Town Hall 7875 Churcb Strcot Mldc letown, VA Applicant's Name: PffnRn HarriLRust do Amciates. vc_ Phor t: (5)) 64�67-2139 Mailing Addcect: So 7 E. Pigfiwwly Street. Winchestar. VA 22601 Location of Fmperty: • The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of adjacent krwdletown. Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located cast of Belle View LumL4Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hite% Road Route 625), and is further traversed by -luipel Road (Route 627). The Northem Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is w %Lsnd adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requetted: PM Aorta ,e- 691 acres Town of Middletown's Comments: Thp M5 Aril or,• - P1 -nntne r wh4 l e RQ6 �M e� "rr is opposed to the increase of truck traffic through Middletown and has concerns about the affect of excavation on the water table. 7, OJ Town of Middletown's Signature & Data LDS Notice to Town of Middletown - Please Return This Torn to the Applicant 24 .•A Cc&n-caq-nirc a3163H3NIM HMHd 4*0190 so 92 do$ 0 9 Januaw 2006 Chemstone - Middletown Is IV. AGENCY COMMENTS • 0 January 2006 O.-Ilemstone - Middletown II. IMPACT ANALYSIS GLOBAL STONE CHEMSTONE CORPORATION REZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT Revised April 2007 A. INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Frederick County by the conditional rezoning of a portion of parcels 83-A-109 ("Middle Marsh Property") and 90-A-23 ("Northern Reserve"), which total approximately 639 acres. The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of Middletown. Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east and adjacent to Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road (Route 625), and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The subject acreage is currently zoned RA (Rural Areas). This application proposes the rezoning of the 639 acres from RA to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District. O-N Minerals Chemstone Corporation's ("Chemstone") existing Middletown plant and quarries are located adjacent to and between the subject properties. The property containing these facilities is zoned EM. The Northern Reserve site is further situated adjacent to Chemstone's Strasburg facility, which is located immediately south of Cedar Creek in Shenandoah County. The subject acreage contains mapped deposits of chemical grade limestone, the extraction of which is critical to the continued viability of the established quarry operation. Indeed, the mineral -rich nature of the properties and their value for future extraction activities was identified more than forty years ago, and the acreage has remained in the ownership of mining interests ever since. The requested rezoning will enable the appropriate use of the subject acreage consistent with its unique geological attributes, which will thereby assure the continued vitality of the Chemstone Middletown operation. The contents of this report will outline the role of the subject acreage in future Chemstone operations and further identify anticipated impacts as well as those strategies necessary for effective mitigation. The applicant is confident that the proposed rezoning includes a proffer program that will appropriately and effectively mitigate identified impacts. As such, this rezoning request merits favorable consideration and approval. Impact Analysis Statemeo Onistone - Middletown B. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The subject acreage is not located within the boundaries of any small area study or land use plan included in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The properties are further located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Business and Industrial Areas policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan are relatively silent concerning natural resource extraction, except for acknowledgement that such uses exist in the County, in particular along the limestone belt west of Interstate 81, and that study is needed to establish appropriate guidelines for evaluation of proposals for new extractive manufacturing areas. To date, no such study has been undertaken. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-9, 6-72) C. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE State Regulation of Mineral Mining Operations The Code of Virginia requires the issuance of mineral mining permits for all mining operations within the Commonwealth. Mineral mining permits are issued by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy pursuant to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining. To obtain a permit or add acreage to a mine operating under an existing permit, a plan of operation/mine permit map must be submitted for DMM approval and updated annually. The DMM possesses the authority to regulate an array of technical and operational issues through the permitting process and regular mine inspections. Issues controlled by the DMM include, but are not limited to, the following: grading and stabilization of quarry pits and berms, drainage, erosion and sediment control, screening of mine operations, blasting operations, and final reclamation and stabilization of the site. The Middletown quarry currently operates under mining permit number 05714AB. Should this rezoning be approved, the expansion of the mining operation to include the subject acreage would necessitate amendment of the existing permit. To secure DMM approval, the amended permit must be accompanied by a revised plan of operation/mine permit map demonstrating effective impact mitigation and conformance with state mining regulations. Scope of Proposed Use The majority of the limestone ore quarried at the existing Middletown site is processed and distributed directly from the Middletown site. Portions of the limestone ore are transferred from the subject properties to the Strasburg plant for processing. The scope of the increased manufacturing use in Frederick County will therefore involve overburden removal, controlled blasting and ore 2 Impact Analysis Statemeo 0"insione - Middletown extraction, crushing of ore for transport (via central crusher facility), and the loading of materials for transfer. Additionally, the Applicant has proffered that activities such as asphalt or concrete mixing plants, cement and lime kilns, and oil and natural gas extraction will be prohibited. As such, the proposed rezoning will only allow for an extension of the existing quarrying activities from the existing operation to the subject property. Any transfer of materials between the Middletown and Strasburg facilities will occur through the continued use of trucks and the adjoining CSX rail line. There is also the potential for a future internal conveyor system that could ultimately eliminate the exclusive reliance on these existing modes for material transfer. An extensive network of earthen berms will be installed to screen active mining activities. Moreover, substantial buffers will be provided around the perimeter of the site sufficient to further separate adjoining properties and land uses from mining operations. The provision of perimeter buffers is assured by proffer.. Site and Land Use History The subject properties contain significant limestone deposits that are recognized for their exceptional purity and consistency. For over a century, limestone ore has been extracted and processed via the existing Middletown and Strasburg quarry facilities, which are located adjacent to the subject acreage. These facilities serve a diverse array of industrial, environmental, and municipal markets with four primary product groups - high calcium quicklime, hydrated lime, chemical grade limestone, and construction aggregates. The applications for these products are numerous, but most notably involve agriculture, pollution reduction technologies, national defense infrastructure, road building, and food processing. The existing Middletown quarry facilities have been in active operation since the late 1950's under various ownership interests, and were acquired by Global Stone Chemstone Corporation from Chemstone Corporation in the mid-1990's. The Strasburg plant has operated continuously since 1896. As noted in the introductory section of this report, the acreage proposed for rezoning is adjacent to these facilities and has been controlled by mining interests for the past forty years, which has assured the availability of extensive limestone ore reserves for eventual extraction. Thus, although the zoning of the subject acreage has remained RA, the acreage has historically been reserved for extractive manufacturing as its intended use. The uneventful history of quarry operations in the Middletown and Strasburg areas has demonstrated the ability of such facilities to amicably co -exist with nearby residents and land uses. Open meetings have been held by quarry companies over the years to foster communication with citizens and local officials. Such meetings have allowed compatibility issues to be identified and 3 Impact Analysis Statemeo Wistone - Middletown addressed proactively, thus ensuring the operation of extractive manufacturing uses with minimal impact to the surrounding community. Open meetings will continue to serve a vital role in assuring that dialogue between Chemstone and the community is on -going and constructive. Environmental Features The Northern Reserve and Middle Marsh properties each contain environmentally sensitive areas. The following table identifies the environmental resources located on the properties, and further indicates the potential areas for mining activity and likely scope of impact for each resource. Northern Reserve Middle Marsh Rezoning Property Property Total Acreage 158 acres 533 acres 691 acres Mining Area t (quarry pits) 24 acres 54 acres 78 acres Resource Area Impact FWetlands Area Impact Area Impact (%) Area (%) Area (%) Area 1.9 acres <0.10 ac. 0.3 ac. None 2.2 acres <0.10 ac. 1.20% 0.06% 0.32% Streams 8,921 None 10,984 793 19,905 793 lineal ft. lineal ft. lineal ft. lineal ft. lineal ft. Flood Plain 36 acres 1.0 ac. 89 acres 3.0 ac. 125 acres 4.0 ac. (22 8%) (16 7%) 18.1% Steep Slopes None None None None None None (>50%) *Source: Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), October 2001. The above data summarizes a study report generated by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) for Chemstone in October 2001, a complete copy of which is included with this impact statement as Appendix "A." It is important to note that the total acreage of the proposal has decreased from 691 acres to 639 acres since the SAIC report was completed. The scope of the SAIC study is extensive, and is comparable to that of an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Of the total acreage proposed for rezoning, it is projected that actual excavation will involve approximately acres, or only 11 % of the area to be rezoned. Areas adjoining the quarries will be devoted to materials processing and storage of said materials as well as discarded earth. Areas for excavation, processing and storage will be located and managed to protect identified environmental features from deleterious impact. Moreover, in any case where disturbance is proposed, appropriate mitigation strategies will be employed pursuant to the requirements M Impact Analysis Staletnenle, Onistone - Middletown of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and all applicable state and federal regulations. It is noted that the SAIC study indicates impacts to approximately 793 linear feet of natural waterways traversing the properties. As per the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, disturbance of natural waterways and riparian buffer areas is prohibited except for roads and/or public utilities and public facilities. Encroachment within riparian areas will be limited accordingly, which will likely result in a lesser impact on stream areas than projected by the SAIC study. The results of the environmental assessment of the subject acreage indicate that the identified conditions will neither preclude nor substantially hinder use of the properties for extractive manufacturing. Soils/Geology The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Poplimento- Oaklet soil association. The following table identifies the multiple soil types present on each property: Northern Reserve (Mai) Sheet 54 of Soil Survey) Map Symbol I Soil Name Slopes (range) 5C Carbo silt loam 7 to 15 % 13C Frankstown channery silt loam 7 to 15 % 14C Frederick -Po limento loams 7 to 15 % 15E Frederick-Poplimento very ravel) loams 25 to 60 % 17C Frederick -Po limento-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 15 % 17E Frederick-Poplimento-Rock outcrop complex 15 to 45 % 39C Swimley silt loam 7 to 15 % Middle Marsh (Map Sheet 51 of Soil Survey) Map Symbol Soil Name Slopes (range) 5B Carbo silt loam* 2 to 7 % 5C Carbo silt loam 7 to 15 % 6C Carbo-Oaklet silt loams, very rocky 2 to 15 % 7C Carbo-Oaklet-Rock outcrop complex 2 to 15 % 32C Oaklet silt loam 7 to 15 % 39B Swimley silt loam* 2 to 7 % 40B Timberville silt loam* 2 to 7 % *Denotes soils classified as Prime Farmland (see Soil Survey, p. 123, Table 5). The majority of the soil types comprising the subject acreage are not considered prime farmland. However, the Middle Marsh property does contain pockets of three soil types that are distinguished for their agricultural value. These soil 5 Impact Analysis Statemeno Onemstone - Middletown types are identified in the table above with an asterisk (*). The unique geological characteristics that give the property its value for extractive manufacturing also produce areas of enhanced soil fertility, which, when existent over large contiguous areas, may be conducive to productive agriculture. In the case of the Middle Marsh property, the prime farmland soils are generally fragmented and dispersed throughout the site thereby limiting its overall agricultural value. The purity and consistency of the limestone deposits that underlie the subject properties constitute the ideal geologic conditions for extractive manufacturing use. The characteristics of the identified soil types and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. Access Public road access to the Middletown facility occurs from Route 757 (McCune Road) via Route 625 (Veterans Road — Frederick County, 5th Street — Town of Middletown), which is accessed from US Route 11 in the Town of Middletown. The site possesses direct access to the CSX rail line, which allows the extensive use of railroad facilities to transport materials between facilities. Moreover, a system of internal conveyors is planned for the transfer of materials between the Middletown and Strasburg plants, which will result in the operational integration of the Chemstone operations in Frederick and Shenandoah Counties. The utilization of such alternative modes of transportation and material transfer ensures an operational efficiency that minimizes impacts to the secondary road network. D. TRANSPORTATION The transport of extracted limestone ore from the subject acreage to the Strasburg processing facility will occur via three modes, which are: 1. Truck 2. Rail (existing CSX rail line); and 3. Conveyor system (internal, directly linking quarries and Strasburg plant); While the conveyor system may be a feasible approach in the future, it is recognized that this alternative requires the most significant investment in terms of both initial installation and long-term operation. Thus, while the conveyor system represents the long term goal for inter -plant material transfer, it is unlikely to be implemented as a short term improvement. As such, inter -plant transfer will continue to occur via rail and truck transport Initial contact with state permitting agencies has indicated that future implementation of the proposed conveyor system would be feasible. At such time that it is installed, the crossing of the conveyor over Cedar Creek will be 0 Iinpact Analysis Slatenien* Onsione - Middletown completely enclosed to preclude accidental loss of material into the waterway, and will further be screened to minimize visual impacts. As noted above, the inter -plant transfer of materials by train and truck will continue to occur to some degree regardless of the availability of the conveyor system. Given the potential for truck traffic on the surrounding road network, a traffic impact analysis -(TIA) was completed for this application and is included with this statement as Appendix "B" (Traffic Impact Analysis of O-N Minerals (Chemstone), dated March 20, 2007). The TIA considers two transportation scenarios for this rezoning. The first scenario assumes that traffic is re-routed from the Strasburg operation to the Middletown plant if a problem were to ever occur with the Strasburg rock crusher necessitating the use of the Middletown crusher. The second scenario assumes a an interruption to rail transport that would require the Middletown operation to utilize trucks exclusively. The scope of the analysis for each scenario focuses principally on the intersection of Route 625 (5th Street) and US Route 11 (Main Street) in the Town of Middletown. The existing Middletown facility generates a total of 222 vehicle trips per day (ADT), based on actual traffic counts. This traffic includes employee trips, customer trips, and Chemstone's inter -plant material transfer trips. The TIA projects anticipated traffic using trip generation data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. Under the first transportation scenario, the TIA projects that the rezoning would result in an increase of 134 trips per day, totaling 356 ADT for the facility as a whole. Trips of all types are increased with this scenario. Under the second transportation scenario, which assumes an interruption in rail service, the rezoning would produce a net increase of only 82 trips per day, resulting in a total of 304 ADT for the expanded facility. The TIA concludes that study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by the proposed rezoning at acceptable and manageable level of service conditions. Although the second transportation scenario is clearly of lesser overall impact, the TIA indicates that Level of Service Category B conditions or better are maintained at studied intersections under both of the scenarios analyzed, thus ensuring consistency with the transportation objectives of the Comprehensive Policy Plan regardless of the ultimate mode(s) used for inter -plant material transfer. E. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY The Middletown facility is served by a private health system for on -site sewage disposal. No additional sewage facilities will be required by this rezoning. Water supply for the Middletown facility is obtained by quarry pit de -watering, which occurs through the mining process. This source will provide sufficient supply and 7 Impact Analysis Statemene, O"inslone - Middletown pressure for the expanded mining use, to include dust control in and around the quarries. All de -watering activities will be performed pursuant to DMM requirements, and in accordance with the approved mining permit for the Middletown operation. F. DRAINAGE The plan of operation/mine permit map is required to include a drainage plan subject to DMM review and approval. The drainage plan must address several items, to include the following: (a) the directional flow of water on and away from the site, (b) location and specifications of constructed drainage ways, (c) the use of natural waterways for drainage, and (d) delineation of the streams or tributaries receiving the discharge. Should the requested rezoning be approved, the mining permit must be amended to include the subject acreage, which will involve preparation of a revised drainage plan that ensures effective incorporation of the expansion area into the facility's overall drainage system. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Solid waste generated by employee activities will be collected in dumpster facilities and removed from the site by commercial refuse carrier. Solid waste will be transferred to the Frederick County landfill for ultimate disposal by said carrier. Waste resulting from mining activities will be placed in spoil stockpiles and within berms used for facility screening. The storage and adaptive use of spoils will be addressed through the approval process for the amended mining permit, and will therefore be required to meet all DMM requirements. H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The subject properties are located within the boundaries of the Cedar Creek Battlefield. The Middle Marsh property is noted to contain ruins referred to on maps as "Nieswander's Fort." A detailed Historic Impact Assessment is included with this report as Appendix "C," which discusses both the role of the site in the referenced Civil War battle and the potential origin and significance of the ruins. The conclusions of this study indicate that significant historic resources will not be lost due to the proposed use. The site is located immediately west and adjacent to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, the boundaries of which were established by federal law in 2002. To ensure that the visual impacts to this adjoining resource are mitigated, Chemstone has provided for a comprehensive berm plan to ensure that site lines are not negatively impacted. Moreover, berms surrounding the pits will be constructed with smooth lines and grades to preclude fragmentation of the park's viewshed. N. hnpact Analysis State7l2er* (0-7nstone - Middlelown I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model was run to assess the likely impact of the proposed project on capital facilities. The output modul e 9 0 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Located in Middletown, Virginia Prepared for: O-N Minerals Chem -stone Operation 1696 Oranda Road P.O. Box 71 Strasburg, VA 22657 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Eng veers. Surveyors. Planners. Lcndsccpe Architects. RAMartinsburg, 300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 West Virginia 25401 � g �8 T 304.264.2711 F 304.264.3671 March 15, 2005 0 • OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the rezoning of land parcels located adjacent to the existing Global Stone facility in Middletown, Virginia. Currently, the site accommodates 26 employees per day, 19 Global Stone trucks per day and 50 customer trucks per day. The proposed expansion could increase the number of employees by 14 per day, the number of Global Stone trucks by 80 per day and the number of customer trucks by 56 per day. This report also examines a scenario that would eliminate all Global Stone truck traffic by implementing a conveyer belt system across Cedar Creek. Primary access to the facility will be provided via a single site -driveway located west of the Route 625 (5t" Street)/ US Route 11 (Main Street) intersection. The proposed development will be built - out over a single transportation phase by the year 2008. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the Global Stone with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Global Stone development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for the Global Stone, • Distribution and assignment of the Global Stone generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the latest version of the highway capacity software, HCS-2000, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR&A) conducted manual AM and PM peak hour vehicle classification counts at the intersection of Route 625 (5"' Street)/ US Route 11 (Main Street) in Middletown, Virginia. ADT (Average Daily Trips) was established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 10%. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 625 (5tb Street)/ US Route 11 (Main Street). Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Tragic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number:11279-2-0 ` March 15, 2005 H I L Page 1 No Scale SITE`a 625 Sth J9 `I? Cb C ti 11 - AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) DailyAverage Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions _ A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone PH]Pj-'_ Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 3 No Scale SITE Unsignalized 625 .St Intersection h Str��t 11 * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement "jam\J I �� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) ■-T TTJ�"� T Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry. and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone PA Project Number: 11279 2-0 T-,R., March 15, 2005 Page 4 9 2008 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Existing traffic volumes were increased along Route 11 using a conservative annual growth rate of two percent (2%) as determined based upon historic traffic growth for the area. Figure 4 shows the 2008 background ADT and AMIPM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 625 (5`" Street)/ US Route 11 (Main Street). Figure 5 shows the respective 2008 background lane geometiy and AMIPM peak hour levels of service. All HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. TRIP GENERATION Currently, the Global Stone facility accommodates 26 employees per day, 19 Global Stone tricks per day and 50 customer trucks per day. As a result of the rezoning of adjacent land parcels, the development could increase (at a worst -case) by 14 employees per day, 80 Global Stone trucks per day and 56 customer trucks per day. PHR+A has analyzed two (2) alternative scenarios for the site: 1) Scenario #1 assumes the implementation of a conveyer belt system that would transport material across Cedar Creek whereby eliminating the internal Global Stone truck traffic, 2) Scenario #2 assumes the existing metholdology for transporting material across Cedar Creek (via Global Stone trucks). The trip generation for the Global Stone facility was interpolated from existing traffic counts and assumptions based upon the current and proposed land uses. Table 1 shows the trip generation results for the Global Stone development. Table 1 Global Stone Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total Existing 26 Employees 4 5 9 5 4 10 139 19 Global Trucks 3 3 7 4 3 7 101 50 Customer Trucks 8 9 17 11 8 18 267 Total Existing Trips 16 17 33 20 15 35 507 Scenario 1(via Conveyer Belt System) 2 3 5 3 2 5 75 40 Employees (+14) 0 Global Trucks (-19) -3 -3 -7 -4 -3 -7 -101 106 Customer Trucks (+56) 9 10 19 12 9 21 299 Worst -case Scenario I Trip Differential +9 +9 +18 +11 +8 +19 +272 Total (Existing + Scenario 1) 25 26 51 31 23 54 779 Scenario 2 (via Global Stone trucks) 2 3 5 3 2 5 75 40 Employees (+14) 99 Global Trucks (+80) 13 14 28 17 13 29 427 106 Customer Trucks (+56) 9 10 19 12 9 21 299 Worst -case Scenario 2 Trip Differential +25 +27 +52 +32 +24 +55 +801 Total (Existing + Scenario 2) 41 44 85 52 39 90 1,308 i A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone V Project Number: 11279-2-0 P March 15, 2005 Page 5 No Scale SITE�~fi 625 .� ��^� � �ryti ti 11 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Average Daily Trips Figure 4 2008 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone 1 Project Number: 11279-2-0 ` March 15, 2005 • s Page 6 No Scale SITE N Q1� Unsignalized Intersection * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure.5 2008 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 P M March 15, 2005 Page 7 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon existing travel patterns at the Route 11 (Main Street)/ Route 625 (5`h Street) intersection. Figure 6 represents the trip distribution percentages into and out of the proposed Global Stone development. Figures 7a and 7b show the respective development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments at the intersection of Route 625 / US Route 11 for Scenarios #1 and #2, respectively. 2008 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS Global Stone assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2008 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2008 build -out conditions. Figures 8a and 8b show the 2008 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 11 (Main• Street)/. Route 625 (5 h Street) for Scenarios #1 and #2, respectively. Figures 9a and 9b show the respective 2008 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Global Stone development are acceptable and manageable. Based upon HCS-2000 results, the intersection of Route 11 (Main Street)/ Route 625 (51h Street) will operate with levels of service `B" or better during 2008 build - out conditions for Scenarios #1 and #2, respectively. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 PH t-A March 15, 2005 '-1 Page 8 No Scale 60 %O SITE 625 sth Str��t 11 40 % -PT TP+./ Figure 6 LLe Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 112*2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 9 • No Scale SITE 625 Sth St 1�Gt Any 01 0 ro r. �10 r J,� o(oJ J /* L �10�0 11 Note: Negative values are due to the elimination of Global Stone trucks as result of the conveyor belt system 9 Figure 7a TO P RA H1A 1 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Scenario #1: Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 10 No Scale r?� SITE�~fi 625 Grp r,9 p�OJJ 11 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour A Average 1 PT TQ� / l Figure 7b 0 Scenario #2: Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 11 No Scale SITE��fi 625- th o J1 4N �r0 11 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 8a Scenario #1: 2008 Build -out Traffic Conditions PHA A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 12 No Scale SITE`~ 625 b 'ti1 Stb Street r �1J21 f ►� _10- ti 11 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) ■- -fPT� \ Average Daily Trips Figure 8b Scenario #2: 2008 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Lwact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 PH'Page 13 No Scale SITE P. Unsignalized Intersection * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9a Scenario #1: 2008 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone Project Number: 11279-2-0 March 15, 2005 Page 14 No Scale 2J, SITE Unsignalized tiff Intersection 4�'O' 625 St St x< h reet �1 �J-X 1 11 Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement ■-T' T-f- / \ AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9b Scenario #2: 2008 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Global Stone R Project Number:11279-2-0 ..z A March 15, 2005 ' Page 15 0 171 POTENTIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF MINING OPERATIONS AT THE MIDDLEMARSH AND RESERVES PROPERTIES FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Reviewed by: SAIC Ref. No.: 01-1633-00-2190-000 Prepared for: G.W. Clifford Associates, Inc. 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Prepared by: SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 1129 Business Parkway South,.Suite 10 Westminster, Maryland 21157 August 2002 Submitted by: ��� J 7—'�(z � Z, -,,/, �O, La azz � Eric S. Andreus, P.G. 73 Michael D. Haufler, P.G. 7 Project Hydrogeologist Senior Technical Manager SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. I 1.1 Scope of Study.................................................................................................................1 2.0 WETLANDS..........................................................................................................................2 2.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................................2 2.2 Potential Impacts...........................................................................:..................................2 3.0 FORESTS..............................................................................................................................4 3.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................................4 3.2 Potential Impacts..............................................................................................................5 4.0 STREAMS.............................................................................................................................6 4.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................................6 4.2 Potential Impacts..............................................................................................................6 5.0 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES......................................................................................8 5.1 Affected Environment......................................................................................................8 5.2 Potential Impacts..............................................................................................................9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1, Wetland.....................................................................................................Following Text Figure 2, Forested Areas..........................................................................................Following Text Figure 3, Streams and Floodplains...........................................................................Following Text Figure 4, Hydrogeologic Map...................................................................................Following Text SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis —I Chemstone 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Rezoning of the two Global Chemstone (GC) parcels north of the existing facility from the exist- ing agricultural use to future mineral extraction requires approval from Frederick County, Vir- ginia. The approval process, as outlined in the Rezoning Application Package from the Depart- ment of Planning and Development, requires assessment of potential impacts resulting from this change in land use. Potential groundwater impacts are of particular concern to local constituents and are a key focus of these assessments. There are two parcels included in this study, named by convention in accordance with a mining reserves report (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990, for Chemstone Corporation). The parcel to the north is termed the Middle Marsh property and the one to the south, adjacent to Cedar Creek, is termed Chemstone Northern Reserves property. 1.1 Scone of Study The potential impacts addressed by SAIC include wetlands, forests, streams, and groundwater. Our tasks coincide with County rezoning requirements and are completed at a level similar to that of an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Specific details of the work are provided in each section. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis — dhal Chemstone a 2 MW 'WI 2.0 WETLANDS The assessment of the affected environ rent and potential impacts to existing wetlands includes the following: ➢ Use of applicable National Wetlands Inventory Mapping. > Use of applicable USDA soils mapping. ➢ Use of applicable 100-year floodplain mapping. ➢ Field examination of potential wetlands. ➢ Mapping of the potentially affected environment. ➢ Comparison of the snapping with potential open -pit mining areas. 2.1 Affected Environment Potential wetlands areas include those mapped as wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory Mapping and as hydric soils in USDA soils mapping. Flood -plain areas (based on 100-year flood -plain mapping) and stream -side areas that could be considered waters of the United States were examined but are assessed in the Streams Section of this report. Based on field observations, true wetlands areas may be somewhat different than indicated in the mapping. Detailed, forinal delineations are required as part of a separate permitting process. As indicated on Plate 1, the Middle Marsh and Northern Reserves properties contain approxi- mately 0.3 and 1.9 acres, respectively, of potential wetlands. 2.2 Potential Impacts Areas of potential impact include those where actual reserves exist and mining can take place. These areas are delineated in the reserve evaluation for the Middle Marsh property (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990). The potential impact area for the Northern Reserves property is estimated in this study from existing geologic mapping. The potential impact areas also include estimated stockpile, berm, spoils, and plant footprints. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis — C&I Chemstone 3 As shown on Plate 1, overlay of these zones on the affected environment indicates the potential impact areas for each parcel. This results in less than 0.4 acres of total potential wetlands that could be affected by the rezoning. This area should be considered an estimate, since formal wet- land delineations have not been completed. SCIENCE APPLICA TIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis..— Udbal Chemstone r 4 qW 3.0 FORESTS The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to existing forest areas in- cludes the following: ➢ Selections of appropriate forest stand criteria were selected based on the existing land cover, including pasture and fallow fields, cedar, cedar (grazed), cedar/osage, and oak/hickory stands. ➢ Use of the oak/hickory forest community as an equivalent to the "mature woodlands" as considered by the County (these are not true biologically mature or virgin forests). ➢ Field examination of forest area zones (without field marking). ➢ Field mapping of the potentially affected environment on aerial photographs. ➢ Comparison of the mapping with potential open -pit mining areas. 3.1 Affected Environment The five different vegetation covers found on the two parcels are shown on Plate 2. There is an area.in the southern portion of the Middle Marsh property that can be described as an Oak -Hickory Forest. Species observed in this small forest island include red oak (Quercus ru- bra), white oak (Quercus alba), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), mockernut hickory (Carya to- mentosa), and white pine (Pinus strobus) in the overstory, and sassafras (Sassafras albidum), dogwood (Corpus florida), and hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana) in the understory. This is likely a re -growth of abandoned farmland, as there is an almost complete lack of old dead snags, and/or decomposing trees, which would be indicative of an older, truly mature forest. Neverthe- less, this area provides habitat for Oak -Hickory biota, which likely include blue jays, wild tur- key, scarlet tanager, rose -breasted grosbeak, gray squirrel, fox squirrel, Northern flying squirrel, and Eastern chipmunk. The remainder of the Middle Marsh property is clearly agricultural and includes sharp delinea- tions between fallow agricultural and active agricultural land. Much of the fallow agricultural land is dominated by Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), which is an invasive, early - successional species that is relatively shade intolerant. Other species observed in these sections, SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analvsis — dal Chemstone a____ 5 particularly along the creeks, include black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), osage orange (Maclura pomifera), Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), and honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.). The area just to the north of the intersec- tion of Route 627 and Middle Marsh Creek is predominantly Eastern red cedar and is heavily grazed. The Northern Reserves property is difficult to access due to lack of roads, steep slopes, and heavy vegetation. The site contains a larger Oak -Hickory Forest community, as described above. This site offers a larger and more contiguous forest than the Oak -Hickory Forest on the Middle Marsh property, and likely offers better biotic habitat for the variety of species described above. There are areas of dense Eastern red cedar on the upland portions of this site as well as Eastern red cedar pasture. 3.2 Potential Impacts Areas of potential impact include those where actual reserves exist and mining can take place. These areas are delineated in the reserve evaluation for the Middle Marsh property (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990). The potential impact area for the Northern Reserves property is estimated in this study from existing geologic mapping. The potential impact areas also include estimated stockpile, berm, spoils, and plant footprints. As shown on Plate 2, overlay of these zones on the affected environment indicates the potential impact areas for each parcel. This results in a total of eight acres of potential mature forests that could be affected by the rezoning. This area should be considered a maximum, since the term mature forest could be applied more stringently and significantly reduce the affected environ- ment areas accordingly. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis — Gift Chemstone 6 4.0 STREAMS The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to existing streams includes the following: ➢ Identification of perennial streams in the area. ➢ Estimation of watershed areas and potential flows using USGS data from local gauging stations. ➢ Mapping of 100-year floodplain areas. ➢ Mapping of the potentially affected environment. ➢ Comparison of the mapping with potential open -pit mining areas. 4.1 Affected Environment As shown on Plate 3, the major stream in this area is Cedar Creek, which flows southeastward adjacent to the Northern Reserves property. Two tributaries to Cedar Creek cross the Middle Marsh property before joining Cedar Creek. Middle Marsh Brook and Watson Run flow in a southwesterly direction and have contributing drainage areas of approximately 1,105 and 826 acres respectively. They are not true perennial streams (they had no flow during the October 2001 field inspections). Using the Opequon Creek gauging station records, these streams are es- timated to have average flows of 0.69 to 0.52 cfs, respectively. Each creek is impacted by the agricultural nature of the surrounding area. There is cattle grazing in and near the creeks and the channels are vegetated with forbs, bearing evidence to the fact that there has not been enough water to scour out the vegetation in recent weeks or months. 4.2 Potential Impacts Areas of potential impact include those where actual reserves exist and mining can take place. These areas are delineated in the reserve evaluation for the Middle Marsh property (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990). The potential impact area for the Northern Reserves property is estimated in this study from existing geologic mapping. The potential impact areas also include estimated stockpile, berm, spoils, and plant footprints. SCIENCEAPPLIcATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis —Qftl Chemstone 7 MW i As shown on Plate 3, overlay of these zones on the affected environment indicates the potential impact areas for each parcel. This results in a total of 793 linear feet of potential stream channel 1 that could be affected by the rezoning and a total of 13 acres of potentially affected 100-year floodplain. These quantities should be considered maximums, since many potential impacts can be mitigated by avoidance. There should be little to no impacts to stream flow from the pro- I posed operations since they will not use surface water for processing or dust control (provided by dewatering pumping). SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis — CAI Chemstone 8 � S 5.0 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES The assessment of the affected environment and potential impacts to groundwater resources in- cludes the following: ➢ Delineation of interconnected geologic formations based on existing mapping and field observations. ➢ Delineation of potential zones of surface water and groundwater contribution based on topographic drainage catchments areas. ➢ Identification of photogeologic fracture traces as potential zones of increased groundwater flow. ➢ Inventory of potential groundwater users and wells within 1,500 feet of the property boundaries through the Frederick County Health Department, by field observation, by aerial photo analyses, and use of tax mapping parcel boundaries. ➢ Estimation of groundwater pumping for the existing pumping records and quarry con- figuration based on interviews with Global Chemstorie personnel and aerial photo analysis. ➢ Estimation of zones and magnitudes of groundwater drawdown surrounding the poten- tial mining areas using a digital groundwater model and pumping rates extrapolated from existing operations and mining areas, maximum drawdown from the proposed mine depth, and aquifer parameters from pumping tests in the carbonate aquifer. ➢ Identification of potential karst areas from existing State geologic publications and field inspection. ➢ Mapping of the potentially affected environment. ➢ Comparison of the mapping with potential groundwater impacts. 5.1 Affected Environment The parcels lie in the Shenandoah Valley portion of the Great Valley Physiographic Province. This area is underlain by carbonate rocks of the Great Valley sequence, which in this area in- cludes the Beekmantown, New Market, and Lincolnshire.formations. The New Market Forma - SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION iPotential Impact Analysis - AW1 Chemstone A& 9 tion (Mosheim Formation) is a high calcium limestone and is the mineral resource identified for extraction. r i Where saturated, these formations constitute a local section of the carbonate rock aquifer system of the Great Valley. Recharge to the aquifer system is generally from local precipitation. In general, the carbonate rock aquifers of the Great Valley are highly productive and have relatively high rates of recharge. Groundwater moves through the rock through cracks, fissures, solution openings, and bedding partings in the rock mass. Based on drilling records in the Great Valley, the groundwater system extends to at least 700 feet in depth in this area. Groundwater use in the area is limited. The aggregate quarry between the two study parcels 1 withdraws approximately 84,000 gpd on an annual average basis. There are 30 on -site well and septic systems within 1,500 feet of the property boundaries of the two parcels. Of these, domes- tic water use is generally between 200 and 400 gpd per unit, approximately 10 to 30 percent of which is consumptive. 5.2 Potential Impacts Potential impacts from mining in the two parcels originate from the dewatering required in the mining operation itself, as the extraction process extends below the water table. In general, as the mining process exposes water -bearing fractures, groundwater enters the mine and is pumped out so that mining can continue. The resulting impacts are similar to those associated with a large -diameter groundwater well. Potential impacts are estimated using a single hydrogeologic computer model (Two Day). The parameters used in the model are as follows: ➢ Pumping rate ➢ Depth to water table > Water table drawdown ➢ Aquifer transmissivity > Aquifer thickness SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Potential Impact Analysis — I Chemstone 10 W 'Raw The depth of the mineral deposit (New Market Formation) determines the maximum potential depth of mining and water table intrusion. Based on geologic mapping performed for the min- eral resource study, the New Market Formation terminates at a relatively shallow depth, to an elevation of approximately 550 feet (Southeastern Geoscience, 1990), which greatly reduces the potential water table drawdown impact. The potential water table drawdown contour lines are shown on Plate 4. As shown, the estimated drawdown off -site in areas of existing wells is 10 to 20 feet. Since most wells in this region have in excess of 100 feet of available drawdown, the anticipated affect would likely be unnoticeable in such supplies. Therefore, based on this model and the assumptions therein, there should be few if any adverse impacts to existing water supplies in the Area. Since this is an area of poten- tial karst (sinkholes), changes in the water table cam accelerate the surface exposure of these ex- isting subsurface features. Although no mitigation measures appear to be warranted at this time, a groundwater and karst monitoring program should detect potential adverse impacts in advance such that appropriate mitigation can be provided. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION F. MIDDLE MARSH PROPERTY Tom Arm &12 Aci- ^' / ✓ Poter" ImDad Area - ' 78 Acres Pctenba� We*aid Aw = .l Acres JL Potemia; Wenend Irrpad = None t' kr .. K � 4 Chem9one NorMem Reserve Tew Area 1 M Acres Potential Ir-pdCl Area - 45 Acres PotenbaWetland A'ea = 1.5 Aces FO!enta Wetland ^ Dad = < 1 Acres X. _ K1� t /` airy. Liam vans ,.. .. a...�... .. Qw.alwaoaMa wffnAW 49W S I MIDDLE MARSH PROPERTY � `, 1 Jtal Anna - c�3 AG"es `� ...• {" ,: '� /i PJlennal Impact A.•ee - 138 Aces 1r - v � A1aGre WeoCland ArN - 38 ache Pdenual Unpart Area .. :•ram Chsmstons Northom ResNw Teta! A,oa - 168 Acres Potarl4al Iroac: Area - S_ Acres � Malwe woodlark: Area - 83 Aces Potenua 17VWL Area 8 Acres WWII- IL Ob ----- -- -- ------------- 00 00 ob claw anunagwccaurar MOM . . . ......... 01 On HYDAWROUNC Ob och coo January 2006 0 Wilemstone - Middletown APPENDIXA. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT P6MTLAL IMPACT ANALIM OF MINING ..OPERATIONS AT THE MIDD MARSH AND RESERVES PROPERTIES 06 i i Jk 1 i f •` i .� Prepared for i G.W. Cliff Associates, Inc. 117 E. PiccaStreet, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 �f+ddiitoflRl. August 2001. �.: Prepared by cience Applications buernati ."'Corporatioti' j-$usinress Paxkway South, Suite 10 ' °D Wegminster, Marylan."'I - � ',lam Jmivary 2006 0 pneinsione - Middletown APPENDIX B HISTORIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared by. Lynn Sims Ph.D. Military Historian University of Richmond CEDAR CREEK REPORT The question is; "Will the quarry expansion interfere with the core battlefield of Cedar Creek or impair an understanding and interpretation of what happened there 19 October 1864?" A problgm in Virginia is so much history happened here you could put a fence around the Valley as well as Eastern Virginia and call them both historical areas. We cannot, and have not, and do not want to save all land where history "happened." We can only save what we know to be significant. The property proposed for quarry operation was the land ridden over by Brig. Gen. George Custer's Third Division of the Cavalry Corps on the afternoon of 19 October 1864, part of the Federal counterattack against Confederates under Lieut. Gen. Jubal A. Early. The original morning offensive by the Confederates was a brilliant and complicated plan involving a three -column converging night attack supported by cavalry on both flanks. It was planned well, executed with force, gained the element of surprise, and pushed the Federals back. About 0930 the Confederate attack lost its momentum. The Federals were able to mount a counterattack about 3:30 that afternoon overwhelming the Confederates and reversing, not only Confederate success that day, but eliminating Confederate power in the Valley for the rest of the war. Part of the Federal counterattack was a cavalry charge of about 3,000 troopers under Custer which swept down on the Confederate left, or western, flank and mostly consolidated what Federal infantry already had captured in the way of wagons, cannons, prisoners of war, battle flags, and supplies. When the former head historian for the National Park Service, Dr. Edwin C. Bearss laid out the battlefield, he included everything this side of the quarry to the Valley Pike as the core battlefield. Since that designation individuals have built homes on the core battlefield, Interstates have obliterated part of the battlefield used by Confederate troops moving to the attack. Also business establishments now stand on land where the battle took place, and Lord Fairfax Community College owns over 100 acres. Among the famous Federal personalities at the battle, Maj. Gen. Philip Sheridan the Commanding General operated in the middle and eastern part of the field near the Valley Pike. Two future presidents of the United States, Col. Rutherford B. Hayes, and Cpt. William McKinley were both on the eastern side of the field, again near the Valley Pike. Custer's name is known by most Americans. He was there, and performed perhaps his best during the war. His tactics were pretty much the same through out his career. That is without much preparation, planning, or consideration of tactics and terrain, "Charge in fast, throw the enemy off balance, then react to what happens." These were his tactics for 12 years, until he charged into a large group of Sioux and Cheyenne along the Little Big Horn in present day Montana. Still, Custer was in this battle and it was one of his finest actions. Aside from part of the Federal cavalry charging across a piece of this land, nothing of significance happened on the land. By October 1864, everyone on both sides was a professional. The outstanding points of the battle of Cedar Creek are the Confederate plan and execution, the personal leadership of Sheridan and other officers, the stubborn resistance of pockets of troops on both sides, and the rout of Early's troops, which ended Confederate power in the Valley and ended Early's career. The accompanying map shows the route of Custer's charge and the proposed extension of the quarry. Quarry owners are mindful of keeping the integrity of the battlefield and are considering ways to minimize, and hide structures necessary for mining, as well fts considering ways to -benefit battlefield visitors understanding through the use of platforms and interpretive devices. In an aside, the battle was significant for Vermont units because by happenstance every unit from the "Green Mountain" State on active duty was at this battle. Hanging in their state capitcfl-n Montpe7ieris ahuge painting of Cedar Creek. Other fighting at the same time in 1864, east and south of Petersburg, also was significant as it caused Gen. Robert E. Lee to leave his trenches and move west until he was stopped at Appomattox Court House and surrender, 9 April 1865. Without a doubt -if -Cedar Creek was in any other state, much would be made of the battle for out of the 53,000 soldiers engaged, there were 8,500 casualties. But there are only two unit markers on the battlefield, and only one visible to the public. There are several state markers along the Valley Pike which give an idea of the events for all who stop to read. For the historian who wants to see the battle as the participants saw it, ground level, or from horse back, that is still possible. Once the Confederate planners left Signal Knob on Massanutten Mountain, they too were at ground level. In summary, early in the day the Confederates attacked and forced the Federals to retreat. That retreat took place this side of the proposed quarry operation. Only Custer's sweeping counterattack later in the day crossed part of the land proposed to be quarried. I have flown over the land in a helicopter, driven, and walked the land, read after - action reports of the participants, as well as studied the pertinent maps in the Library of Virginia, the Virginia Historical Society, and in published books. I believe an accurate, complete and useful interpretation of the day's events can be viewed with the construction of the quarry. I further believe with the help of the mining company, the interpretation of the battle will be better understood than it is now. E 0 NIESWANDER' S FORT The question is; What do we know about the ruins noted on mains "Nieswander's Fort?" The ruins now 14beledN'ieswander'sTort on maps probably date from 1-754-1756, during the French and Indian War when the Lower Valley of Virginia experienced many Indian raids. Although there is no record of a Nieswander Fort in the records of the time, there is evidence to infer the ruins came into existence as a result of Indian depredations, and fear among presidents of the-LowerVailley. Given the size of the site, most certainly the "fort," built over a spring, was a blockhouse. It was probably much like Hupp's Fort, his primary residence also built over a spring, and according to the state marker dates from 1755. One problem in researching this period in the Lower Valley is in 1781 practically all of the documents relating to theljrench and Indian War were destroyed in a fire at the Virginia State Library. Brothers Jacob and Christian Neuenschwandger came from Canton Bern, Switzerland to Lancaster County, PA in 1711. From there they moved into the Lower Valley between 21 October 1731 and 28 November 1732. Jacob was married to Susannah, and Christian to Maria Magdelena. Christian settled five miles south of Winchester, a h4tf mile on the west side 6Tthe currentVa7ley Turnpike, the old Indian war trail which became broadened by wagon traffic. Settlers moving through the area used it as the main thoroughfare. Jacob, who owned 435 acres purchased from Yost Hite 7 February 1738, settled three miles further south near Stephens City, also close to the turnpike. The bothers were-Menuoniteiri the Ana -baptist tradition and shunned warfare, militia service, and firearms. Their defense would be to avoid conflict by staying in a blockhouse until danger had passed. The settlement of Mennonites in the Lower Valley was encouraged by Virginia and was in the tradition of V'irgi iad s settlement of'Scotch Insh-in the -Upper Valley, Huguenots west of Richmond at Manakin Town on the James River, and Germans in Germanna, Orange County. Virginia winked at religious conformity to the Church of England in the case of frontiersmen. These groups were used as a "trip wire," or warning, as they would-be the first casualties from Indian attacks. Nieswanders were among the first white settlers in the Valley. Jacob had a son named "Colonel" John Nicewander, born in 1742, a first generation American who became a military man. Often pacifist conviction died easily and early on the frontier because of close contact with warfing-indians. To understand these people we must understand the pioneer spirit. A frontiersman was a law unto himself, able to take care of his family, birth his children, set broken bones, protect his family, and raise a crop to survive. The pioneer spirit caused frontiersmen to �eep on the frontier. --Seldom did a £roi fiersman "settle' and allow others to pass him by to settle a further frontier. When he could hear his neighbor's dog barking or see the smoke from another's chimney, he moved on further west. Without a doubt, Virginia Governor Dinwiddie was the strongest of the colonial governors in devising ways to protect Englishmen in North America. Even though there are no French and Indian War battle sites in present day Virginia, many killings and atrocities occurred here. The first hostile forces sent out in the war were Virginians, and the first to shed blood were Virginians. Records estimate over 3,000 people from the Valley died or were taken into captivity during this war. A problem surfaced after General Edward Braddock's force of 2,500, including George Washington and 250 Virginians, were ambushed traveling to Fort Duquesne, on the Monongahela River, in July, 1755. The Braddock Road was cut west toward the Ohio River but ran through the Lower Valley at Winchester. Unintentionally the road also was an avenue for Indian raiding parties traveling east who now perceived the English as cowards and poor fighters. The road ended in the Lower Valley at Winchester, foupded in March 1744. By 20 February 1755 George Washington had written to ask Governor Dinwiddie to increase the support to the frontier and to build a fort at Winchester. Washington said, "The inhabitants who now are in forts are greatly distressed for the want of ammunition and provisions and keep asking me for these. I have none to give and see people in forts without food." Such colonial military failures as Braddock's defeat always were followed by serious Indian raiding upon the frontier. After March 1756 there were twenty skirmishes and over 100 casualties. Washington's troops were spread as thin as two soldiers per mile on this frontier from 1754 to 1757. The years 1755 —1756 will be remembered as the most murderous of frontier life. Cabins and barns in the Valley burned like funeral pyres. Governor Dinwiddie made George Washington command -in -chief of the Virginia forces in August, 1757 and in charge of defenses in the Valley. Adding to Washington's problems was American general distrust of a standing army as well as the pacifist beliefs of the settlers. The solution hit upon was to stay on the defense by constructing a series of forts, blockhouses, anti stockades. This would allow small garrisons in conjunction with local people to protect the settlers. Few forts had been built prior to 1756 but that year saw completion of the majority of forts in the area. Forts were for depots, storage of food and fodder, and rallying points in times of danger. The presence of forts also encouraged people to move into the area. By September of 1757 Fort Loudoun was completed in Winchester on an half acre of land, 96 feet on a side and including four bastions. There were three classes of defensive structures on the frontier. The blockhouse was the most simple, usually a square two-story log building, with the second floor overhanging the first. There were numerous rifle holes in the logs. Nieswander's Fort was probably in this. class. The stockade was much stronger than a blockhouse, often a double log structure two stories high, surrounded at a distance by a high fence of stakes or palisade. Forts were the ultimate structure, usually square having a blockhouse at each corner with each blockhouse connected by a palisade fence. Stockades and forts were for garrisons with sleeping arrangements and served as places of refuge for many people. Blockhouses, when not designated to be built in an area, often were made by families. These blockhouse were fabricated by community labor and private funds, and or fewer Indians might cause therefore families e those owning danger. h A situation could arise where a dozen blockhouse to flee into it with the clothes on their backs and what they could grab. In March 1756 the Assembly of Virginia authorized the building of a cordon of forts on the frontier, the construction to be overseen by Captain Peter Hog. These structures usually were on the heads of creeks extending toward the Allegheny Mountains. There are several extant lists of these forts describing the number of militia to be stationed there, distance from one to another, and the name the officer in charge. They all had names and geographical location descriptions. Some were built some were not. Fort Nieswander is not one of them. The name Nieswander, in all of its variations of spelling, is not mentioned in connection with this cordon of forts project. The closest was Stephen's Fort on Cedar Creek, ten or fifteen miles from Major Robert White's Fort near the Capon 1�iver in the North Mountain neighborhood. Even though Washington thought the best defense was a good offense, he was unable to muster enough troops from the locals to take the offense. Washington wrote "Those who now remain are collected in small forts, out of which there is no prevailing on them to stir, end every plantation is deserted." Also there was no cooperation among settlements in the Lower Valley. When the people of Hampshire County appealed to Frederick County for help against an impending Indian attack, the people of Frederick County said, "Let Hampshire take care of itself as we will do if we are attacked." In summary the ruins called Nieswander's Fort, if the ruins are of a blockhouse, was a private one reserved for the Nieswander family and friends. Its present location, on a part of the Cedar Creek Battlefield far from a main road, as well as its undocumented history, argue that saving the site would7serve no historical purpose. i 11 Imivary 2006 0 Chemstone - Middletown APPENDIX C TRAFFIC IMPACT .ANALYSIS H U04NN N/F T E h�C ,�sr o6R oa kEY � 403 IJINE TABLE I LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 N37*20'21 "E 2908.33' L2 1\44'12'04"W 353.46' L3 N,37'45'191 1587.57' L4 NB3'55'47"E 'j, 1427,97' L5 E 56'50'54"E 2031.06' L6 33'19'31 "W 'll, 359.18' L7 � 5"08'46"W 1771.57' L8 N 44.54'24"W '•; 547.10' I L9 E 5-7'53'12W 326.61' L10 E40'29'59"W 180.07' L11 E 34*14'59"W ! 75.78' L12 E 50'29'.59"W 52.91' I L13 E39'59'45"W 100.50' L14 E 42'59'56"W 1 DO.41' 1 L15 E 4"44'59"W 101.79' L16 SD8'30'QO"W ' 15.91' L17 S44.44'S9"W 48.70' I L18 N50'27'01"W 19.00' I L19 C70.47'.59"W 33.21' I L20 E 44.23'32"E 873.66' L21 E 36'28'.58"W 13079.05' L22 I\ 4 '3031 "W 1997.30' L23 � 4?'39'21 "E 62.27' L24 N4.3'2D'04"W 558.68' S PHR-A 2008 /WESTERNVIEW SUBDIVISION 10 DB 828, PG 1581 i i 9 8 6 5 4 L5 Z ��O o (9 Q� 00 (8 (12 (73 (�4 16 RICNARN/F �'8 08 487 P�'6�YE (lg (Zp Z z w Q No> PORTION OF Z z I PIN 83-A-109 z I cn Lu Z 14,253,609 SF N} REMAINDER OF � PIN o 0 327.2178 AC W Q I 83-A-109 cow _2 a I a m o z o * PROPOSED EM w o J I a ZONING BOUNDARY a CD-j O RUNS ALONG o EXISTING PROPERTY a LINES AT L22, L23 & L24 ONLY. I ( 24 N I 6 J I J J �2\ GEMS IVjF Co (0 or BOL-)u R STONF 628 S �a z L pCOC �� ►- 00 2I I Q c �R NOTES: Oe 8R6 qR ,o MS 1. FREDERICK COUNTY PIN: 6 �, 83—A-109 2. PROPERTY OUTLINE AND MERIDIAN SHOWN HEREON ARE GRAPHIC SCALE BASED ON THE PLAT ATTACHED 0 500 1000 2000 s TO DEED OF BARGAIN AND SALE y RECORDED IN DB 620, PG 186 = AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF ( IN FEET) ._ FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA. 1 inch = 1000 ft. LLJ INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS "ZONING BOUNDARY EXHIBIT A" a. NOT B.",SED CKI 4 CURRENT s FIELD RUN SURVEY. ADJOINING A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE BASED PROPERTY CONVEYED TO s ON INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CHEMSTONE CORPORATION FREDERICK COUNTY GIS WEBSITE, DEED BOOK 620, PAGE 186 MAY, 2008. BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT s; 3. NO TITLE REPORT. FREDERICK COUNTY, MRGINIA SCALE: 1" = 1000' DATE: FEB. 15, 2006 1 IN REVISED: MAY 20, 2008 Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc n Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landsc.-; _;e Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 FA+ Winchester, Virginia 22601? T 540.667.2139 PHF 540.665.0493 SHEET 1 OF 1 2- sy� coG\4pl�r/cl ems. 06 y o F� �� ��9 0 < LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 S37'00'10"E 1046.22' L2 S46'56'50"W 262.12' L3 S43'05'07"E 889.86' L4 S29'32'22"E 615.38' L5 S35'51'02"W 863.68' L6 S89'56'36"W 475.26' L7 N17'59'22"W 645.46' L8 N40'11'14"W 1720.29' L9 N52'18'45"E 1 1336.75' NOTES: 1. FREDERICK COUNTY PIN: 90—A-23. 2. PROPERTY OUTLINE AND MERIDIAN SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE PLAT ATTACHED TO DEED RECORDED IN DB 582, PG 122 AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA. INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD RUN SURVEY. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM FREDERICK COUNTY GIS WEBSITE, MAY, 2008. 3. NO TITLE REPORT. GRAPHIC SCALE 0 500 1000 2000 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 1000 ft. 1 N /F CHEMSTONE CORPORATION DB 628, PG 721 1r* N /F GARRETT FARMS, LLC DB 846, PG 698 L6 \ REMAINDER OF PIN 90-A-23 B&p - RPL *PROPOSED EM ZONING BOUNDARY RUNS ALONG EXISTING PROPERTY LINES AT L1, L2, L3 & L4 ONLY. "ZONING BOUNDARY EXHIBIT B" A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO CHEMSTONE CORPORATION DEED BOOK 582, PAGE 122 BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1" = 1000' DATE: MAY 20, 2008 Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. PHPA n rn r N 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 a F 540.665.0493 SHEET 1 OF 1 a PHR+A 9OOR CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C1 1876.78' 66.33' 02'01'30', S 78'41'59" W 66.33' � r �b C 17 351 ,803t SO. FT. �i C 19 8.0763f ACRES tK 15 CQ �1 L 14.00000 , 12 J7 __Ll0 CA -� B & 0 RAILROAD 1 DETAIL ��yFcF� 1.. = 50' EXISTING 2ETAINING WALL , LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S 59'38'45" W 142.52' L2 N 47'42'49" W 9.59' L3 N 15'52'44" W 22.16' L4 N 44'25'50" W 53.96' L5 N 42'01'49" W 57.18' L6 N 37'55'33" E 292.45' L7 S 86'35'28" E 1303.64' L8 S 18'05'05" E 87.01' L9 S 29'06'54" E 240.71' L 10 S 89'32' 16" W 443.23' L11 N 02'54'34" E 39.16' L12 N 73'35'59" W 34.99' L13 N 61*11'46" W 55.17' L14 N 79'13'29" W 88.69' L 15 N 73' 10'45" W 129.48' L16 N 24'46'35" W 63.00' L17 N 74'55'35" W 111.16' L18 S 64*37'31" W 81.52' L 19 N 78' 1217" W 61.62' L20 N 51'30'49" W 52.51' L21 N 64'44'51" W 73.52' L22 S 71'26'56" W 50.03' L23 S 65'36'51 " W 151.36' L24 S 41'51'08" W 79.70' Iw - v v �� 0' 200' 400' 600 %EXISTING �� � BRIDGE Z_ �mini 1 " 200' CHEMSTONE PROPOSED OFF -CONVEYANCE 8.076 ACRES ± BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: AS SHOWN DATE: DECEMBER 2003 URBAN ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS o LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS o LAND SURVEYORS 600 PEGASUS COURT. SUITE 101 WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22602 (540)450-0211 -�•� "- "_"'"' ,. -.. :.: Mom.,. .n,'�•y/"�" ".:' ~.ate ;, ..,.........:., 3 , N�� e • ••Aku.Ay ../ ✓.•:..-;iiri/ Jw�� _)!— ra ;fit r�=, _ �_S[Q:tLT-/••B94. � / B9L .4C.CCJ e � y� rTr�z�r�rl. :r �b "Y). I �, �. ... �' •.+ :.L ,..... ... .M, v......vr x.+ i �Yry• � �ly;j dy,,rrrr. err Jr�(��J,'i�•�%A��% ...�.7...-, „-z 1! V J may\ ` ,;;• ��' � � � / u u.rr - rwr•r 'J�,.y� � � i :.fir.. y -..y"^ a:. m....,::r..•�i. \� �' �""'�,>.:: ,..,� ....._,.. BOl/_A�DA'RY S/1R� ►1A wu a •eu e'i� ....<.,u �."..'r. :, Jut ✓(yKJ Nrif .^ '�J O� C/ Q, ig _ �,.•_„ y ;„ �' t X;7F:z":J:.:= .y/ e.io C..vm4r a„r ` rw, .. � ....» y. ,,; �,� ' L'�.rl:,....�.^,.t•1]';-e„ JTRR1auRc Di✓/Jio/� ret .z�• ,. ,�: .. - ,s'��'L.»«:G w; �' D-OW hj,}CO. N x'• ,.. .rw ���•�, �•,Yrr.. M1,, ,_�»�;,y C OiC4uO//M-lcisrcRFt� DiST., f,CCOER/e K, COS, 1'rLz+ - i. '✓ �" : w.•.... r�,..:� ���i.[}�.'�' ,., E9J.21 o A'ate 5 _ -� ^•�J99 A s , �,�LXi� • j ' ✓ ��M1(' — _� �,....... " , 5,':...t ~Y wow -ryK N/F SN'4PPANo /V. J.J. PICKERALE �e 2" t PC f 0/g DB 205, PG 151 548 L10 o I_ -_jn(0 2Q4,j h`4Ujc5 a (8 6 2 N. �m e(1,5 N 406 � (17 L13 ROV o v8 �� Qt s RICHAp o t p OB �? R. W (� P o_ ' 2 (25 69 2 (24 co co Q -(26 4 ' a-rl) z PORTION OF w Co 2 j PIN 83-A-109 21,339,227 SF -� �w n REMAINDER OF �' n . N Z 489.8812 AC w o PIN 83-A-109 Y J 2,159,280 SF f 49.57025 ACir O C 36� � w LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L7 N39'53'03"E 506.08' L2 N38'51'18"E 423.76' L3 N39'32'58"E 640.55' 1-4 N39'56'01"E 1296.56' L5 N58'34'51"W 24.61' L6 N71'51'15'W 762.00' L7 N48-10'25'E 1030.98' LB S42'53'33"E 198.00' L9 N48'03'52"E 1774.42' L10 S56'49'53'E 3699.27' 111 S33'20'32"W 1675.02' L12 S47'56'38"W 578.15' L13 N44 53'23"W 954.20' L14 S57'54'13"W 321.85' L15 S40'31'00"W 179.03' L16 S34'16'00"W IS43-01'00"W 76.22' L17 S50'31'00"W 53.16' L18 S40'01'00"W 100.30' L19 100.30' L20 S41'46'00"W 100.30' L21 S08'31'O1"W 16.05' L22 S4446'00"W 54.16' L23 N60'26'00"W 20.56' L24 S70'49'00"W 23.07' L25 S44-22.31"E 966.26' L26 S44'22'31 "E 1655.16' L27 S48'30'14"W 834.12' L28 S48'54'38"W 569.68' L29 N47'21'22'W 1346.03' L30 S36'29'59"W 1490.67' L31 S36'29'59"W 2939.60' L32 N29'54'46"W 196.47' 33 N36'34'41"E 1301.31' 34 N41'30'31"W 1917.08' 35 rL N4239'21'E 62.27' 36 I N43'20'04"W 1629.81' 4� Q o FAIN N/F 1< c� DB S66, 0 PCCo Cy Z Q N Ca ✓,gMFs ti �3z • �q �F et o O/9 x NOTES: w 1. FREDERICK COUNTY PIN 83-A-109 Z. PROPERTY OUTLINE, ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, AND MERIDIAN SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON GRAPHIC SCALE 0 500 1000 2000 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 1000 ft THE PLAT ATTACHED TO DEED OF EXHIBIT Y BARGAIN AND SALE RECORDED IN A PORTION OF THE DB 620, PG 186 AMONG THE LAND PROPERTY CONVEYED TO 3 RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, CHEMSTONE CORPORATION r VIRGINIA. INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT BASED ON A DEED BOOK 620, PAGE 186 25 CURRENT FIELD RUN SURVEY. BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT j FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA O 3. NO TITLE REPORT. SCALE: 1" = 1000' DATE: FEB. 15, 2006 Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. N 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Wi Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 Pfi- F 540.665.0493 SHEET 1 OF 1 SOa' J4.?.57Sa � _ � J✓75•4�!7 \� .470 3to-T3`/ 70 c •rt- c.+ �� —a 7 � z\ 1 � ELT � r�Fl\ r� 0 � r l � \ 1� `.. \-0,�• � ry / ,1 r-.' �1,J ` J � � �i��'�. ,ii F fir.°,,.LG. e! S�oe� I v ;.0 1ti 4�/-;"1'35rr".7-9 u0.tu 1 :a�oaouw 0—N Minerals Chemstone Patton, Harris, Rust &Associates, pc II' Southern Reserve Boundary Exhibit 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 p a VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 Qrl FREDERICK COUNTY, KRC/N/A �0 4� #3504 2707r-6/27/86 BX620Pc186 DEED THIS DEED OF HARGAIN An SALE made this day of June, 1986, between UNITED STATES STEEL. CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware ("Grantor") and CHEMSTONE CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware ("Grantee"). WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000.00) paid by Grantee to Grantor, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby grant, bargain, Bell and convey,with SPECIAL WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the Grantee in fee simple, together with all rights, privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging: All that tract of land, located about 1.5 miles northwest of Middletown on Virginia State Routes 8625, 0627 and 1758, and situate in Opequon Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 539.451 acres, more or less, as more particularly described by that plat and description by C. J. Rinker, Jr., C.L.S., dated June 25, 1986, a copy of which is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof which land is described by metes and bounds, as follows: Beginning at an iron pin Bet on the Southeast side of State Route 0758 and a corner with Flintkote Co.; thence with the Southeastern lines of the said road N 39. 53' 03" E 506.05 feet to an iron pin set; thence N 38. 51' 18" E 423.76 feet to an iron pin set; thence N 39 • 32' 58" E 640.55 feet to an iron pin set; thence N 39" 56' 01" E 1,296.56 feet to a point in the center of State Route 8627 and a corner with Kenneth P. Boyers thence with the general centerline of the said road 8nd the said Boyer's lines N 58' 34' 51" W 24.61 feet to a railroad spike found; thence N 711 51' 15" W 762.00 feet to a point, a corner with Wanda R. Proescher; thence with the said Proescher's lines N 48. 10' 25" E 1,030.98 feet to an iron pin set in an old broken off fence post, at an old fence corners thence S 42" 53' 33" E 198.00 feet to an iron pin Bet at an old fence corner; thence with another of the said Proescher's lines and continuing with Garland N. Snapp, et. als. line N 48" 03' 52" E 1,774.42 feet to an iron pin set at a corner with J. J. Pickeral; thence with the said Pickeral's lines S 56. 49' 53" E 3,699.27 feet to an iron pin set; thence S 33" 20, 32" W 1,675.02 feet to an iron pin found; 167 BK620PG187 thence E 47. 56' 38' W 578.15 feet to an iron pin set at an old fence corner, a corner with Richard A. Dye; thence with the said Dye's lines N 44. 53' 23' W 954.20 feet to a point in Middle Marsh Brook; thence down the said Brook with the general meanders thereof S 57• $4' 13' W 321.85 feet to a point; thence S 40. 31' 00' W 179.03 feet to a point; thence S 34. 16' 00" W 76.22 feet to a point; thence S 50. 31' 00' W 53.16 feet to a point; thence S 40. 01' 00' W 100.30 feet to a point; thence S 43. 01' 00" W 100.30 feet to ■ point; thence S 41. 46' 00" W 100.30 feet to a point; thence S 08. 31' 01" W 16.05 feet to a point; thence S 44. 46' 00' W 54.16 feet to a points thence N 60. 26' 00' W 20.56 feet to a point; thence S 70' 49' 00' W 23.07 feet to a railroad spike not in State Route #627; thence down the said road and continuing with the said Dye's line S 44' 22' 31" E 2,621.42 feet to a point in State Route 1625, a corner with Harold G. Nichols; thence with the said road and the said Nichols' line S 48. 30' 14' W 934.12 feet to a railroad spike set at a corner with Edith M. Renner; thence with the said Renner's line S 48. 54' 38' W 569.68 feet to a planted limestone rock found at a corner with Vernie D. Garrett; thence with the said Garrett's lines N 47. 21' 22' W 1,346.03 feet to an iron pin set; thence S 36. 29' 59' W 2,939.60 feet to an iron pin set at a corner with James H. Garrett, at. als.; thence with the said Garrett's line N 29. 54' 46" W 196.47 feet to an iron pin found at a cornea with the Flintkote Co.; thence With the said Co.'s lines N 36. 34' 41" E 1,301.31 feet to an iron pin set; thence N 41' 30' 31" W 1,917.06 feet to an iron pin found by an old fence post; thence N 42. 39' 21" E 62.27 feet to an old fence post found at a fence corner; thence N 43. 20' 04' W 1,629.84 feet to the point of beginning and containing 539.451 Acres more or leas. The aforesaid property is the same property conveyed to United States Steel Corporation by the following deeds: (1) Deed dated January 29. 1955. from Vernie D. Garrett, at vir,_recorded in the Cleric's Office of the Circuit Court for Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Hook I35,•at Page 112; (2) Deed dated January 29, 1955, from Irvan T. O'Connell, et u:, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 235, at Page 114; (3) Deed dated January 29, 1955, from J. J. Pickeral, at us, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 245, at Page 117; and (4) Deed dated March 31, 1955, from Paul G. Cooley, at ale, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed book 236, at Page 27; LLSS AND ZX=71 the property oonveped -2- 6 8K6ZOFG'33 k�by Grantor to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the 11 widening and improvement of a portion of Route 758, recordedi i;n the aforesaid Clerk's office :'.n Deed Book 410, at Page 542, and a tract of land containing 32.529 acres, more or less, conveyed by Grantor to J. J. Pickeral, et us, by deed dated February 9, 1956, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 240, at Page 176. Grantor hereby reserves to l,tself, its successors and assigns a royalty on all limestone or dolomite produced from the property described in Tracts I, II, III and IV above and either (a) sold, (b) crushed, sized and sold or (c) after having been crushed and sized, processed for sale by any other process, such as introduction to Grantee's kilns. The royalty shall be paid quarterly on the 25th day of the month following the last month of each calendar quarter during a calendar year and will be the product resulting from multiplying $0.025, hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference Rate', by the total net tons of 2,000 pounds each which are (a) sold, (b) crushed, sized and sold, or (c) after having been crushed and sized, processed for sale by any other process, during each calendar quarter during the term of this Agreement. No royalties shall be payable on unsold or unusable by-product unless or until sold or used. The Reference Rate referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be adjusted for each year to take account of the variation in the average annual price for Lime in the United States as determined by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. The value of this average price for Lime for 1985 will constitute the base for determination of the adjustment to the Reference Rate, but in no event will the Reference Rate be less than 60.025. For the purpose of such adjustment, it is agreed that the -3- 4 U620PGI89 average price for Line for 1905 is $50.50 per net ton of 2,000 pounds. The adjusted Reference Rate for any particular cale"ar Year shall be as amount which bears the sane ratio to S.025 as the average price per ton for line for such year bear■ to $SO.SO. Expressed as a formula, the adjusted Reference Rate (x) would be determined as follows if the average price of lime increased to $60: t6o , 00 —X $50.50 $.025 X $.0297 In the event that the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines or a successor agency of the United States Government ceases to publish an average annual price for Lime, the Reference Rate will be adjusted according to the variation in average annual price for Lime produced from the premises determined on an f.o.B. basis for any calendar year after 1985. When mining has occurred, Grantee shall furnish within twenty-five (25) days after the end of each calendar quarter of any calendar year to Grantor reports of production from the property and of limestone or dolomite sold or processed for sale during that quarter and within 45 days after the end of each calendar year Grantee shall furnish maps and sections to enable Grantor to verify the reported production. Grantor shall be entitled to audit such reports and other supporting data. Should Grantee and Grantor be unable to agree as to what production has occurred, then Grantee and Grantor agree to submit such issue to binding arbitration. Each party shall select one arbitrator familiar with the production of limestone and the two arbitrators selected shall choose a third arbitrator familiar with the production of limestone to act as chairman. Both parties shall be bound by the decision of the arbitrators. tech party shall beat all of the fees -4- 190 t ' AD- BXG20PG' PI and expenses of its own arbitrator and par one-half of the ; t i fee and expense of the third arbitrator. ` Th:.s conveyance :,a matle su'b,,ect to al„ roads and i 1 highways and the restrictive covenants, conditions and • 1 ii rights of way of record affecting the property hersinbefore a descrilbed. t I j =Attesti {•�t UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION By A831stapb:,Secretary G. Colombari I T Senior vice President - II Steel Related Resources L�• 'a'' t r'! y 1 BK610Pc191 C0101OH ALTN OF PENNMVANIA ) ) SS: COUM OF ALLEGHENY ) On this �� day of June, 1986, before me, a Notary Public in and for said County, personally appeared G. Colombari, who acknowledged himself to be Senior Vice President -Steel Related Resources of United States Steel Corporation, a corporation, and he, as such officer, being authorised to do to, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained by signing the name of the Corporation by himself, as such officer. IN WITNESS MMREOFt I hereunto set my hand and; official seal. / »••-. F Notary PubliO IOe A. ear, !7 Camission trpirea Y Y• i -6- - T,i- - -- -- --0-- _ 6 Z 0 FG I J ' zo o' �6 199/Su 1 N� C ' °0 7's PEE f O,xA.,;Vjcr 0= GGO Posr1w1wo O'r. ICV;V fOIW40 * At ✓. R Ca ,e%,r 1.5 0•.Q/.e r,0;44 SdT .oee o a,tad PC, JA! • e Poindr Yv��1 7�ya44 EL 0 0� ZJ7j' !To r s��77 et It I Pde. a s4r's�.'ae sTB•/ ^ ®•SST Ste'/Jw�i 3zLCS Q- J a1'iv'ovrh/ 70 2 t' � Q•3 SOJI'oo'vf s3•/�• o @'J4o'oI'oo'vf Joo.Jo' t S'4✓4(�'o0„tr I00.30 • �- = l,J'" pis �s �4'44 •oo'vf S4./L• Q)W4d Z4.'Oo h( ZO-54' Q•S 70 s9bOv�f' $3 07' 4876B� S � h 0 tZZ a v o �� v ,•ty��14A8J hI h `` N Z22T� / J MicCS ro •h .h 47 o4o fort 'Z!'ZZ' b 0 � 'co wj Q .4 4 Ru�nls � �_ 1744.03' , COJ .h ;,1.. •� r�rht�°ea t•ss/uy c vaewit, •� Posr �h .n/�4J'LO'o♦`Yf 7.77,•1a 3J. r1i �y�VSit 01 poi tu su/J,7 .nr'3b'3a'4l�C w � t J! tp�ttl, 1 � 7'r,. JwcYcr /J J'uaJQCr To 4 17.3Ji)0CATE 05 �jLG c�sc.rjE.Jrs .tiro �,tirZ9 5444•y/ S� sa t�•3td�oica ,elc�rs-of ►fRrS of �Eco�o /3ai7'� o� or�e2hfls6, w�'ET�d� S�o►f�1(ae NOS'. \, ?to LAA0 TZId PL,tr Hs a4c v, P!,'cP,(AeCD Virs{o wr TKG CIC e6rr, dr+45 v O� acvcfir of'.t rinC �EPoPr gilQ oo4s.4or pu••� 4'Si,Ja T�+6,e�`f'QQE �/cCdSS�q•e/� /AIG/G.tTG 'tL�. \Xi'"_"' ENcu�a.gi�,IGEs o.y >7E s�.eoPc�err• a,-D c Ar✓cy'S ro Z/a G �/►� S TQ �` og�qe I�c%gT/O,Y- /.SIgiLCS �/o�sr�WG3r of rt�avL6rohl�, oPEQvo�.vt.q�. o/s�ticT TA�7d?f2 f�cOE.etV/tlTyi h q 193 d[bzurui j j f CARL J. RINKER & ASSOCIATES Lane Sunreyon • Enpnewt • Lano Ptanw* Lawya.,' 11oti, Wooduoc4k, vs, 22W 1 (nM 45N716 This tract of Land is located about 1.5 ,riles Northwest of Middletown. on State IL"tas #625, f627 i #758, in Ope4mon Magisterial District, Frederick County, YfUSLAia and is described by mete* and bounds as follows: USL=InS at as iron pin set oa the Southeast aide of State Route #758 and a corner with tliatkote Co.; thence with the Southeastern lines of the said road I 0 39' 53' 03" 1 506.05 feet to an iron pin set; thence N 38' 51' 18" 1 423.76 feat to an iron pin set; thence N "' 32' 58" 1 640.55 feat to an iron pin set; thence b 31' 56' 01" L 1,2% .56 foot to a point in the cancer of State Route 427 and a corner with xattaetb P. loyar; thence with the general cantarline of the said road sad the said bo"t 's lines N 56' 34' 51" V 24.61 feet to a railroad spike found; tbaace b 71' 51' 15" V 762.00 feat to a point, a corner with Wanda R. Proescher; thence with the said Troascher's lines N 48' 10' 25" E 1,030.98 feet to an iron pia set to an old broken off fence post, at an old fence corner; thence S 42' 53' 33" I 198.00 feet to an iron pia set at an old fence corner; thence with another of the said Proescher's lines and continuing with Garland N. Snapp, at, als. line l( 48' 03' 52" I 1,774.42 feat to an iron pin not at a corner with J. J. Plckeral; thence with the said Pickerel's lines S 56' 49' 53" S 3,699.27 feet to an iron pin set; thence S 33' 20' 32" N 1,673.02 feet to an iron pin found; thence 3 47' $6' 38" V 578.15 feat to an iron pin eat at an old fence corner, a corner with (� Richard A. Dye; thence with the said Dye's lines N 44' 53' 23" W 954.20 feet to a f point in Middle Marsh brook; chance down the said Brook with the general meanders thereof 8 57' $4, U• 9 22J.83.feet to a point; tl.eaae S 44, 31, 006, V 172.03 OK620Ps'd 94 «� CAR:, & ASSOC" ATES Land Surveyors • Engineers • Land Pia wwl Lawyaw Row it Woodmock, VA 22U4 1703145"715 to a point; thence S 34' 16' 00" W 76.22 fat to a point; thence S 50' 31, 00" W 5:1.16 feet to a point; thence S 40' 01' 00" W 100.30 feet to a point; thence S 43' 01' 00" V 1DO.30 feet to a point; thence S 41' 46' 00" W 100.30 feet to a point; thence S 08' 31' Ol" W 16.05 feat to a point; thence S 44' 46' 00" W 54.16 feet to a point; thence N 60' 26' DO" W 20.56 feet to a point; thence S 70' 49, 00" V 23.07 feet to a railroad spike act in State Route f627; thence down the said road and continuing with the said Dye's line S 44' 22' 31" t 2,621.42 feet to a point in State Route #625. a corner with Garold C. Nichols; thence with the said road and the said Nichols' line S 48' 30' 14" W 834.12 feet to a railroad spike set at a corner with ldith N- Renner; thence with the said Renner's line S 48. 54' 38" W 569.68 feet to a planted limestone rock found at a corner with Vernia D. Garrett; thence with tha said Carrett's lines N 47' 21' 22" V 1,346.03 feet to an iron pin act; thence 5 36' 29' 1 59" W 2,939.60 feet to an iron pin set at a corner with James H. Garrett, St. -als.; ;j thence with the said Garrett's line N 29' 54' 46" W 196.47 feat to an iron pin 1 found at a corner with the Flintkote Co.; thence with the said Co.'s lines N 36' 34' 41" [ 1,301.31 feet to an iron pin set; thence N 41' 30'31" W 1,917.08 feet to an F iron pin found by an old fence post; thence N 42' 39' 21" E 62.27 feet to an old l � fence post found at a fence corner; thence N 43' 20' 04" W 1,629.84 feet to the 1 s , 1 point of beginning and containing 539.451 Acres more or less. 1 This Tract of land was surveyed on June 25, 1986 by C. J. LINKER, JR., C.L.S. i Frt rsd b }Ar G J. MKOL A Pa Y j CAi3 J PINKER AND ASSOC.� w ' �; j aanuc�rc LAND SOMMORS-ENGIPIR$-LAND K MMEU 54-17.3 )a) 01058 '1 ! LAWYERS ROW j WOODSTOCX, VA. 221W UKo j' PH 703459-4725 4 I �R3INrA 1REDE61CK COLIM. e= r liy 1.1r.s.a4h" v deed Is id.r d"a 12 3i P od IIA B.a1 e8-34.1 d I ^ f /1 1 C L = L. MONAHAN. ENGLI LNAN a MITCHELL TTORNIYS AT LAW EISOURO. VIROINIA IGNISTER. VIROINIA 0K 476PAGE105 THIS QUIT -CLAIM DEED, made and dated this 15 day of W "5 7V , 1984, by and between CHEMSTONE CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, party of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantor, and CHEMSTONE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, party of the second part, hereinafter called the Grantee. WITNESSETH: That in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable considerations paid the Grantor by the Grantee on or before the delivery of this Deed, the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby quit -claim unto the Grantee all of its right, title and interest, in and to the following real estate: All of those five (5) parcels of land in Davis Magisterial District, Shenandoah County, Virginia, north of Fishers Hill, southeast of and adjoining the right of way of the Southern Railway and south- west of Virginia Secondary Highway Route 639, being the approximately 99.313 acre aggregate of the remainder of the parcels conveyed to Chemstone Corporation, an Ohio corporation, by deed of assignment dated December 20, 1956, and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Shenandoah County, Virginia, in Deed Book 187, at Page 472. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CHEMSTONE CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, has caused this instrument to be executed by its Vice President and attested by its Assistant Secretary in accordance with proper corporate resolution heretofore adopted. CHEMSTONE CORPORATION BY ,�.�. (SEAL) /VicecBresident ATTEST: II Assistan S cretary / , . 0 .r u - MONANAN. ENGL[ MAN a MITCHELL ITOIINC g AT LAW 'KSNUNO. VINOINIA ICN[ST[N. VINOINIA 60oK 476PAGE106 ATE OF _ OF to -wit: a Notary Public in and for the State d jurisdicti aforesaid, do hereby certify that e- , whose name is signed as Vice President of CH STONE CORPORATION, to the foregoing instrument, bearing date on the day of 44, 1984, has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this day of 1984. My Commission expires NOTNOTAY PUBLI M f Co n nl:sion cx�iros Oct. 23. 1 e, SAC-NAKom (AUNT!. IS l was t!C!. 131 the the lorrn ii NritiA{ mth ttrtiC�te at _C_k_WJ j0dqnnta; tbeen Citl i : d!fI[e al said Cacnt+„ rhe•'� In le�..n V and Indexed. TAe Iues i+nDo "O/ k Sa iC, la? and (0) of tAc Code Aala W.- Dad. Q 19 this(4_daY of q-qq_M. Tme: CIA 2 Baox 416PAGE101 1 2-2 THIS DEED, made and dated this lst day of August, 1984, and between CHEMSTONE CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, party of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantor, and CHEMSTONE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, party of the second part, hereinafter called the Grantee. WITNESSETH: That in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable considerations paid the Grantor by the Grantee on or before the delivery of this Deed, the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor hereby grants and conveys, with special warranty (except that Grantor does not warrant the accuracy of the attached plats and surveys), unto the Grantee in fee simple, the following described real estate, together with all rights of way, privileges and appurtenances thereto belong- ing and subject to all easements, rights of way and legally enforceable restrictions affecting such realty: TRACT ONE: So much of the property of the party oF-t-h-e-73'rst part lying and being in Opequon Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, and Davis Magisterial District, Shenandoah County, Virginia, as contains 894.892 Acres, as is shown on a plat and survey of Carl J. Rinker and Associates, certified land surveyors, dated July 24, 1984, attached hereto, to be recorded here- with, and to be read as a part hereof for a more accurate description of the property herein con- veyed. For derivation of the title to said property, see the deeds appearing of record in the Office of the Clerk of Shenandoah County, Virginia, to -wit: Deed Book 308, Page 756;-Deed Book 430, Page 442; Deed Book 270, Page 365; Deed Book 217, Page 591; -Deed Book 199, Page 378;-Deed Book 377, Page 135; -Deed Book 199, Page 162;-Deed Book 199, Page 374; - Deed Book 244, Page 143;-Deed Book 187, Page 472; -Deed Book 274, Page 634. TRACT TWO: All that certain parcel of land lying anT -being situate in Davis Magisterial District, Shenandoah County, Virginia, and said to contain 0.398 Acres, more or less, as is shown on a plat and survey of Carl J. Rinker and Associates, certified land surveyors, dated July 24, 1984, attached hereto, to be recorded herewith, and to be read as a part hereof for a more accurate BOOK 476PAG402 i 3 description of the property herein conveyed; and being the same property conveyed to the Grantors herein by deed of record in the Office of the Clerk of Shenandoah County, Virginia, in Deed Book 274, at Page 634. Less and excepting therefrom 0.007 acres more or less, as shown on that plat and survey of P. Duane Brown, C.L.S., dated December 14, 1981, and attached to that certain deed dated the 6th day of May, 1982, from Chemstone Corporation, an Ohio corporation, to the �b Board of Supervisors of Shenandoah County, •�'j, Virginia, not yet of record. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CHEMSTONE CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, has caused this instrument to be executed by its Vice President and attested by its Assistant Secretary in accordance with proper.corporate resolution heretofore adopted. By ATTEST: CHEMSTONE CORPORATION Assistant li, rcretary TATE OF NEW JERSEY OF , to -wit: I, a Notary Public in and for the State an urisdicti aforesaid, do hereby certify that LES. C. VINNEY, whose name is signed as Vice President of CHEMSTONE CORPORATION, to the foregoing instrument, bearing date on the 1st day of August, 1984, has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and jurisdiction aforesaid. r. rrH Given under my hand this 3p CLday of ,,err.1.Of. 1..r. , 1984« f.L 4 , ••• .. r My Commission expires SHURACCAw Ir;r, I N TA PUBLIC••a �;F-��.' tc .:s ?fie !a!Z7in� .rite•; :ncA t[•''i!; t4 +1 Y.inhw!!fgRMl tberMh +►S 1![dvEd H tA/ - .. ._. 11 . . CIaA's taln:e r�l mid Iprugs, x �ycs rttad and mdeatd. The teats irr"sed br Setl. 5&Se, (sl erei (b). m mt Cmt -,"t c en p,d 1dy Gorr.nnscipn c'pir^s i cC 23, ;387 thisday u: S- � M. ieste: rAA i. �:� •+Y • <+ � +� +°� , of � •�:. �i.. � i ` SSS T � ••,W"t a" •pl ,, I I A<«u .r rr,,, m +7er„ a< 9. r� �--4� _ ��1Q.�cr-i�B9•f. B9L ,4C.CES , II 1 N M �..sr 4,�•sV�� 0 % - — s• (v/pnr,(r � • • rrh ' yl Y.r , � cerC eb• — —.prAO r(J .1 p�o u ca +'e.ssi n :... " er ,,• \ ii , ., wy•% �� Bou o%p suR✓ p - .r r' „ ,u p .A.-..0 u' a' „` O a -•I a ,a, c ., y \ ' .., ,y " •• JVS,V0.(1 r/ r,7 •' NI i r I , •,•. gnw, w�r,w,. +•+.•• •H f /� .(' /'�//•� �,Q Q� Q =QK- 'L` 6Q c I�!LScL\. L•J s cl m .rj✓ aKio cotvoRTrion( y„ `` L't,r�,,,,,:M,;,•�',iJ',M,,,. 3TRRSBu�G oiY/Sio/� N `, 4 TM :.+` �,.-,,.,{.... D4✓is M461.MC14LDist Jy".ft✓004,t,C6• i,. .-:.. 1•. Hai: "{ „' --;.- •� J r• OPC o iSrt i LD/ST. f(CEDEQICK,CO.c. Qu A�M� R 4 a ` '+,'.: n.«.. „�,r•+ ..� , c "• Aar<I:•v�:: ..f • A.:•», f f;L� TOT.¢ .�• •" 69S.L90 .¢CRCs * -� -�++� '„' <%Sl•"v� B C � 'n..a.,..I war'r �r`� � l u r�r-z `y� `.�''n�'"=.'n.^..(`- ''w?L_ ��"�wn.y `mac � • `=—'��'�'-"= NW49,30'E'10.20' f 52o' 56''0S'E 5W A N 20056.05"W 30A9 7 ' S 67.4W 30' w 10.2 ' LNO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. 2.EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS—OFMfAYS OTHER THAN SHOWN •MAY EX15� lop xLT2i OF y � P. DUANE' r�. J /-�ER�WN�p & ADJACENT OWNERS SHOWN ARE NOW V .Y�b/�++• V �+�w�y ` OR FORMERLY THE OWNERS. NJ. 1285 4.A'O FIELD SURVEY. HAS BEEN DONE OR W1bIlSPUEDSEDALON�AYAILBIOE, LAND A4JQJ`r KATS AND RECORDS. M v`. '` PLAT Oc s N t. 0.007 _ ACRES REF. DLB. Z74 - N 6ELO=NG TO ��1►' .°`�' CH;rmSTOyE CORD 4l DAVIS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT e >,` SHENANDOAH CO., VIRGl,1lA wc�°ice DECEMBER 14, t981 SCALE: I~ IOO\ s •j• — •wn q,�IwaM ' wr/liwrr ,• •r, t— R•w \MC Oy. a...•.r• e".. frww.ww. Mw •..e\ I I W gr.�lle (•tMMM•Mrt te�\•1•Y•/1 INq M•d 11, __ ',. T'^����r ,ram. } ' f NEDERICK COUNTY. SGT. 14 I1 a In{ ilrl•/01 wnnna w,7L producdd to ms• on tns �_ der o ' aIW wIN carU(icate d i:i t wlodgment tM(vEDwJmwd Wo WIM- lill �._ w 'ecord. F. y d ': SX620PGIf 2707r-6/27/86 DEED THIS DEED OF BARGAIN AND SALE made this day of June, 1986, between UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware ("Grantor") and CHEMSTONE CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware ("Grantee"). WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000.00) paid by Grantee to Grantor, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey,with SPECIAL WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the Grantee in fee simple, together with all rights, privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging: All that tract of land, located about 1.5 miles northwest of Middletown on Virginia State Routes #625, #627 and #758, and situate in Opequon Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 539.451 acres, more or less, as more particularly described by that plat and description by C. J. Rinker, Jr., C.L.S., dated June 25, 1986, a copy of which is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof which land is described by metes and bounds as follows: Beginning at an iron pin set on the Southeast side of State Route #758 and a corner with Flintkote Co.; thence with the Southeastern lines of the said road N 39' 53' 03" E 506.05 feet to an iron pin set; thence N 38° 51' 18" E 423.76 feet to an iron pin set; thence N 39 ° 32' 58" E 640.55 feet to an iron pin set; thence N 39` 56' 01" E 1,296.56 feet to a point in the center of State Route #627 and a corner with Kenneth P. Boyer; thence with the general centerline of the said road and the said Boyer's lines N 58° 34' 51" W 24.61 feet to a railroad spike found; thence N 71° 51' 15" W 762.00 feet to a point, a corner with Wanda R. Proescher; thence with the said Proescher's lines N 480 10' 25" E 1,030.98 feet to an iron pin set in an old broken off fence post, at an old fence corner; thence S 42° 53' 33" E 198.00 feet to an iron pin set at an old fence corner; thence with another of the said Proescher's lines and continuing with Garland N. Snapp, et. als. line N 48' 03' 52" E 1,774.42 feet to an iron pin set at a corner with J. J. Pickeral; thence with the said Pickeral's lines S 560 49' 53" E 3,699.27 feet to an iron pin set; thence S 33' 20' 32" W 1,675.02 feet to an iron pin found; i • BK62OPG187 thence S 47' 56' 38" W 578.15 feet to an iron pin set at an old fence corner, a corner with Richard A. Dye; thence with the said Dye's lines N 44' 53' 23" W 954.20 feet to a point in Middle Marsh Brook; thence down the said Brook with the general meanders thereof S 57' 54' 13" W 321.85 feet to a point; thence S 40' 31' 00" W 179.03 feet to a point; thence S 34' 16' 00" W 76.22 feet to a point; thence S 50' 31' 00" W 53.16 feet to a point; thence S 40' 01' 00" W 100.30 feet to a point; thence S 43' 01' 00" W 100.30 feet to a point; thence S 41' 46' 00" W 100.30 feet to a point; thence S 08' 31' 01" W 16.05 feet to a point; thence S 44' 46' 00" W 54.16 feet to a point; thence N 60' 26' 00" W 20.56 feet to a point; thence S 70' 49' 00" W 23.07 feet to a railroad spike set in State Route #627; thence down the said road and continuing with the said Dye's line S 44' 22' 31" E 2,621.42 feet to a point in State Route #625, a corner with Harold G. Nichols; thence with the said road and the said Nichols' line S 48' 30' 14" W 834.12 feet to a railroad spike set at a corner with Edith M. Renner; thence with the said Renner's line S 48' 54' 38" W 569.68 feet to a planted limestone rock found at a corner with Vernie D. Garrett; thence with the said Garrett's lines N 47' 21' 22" W 1,346.03 feet to an iron pin set; thence S 36' 29' 59" W 2,939.60 feet to an iron pin set at a corner with James H. Garrett, et. als.; thence with the said Garrett's line N 29' 54' 46" W 196.47 feet to an iron pin found at a corner with the Flintkote Co.; thence with the said Co.'s lines N 36' 34, 41" E 1,301.31 feet to an iron pin set; thence N 41' 30' 31" W 1,917.08 feet to an iron pin found by an old fence post; thence N 42' 39' 21" E 62.27 feet to an old fence post found at a fence corner; thence N 43' 20' 04" W 1,629.84 feet to the point of beginning and containing 539.451 Acres more or less. The aforesaid property is the same property conveyed to United States Steel Corporation by the following deeds: (1) Deed dated January 29, 1955, from Vernie D. Garrett, et vir, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 235, at Page 112; (2) Deed dated January 29, 1955, from Irvan T. O'Connell, et ux, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 235, at Page 114; (3) Deed dated January 29, 1955, from J. J. Pickeral, et ux, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 235, at Page 117; and (4) Deed dated March 31, 1955, from Paul G. Cooley, et als, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 236, at Page 37; LESS AND EXCEPT the property conveyed -2- • r� U BK620PG188 by Grantor to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the widening and improvement of a portion of Route 758, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 410, at Page 542, and a tract of land containing 32.529 acres, more or less, conveyed by Grantor to J. J. Pickeral, et ux, by deed dated February 9, 1956, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 240, at Page 176. Grantor hereby reserves to itself, its successors and assigns a royalty on all limestone or dolomite produced from the property described in Tracts I, II, III and IV above and either (a) sold, (b) crushed, sized and sold or (c) after having been crushed and sized, processed for sale by any other process, such as introduction to Grantee's kilns. The royalty shall be paid quarterly on the 25th day of the month following the last month of each calendar quarter during a calendar year and will be the product resulting from multiplying $0.025, hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Rate", by the total net tons of 2,000 pounds each which are (a) sold, (b) crushed, sized and sold, or (c) after having been crushed and sized, processed for sale by any other process, during each calendar quarter during the term of this Agreement. No royalties shall be payable on unsold or unusable by-product unless or until sold or used. The Reference Rate referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be adjusted for each year to take account of the variation in the average annual price for Lime in the United States as determined by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. The value of this average price for Lime for 1985 will constitute the base for determination of the adjustment to the Reference Rate, but in no event will the Reference Rate be less than $0.025. For the purpose of such adjustment, it is agreed that the -3- ;J • SK620PG189 average price for Lime for 1985 is $50.50 per net ton of 2,000 pounds. The adjusted Reference Rate for any particular calendar year shall be an amount which bears the same ratio to $.025 as the average price per ton for lime for such year bears to $50.50. Expressed as a formula, the adjusted Reference Rate (x) would be determined as follows if the average price of lime increased to $60: $60.00 X $50.50 = $.025 X = $.0297 In the event that the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines or a successor agency of the United States Government ceases to publish an average annual price for Lime, the Reference Rate will be adjusted according to the variation in average annual price for Lime produced from the premises determined on an F.O.B. basis for any calendar year after 1985. When mining has occurred, Grantee shall furnish within twenty-five (25) days after the end of each calendar quarter of any calendar year to Grantor reports of production from the property and of limestone or dolomite sold or processed for sale during that quarter and within 45 days after the end of each calendar year Grantee shall furnish maps and sections to enable Grantor to verify the reported production. Grantor shall be entitled to audit such reports and other supporting data. Should Grantee and Grantor be unable to agree as to what production has occurred, then Grantee and Grantor agree to submit such issue to binding arbitration. Each party shall select one arbitrator familiar with the production of limestone and the two arbitrators selected shall choose a third arbitrator familiar with the production of limestone to act as chairman. Both parties shall be bound by the decision of the arbitrators. Each party shall bear all of the fees -4- • u BK620PG190 and expenses of its own arbitrator and pay one-half of the fee and expense of the third arbitrator. This conveyance is made subject to all roads and highways and the restrictive covenants, conditions and rights of way of record affecting the property hereinbefore described. Attest: n. rn AssistdiLt: Secretary_ . UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION By JZ��W G. Colombari Senior Vice President - Steel Related Resources -5- 16 0 BK620Pc 19 1 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA SS: COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY On this 039�6( day of June, 1986, before me, a Notary Public in and for said County, personally appeared G. Colombari, who acknowledged himself to be Senior Vice President -Steel Related Resources of United States Steel Corporation, a corporation, and he, as such officer, being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained by signing the name of the Corporation by himself, as such officer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and.. , official seal. ��:��•••., - Notary Publie r--r-L-L, LOIS A, WITT, Notary Pubge -• • • O Pittsburgh, Allegheny Coup •• ',• Commonrahh of Pennsylvania •••Ji7 '� � My Commission Expires nyrmm:..E_BNesBelaflerL8z98B f: .'•S� -6- January 2006 Chemstone - Middletown V1 • TAX TICKET ViewDetail 0 Page 1 of 1 Real Estate Public Inquiry Ticket Detail Department# : RE2005 Ticket #: 53810002 FRQ:' 2 Sup#: IL Name: O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY Map#: 183 A 109 Name 2: Address: Description:1 539.45 ACRES PO BOX 71 STRASBURG, VA. 22657 12/06/2005 12/05/2005 Bill Date: Due Date: Land: $1,888,1001 Improve: j Use: —_ Original Bill: $4,956.26; Payments: $4,956.26- Acres: _ 539.45 Penalty Paid:—.--..- Int Paid: Discount: _J Amount Owed: Other: _—_ Last Date: 12/06/2005 Total Owed: ( Penalty: j Interest: Note that if payment has been received within the last 10 business days, any returned items may not be posted at this time. Please check the website again. Date Type Transaction # Amount Balance 12/6/2005 Charge 0 $4,956.26 $4,956.26 12/6/2005 Payment 5889 ($4,956.26) $0.00 1 Use the print key for your browser to print a copy of taxes paid for this year. New Search Previous https://www.co. fTederick.va.us/applications/REPtibliclnquiryNiewDetail. aspx 1/20/2006 ViewDetail 10 Page 1 of 1 Real Estate Public Inquiry Ticket Detail Department# : RE2005 Ticket #: 53820002 FRQ:'' 2 Sup#: [0 -------- .l------- - - Name: O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY Map#: I90 A 23 Name 2: Address: Description: 153.50 ACRES PO BOX 71 STRASBURG, VA. 22657 Bill Date: 12/06/2005 Due Date: 12/05/2005 Land: Original Bill Penalty Paid:. Amount Owed: Total Owed: 4'�3Ur,000J Improve: $805.87] Payments: — Int Paid: Other: Penalty: _ Use: $805.87 Acres: 153.50 _ Discount: Last Date: 12/06/2005 Interest: Note that if payment has been received within the last 10 business days, any returned items may not be posted at this time. Please check the website again. Date Type Transaction # Amount Balance 12/6/2005 Charge 0 $805.87 $805.87 12/6/2005 Payment 5889 ($805.87) $0.00 1 se the print key for your browser to N ew Search a copy of taxes paid for this FreVious htips://www.co.fTederick.va.us/applications/REPubliclnquiryNiewDetail.aspx 1/20/2006 January 2006 Chemstone - Middletown V• SURVEY PLAT & DEED COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 540/665-5666 Fax 540/667-0370 E-mail: jri ley @ co.frederick.va.us May 5, 2008 Thomas Moore Lawson Lawson and Silek, P.L.C. P.O. Box 2740 Winchester, VA 22604 Re: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company REZ #03-06 Dear Ty: In response to your May 1, 2008 letter, please be advised that the above referenced rezoning is scheduled for the Board of Supervisors' May 28, 2008 meeting. As the Board conducted its public hearing at its April 23, 2008 meeting, please note this item is scheduled for Board action only; therefore, no additional public comments will be taken regarding this matter. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. VhR.,Jr. County Administrator JRR/jet cc: Board of Supervisors Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street • Winchester. Virginia 22601-5000 United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Cedar Creek & Belle Grove National Historical Park 7718 I/z Main Street P.O. Box 700 Middletown, VA 22645 IN REPLY REFER TO: May 22, 2008 Gary Lofton 711 Buffalo Marsh Road Middletown, VA 22645 Dear Gary, Thank you for stopping by the office following the April 23, 2008 public meeting on the Chemstone rezoning application. I want to reiterate the National Park Service's offer to provide seed money for facilitated discussions regarding the proposed application among the local community, Chemstone and local preservation organizations. In addition, Belle Grove, Inc. and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Civil War Preservation Trust, National Parks and Conservation Association, Preserve Frederick and the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation have all expressed an interest in providing financial support and to date we have approximately $6000.00 in commitments. A discussion, of course would not be productive unless Chemstone is an active participant. We find ourselves in our current situation precisely because the proposal was fashioned without meaningful input from the community. Given how difficult this entire issue has been I am hopeful that you will serve as an intermediary in encouraging Chemstone to participate. Although this would not be a sufficient amount of money to get us completely through the discussions with Chemstone — it is sufficient to make a good faith effort to work towards a mutually acceptable resolution. We recommend hiring an outside facilitator or perhaps purchasing facilitation services from the Frederick County Planning Department. In any event, this will not be successful unless the facilitator is perceived by everyone to be an honest broker and a resolution is reached with the active participation of all parties involved. We continue to have concerns about truck traffic, ground water, air quality, noise and vibration effects and the impacts on the battlefield and its associated viewshed; we are hopeful that the Board of Supervisors will again table the application. I am convinced that an acceptable solution can be reached that will allow Chemstone to expand their operations but also provide the visual and environmental protections requested by the local community. Beyond the environmental and visual impacts inherent in the current proposal, I am also concerned about how divisive this entire proposal has been for the local community — and again through facilitated discussions we may be able to address that as well. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you Diann Jacox Superintendent cc: John Riley, Frederick County Administrator Eric Lawrence, Frederick County Department of Planning and Development , Jdp��ucae V a EVERETTE L. KUNE, JR. Regional Forester COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY 470 George Dean Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 2400 Valley Avenue, Suite 17 (434) 977-5193 Winchester, VA 22601 FAX (434) 296-3290 540/722-3496 FAX: 540/722-7543 E-mail: gerald.crowell@dof.virginia.gov Mr. Spencer Stinson, General Manager O-N Minerals 1696 Oranda RD PO Box 71 Strasburg, VA 22657 May 20, 2008 Dear Spencer; Enclosed is the report on the rehabilitation of the proposed berms to be constructed to reduce visual impact of the quarry operations at the Middletown Virginia quarry. Such recommendations need to remain flexible. They could change in the future as practices are installed that do not give the desired results, and as new ideas are developed. Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions or whenever we can be of assistance. Sincerely, Gerald R. Crowell Area Forester Enclosures Mission: "We Protect and Develop Healthy, Sustainable Forest Resources for Virginians." 0 • BERM CONSTRUCTION AND VEGETATIVE SCREENING PLAN FOR O-N MINERALS, FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA MAY 20, 2008 wA5i1,"\40" r;�ri1���A l e L� G W—ir MAILING ADDRESS: c/o Spencer Stinson, General Manager, Chemstone Corporation,1696 Oranda RD, Strasburg, VA 22657 LOCATION: Limestone quarries one mile northeast of Middletown at the end of McCune Road. EXAMINED BY: Gerald R. Crowell, Area Forester, accompanied by Mr. Stinson on May 12, 2005 GENERAL: This report covers the examination of existing and proposed berms constructed for visually screening the operations of this limestone quarry. The landowner is interested in vegetation plantings on these berms for the purposes of stabilization and to enhance their use as visual screening. 1 DESCRIPTION OF BERMS- These are engineered) hernias of an approxdnnately 2:1 slope,10 - 30 feet tall, an generally with a 10 foot wide top, or ridge. Both existing an, proposed bermes are/will he constructed of materiel removed from the surrounding land as part of the cleaning process for quarrying of the underlying limestone. Such material consists of limestone rock of various sizes, clay subsoil, and topsoil. MUNT G EIWJilEN1T RECOMMENDATIONS EXISTING BERMS: MS: Where existing berms do not have adequate ground cover to prevent them from eroding, they should be planted with various native grasses, shrubs, and trees. A successful mixture of huckwhea-4 rye and other grasses has been developed by quarry employees that has proven to be effective in vegetating these slopes. In spots where prior vegetating efforts have failed, it is recommended that erosion control methods such as landscape fabric and jute mats be installed prior to revegetating these spots. It may also be necessary to reshape the hen -a in these spats to retard water movement dorm the slope and to hold water for vegetatdion survival and growth Pay constructing planting terraces with e)dsting rock and soil. NTE�T BERM CONST, RUt T , NOI\\To Consideration should he taken with any new berm cok euctiona t© help them blend into the viewscirpe by building them as luidu lating structures across the landscape instead of in straight lines. height should) also he varied) along the length to break up the top edge with the skyline. The outward slopes facing away from the quanudies shouuld he constr cted. with terraces along the face to both break up the visual sharpness of the face and to hold) soil and water for shrub and tree planting on these steep slopes. SUGGESTED BERM CONSTRUCTION - RIDGELINE VARIOUS HEIGHTS ALONG BERM TO CREATE A NATURAL HILL APPERANCE 2 • • SUGGESTED GERM CONSTRUCTION - AERIAL VIEW SHOWING UNDULATING NATURE ALDNG LENGTH INSTEAD OF A STRAIGHT LINE. 2 -4 FEET WIDE FILLED WITH TOPSOIL BERM PROFILE - SHOWING PLANTING TERRACES ON OUTFACING SLOPE WITH TOPSOIL ADDED FOR TREE PLANTING 9 • • SKYLII4E GERM OUTWARD FACE SHOWING PLANTING TERRACES CONSTRUCTED RANDOMLY TO VISUALLY BREAK UP THE BERM FACE. RE -COMMENDED TREE AND OHRUB SPECRES: Native species should be chosen to provide optimum survival, the least maintenance, and to farther blend into the existing landscape. A list of suggested trees and shrubs for landscape plantings in the Shenandoah Valley is included. Actual species chosen need to be selected for the specific location they are to be planted, and their availabili-�T. Not all of these acre available for purchase through nurseries. In general, these species should be intermixed to provide more of a camouflage effect along the face and ridgehne of the berms. Coniferous species should be planted where year-round screening is desired. Coniferous species, with their ability to survive better on hot dry slopes, should also be chosen for screening on south and west facing slopes. P LANTllSTG RECO1��T[i MENDAI<'1ION& Where possible, the topsoil removed in the initial stages of new slurry construction, sho-L d be spread to the depth of 6 -12 inches over alT, level surfaces that will be planted. For iiicstance, the tops of the berms. The recommended planting teliraces along the face of the berms should also be filled with topsoil prior to planting with trees and shrubs. bare rooted plants are recommended because of their low cost, ease of planting, and good survivability. They should be planted in March or April of each year. 4 • INVASIVE SPECIES: Numerous invasive species now threaten native plants in eastern forests. If allowed to grow and spread unimpeded, they will crowd out native trees and have a negative impact on wildlife populations that depend on the native trees and shrubs for their food. Ailanthus (tree of heaven, paradise tree), paulownia, autumn olive and multiflora rose are the most common non-native invasive shrubs and trees in this locality. Ailanthus Has a distinct rancid odor in the leaves, twigs, and bark. Autumn Olive Aluminum sheen to the Underside of the leaves. Large crop of red berries each fall. Paulownia Large leaves 8" -14" in diameter. Multiflora Rose Multiple stems from each plant Numerous, short curved thorns. 5 R EcCOMMENDAUONS- Once every 2 - 3 years, inspect all berms and associated land for invasive species. Where found, individual plants of these species should be either dug or pulled out of the ground, or deadened with herbicide applications to prevent the spread of their seed to these spots. One such herbicide recommended is Roundup ®. Cutting the tree down and painting concentrated Roundup® herbicide on the ship within 2-3 minutes of cutting is very effective with invasive trees and requires a very little amount of herbicide. Very large trees can be girdled with a chainsaw or a hatchet, and a mixture of RoundUpO and water can be applied to the girdle to deaden the tree. This will also have the benefit of creating wildlife snags until the trees rot down. A f®liar spray of Roundup® can effectively control individual small stems and clumps of small stems. Instructions for timing of herbicide applications and mixing for the various methods of application will be found on the herbicide label. These instructions should be followed precisely to obtain the desired results and to protect the enviroxment, Gerald R. CroweH, Area Forester R E NAME TREES (mosUy) SUGGESTED FOR LASNOSCAMAG M THE NORTHERN SH ENA NDOA l VALLEY OF VMMM, M No particular order of preference Gerald R- Crowell, Va. Dept. of Forestry 2/2008 Not all of those will grow on every site. First, decide why you want a tree; shade, screening, to enhance the landscape, fall coloration, flowering, wildlife food, etc. Second, choose the final mature height you want the tree to reach. Then, research each species as to the desirability of planting in a particular location with regard to purpose, soil type, and available sunlight. UTTILIE 6UNS (-T(G 20 IF EIET) Alder, Hazel Alnus serrulata Hawthorn Crataegus sps. SerViceberry 4raelanchier sps. Viburnum Vibumum sps Buckthorn, European Rhamnus cathartica F'ringetree Chionanthus virginicus Elderberry Sambucus canandensis Burningbush Euonytnus atropwpureus Redbud, Eastern Cercis canadensis D\/ EDff 6�j�9S (20 — 4® IFE ET) Hornbeam, American Carpinus caroliniana Hophornbeam, Eastern ®strya virginiana Chinkapin Castanea pumda Pawpaw Asimina triloba Sassafrras Sassafras albidun2 Persimmon Diospyros virginiana MG 6UN's ('60 — 00+ MEET) Willow, black Salix nigra Hickory Carya sps. Birch, yellow Betula olleghoniensis Birch, black, sweet Betula lenta Birch, River Betula nigr"a Oak Qcercus sps. Except for Q. falcata, Q. nigra, Q. phellos, Q. virQginiana Hackberry Celtus occidentalis Poplar, yellow, tulip Liriodendwon tulipifera Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Maple, sugar Acer saccharum Maple, red Acer rubrum Basswood TdiaAmericana Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica EVERGREEN-0 ILRTT LIE ' NSA (to 20 feet) l RhododendronRhododendron moximum Fountain Laurel Kalmia latifolia I`�1 ED11 6UM95 (20-60 FEET) NONE BEG 6 UI\Tg (40 — 80+ FEET) Pine, Pitch Pinus rigida Pine, shortleaf Pinus echinata Pine Table Fountain Pinus pungens Baldcypress Taxodium distichum Arborvitae, Northern whitecedar Thuja occidentalis Eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana Norway spruce Picea abies Leyland Cypress C'upressocyparis leylandii I`�1OT R E(COMI` ENDED FOR IL,AI`�IDS CAT E TREES: Ash (Fraxinus sps), due to Emerald Ash Borer White pine (Pinus strobus); be careful, it is off site on many shale soils and limestone clay soils in the `Talley Elm (Ulmus sps), due to elm yellows and Dutch Elm Disease • • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP A��� Deputy Director RE: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) RZ#03-06 Proffer Statement Revision Received April 18, 2008 DATE: April 18, 2008 Please find attached for your information a revised copy of the Proffer Statement for the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Rezoning Application. This latest version of the Proffer Statement that was submitted by the Applicant arrived today, April 18, 2008. The Board's Agenda was compiled earlier in the week and distributed earlier today. Although this submission was not done in a timely fashion, we thought it important to provide you with this information; even though it is currently incomplete as it has not been signed and notarized by the Applicant, and does not contain a valid revision date. Staff has been in contact with Mr. Bob Mitchell who, along with staff, will provide an additional review of this information prior to your 04/23/08 meeting. It is extremely important to recognize that this latest Proffer Statement was not in your agenda, has not been reviewed by Staff, has not been reviewed by the County's Attorney, and has not been made available to the general public for their review prior to the Public Hearing at this time. The Staff report in your agenda is based upon the Proffer Statement that is in your agenda, not this latest submission. As noted previously, the revised proffer statement has not been executed, signed, and notarized by the Applicant at this time. Further, it does not contain a valid revision date. The Applicant has also provided a marked up version of the Proffer Statement which depicts the changes made to the Proffer Statement since the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial. Please note that this mark up does not identify which changes have been made to the Statement since the March 18, 2008 version. Please contact me if you have any questions. MTR/bad Attachments 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • LAW SON AND SILEK, P.L.C. 120 EXETER DRIVE, SUITE 200 POST OFFICE BOX 2740 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 TELEPHONE: (540) 665-0050 FACSIMILE: (540)722-4051 April 18, 2008 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street, 2"d Floor Winchester, VA 22601 APR 18 200$ THOMAS MOORE LAWSON • TLAWSONG(_,LSPLC.COM Re: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Our File No. 462.006 REZ #03-06 VIA HAND -DELIVERY Dear Mike: As requested enclosed please find forty (40) clean revised proffer statements and forty (40) red -line proffer statements which reflect all of the changes to the proffers in the current revised state that have been made subsequent to the proffer statement which was presented to the Planning Commission. Please note that in paragraph 2 we have attached and incorporated the drawings which had previously been submitted and representations of the Generalized Development Plan. I believe you have already received approximately forty (40) copies of those in color for distribution to the Board Members. With all of this I believe you should have a complete package of all documentation. If after you have reviewed this you believe otherwise please contact me immediately so that we may provide you with all other information you believe is required. Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. TML-jk Enclosure cc: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company FRONT ROVAL ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 602, FRONT ROYAL. VIRGINIA 22630,TELEPHONE: (540) 635-9415, FACSIMILE: (540) 635-9421, E-MAIL: SILEKJ(rLVNX('ONNECT.COM FAIRFAX ADDRESS: 1 0E05 MAIN STREET, SUITE 200, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030, TELEPHONE: (703) 352-2615, FACSIMILE: (703) 352-4190, E-MAIL: THOMASO.LAWSON. VERIZON.NET United States Department of the Intcrior ""Mpm SERVICE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Ilistorical Park 7718 '/2 Main St., P.O. Box 700 Middletown, Virginia 22645 In Reply Refer To: April 17, 2008 John R. Riley Jr. County Administrator Frederick County 107 North Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Riley: We are writing to transmit our comments regarding the Carmeuse Lime and Stone, Chemstone Qperation ("Chemstone") rezoning request. The Chemstone property is adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park and is within the core area of the Cedar Creek Battlefield. Our letter responds to the revised proffer statement submitted by Chemstone, dated March 18, 2008, and supplements the letter we previously submitted in March 2006 on the rezoning request. We have asked the National Park Service's Geologic Resources Division to review and comment on the revised proffer statement and other information provided to us by Chemstone officials at their April 2, 2008 community meeting in Middletown. The Geologic Resources Division, based in Lakewood, Colorado, provides national leadership and specialized assistance for managing geologic resources and protecting national park units from the adverse effects of mining and mineral development. Additionally, we have requested assistance from the National Park Service's American Battlefield Protection Program in reviewing the rezoning request and revised proffer statement. The American Battlefield Protection Program promotes the preservation of historic battlefields, both inside and outside of national park units, and since 1990 has provided $648,000 in grant money to purchase and protect 426 acres of land and other historic resources of the Cedar Creek Battlefield. Both the Geologic Resources Division and the American Battlefield protection program have expressed concerns about possible impacts to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, to the Cedar Creek Battlefield, to Belle Grove Plantation, and to the town of Middletown. We ask that you consider the attached memoranda and enter these comments into the official record for the Chemstone project. TAKE PRID59L—.f INAM ER ICA-� • 0 Please feel free to call me with any questions or concerns about the attached information. I may be reached in my office at (540) 868-9176. Sincerely, 0 Diann Jacox Superintendent Attachments: 1. Memorandum from Geologic Resources Division, National Park Service 2. Memorandum from American Battlefield Protection Program, National Park Service cc: Eric Lawrence, Director, Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Kris Tierney, Assistant County Administrator, Frederick County, Virginia IINAMERICXA Ll United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Geologic Resources Division P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225 TRANSMITTED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL - NO HARDCOPY TO FOLLOW L2360 April 17, 2008 Memorandum To: Diann Jacox Superintendent, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park From: /s/ Carol McCoy Chief, Planning, Evaluation & Permits Branch Geologic Resources Division National Park Service Subject: Carmeuse Lime and Stone Middletown Quarry Rezoning Request The Geologic Resources Division has reviewed the informational materials and revised proffer statements provided by Carmeuse Lime and Stone as part of their rezoning request for the Middletown Quarry and offers the following comments for your consideration. General Comments While the operational aspects of the quarry remain essentially unchanged, the proffers offered by Carmeuse Lime and Stone, the new owners of the Middletown Quarry, have been expanded and are more clearly communicated than those offered by the previous owner on August 28, 2006. Proffers are essentially promises made by the quarry owner/operator addressing specific operational parameters and mitigation measures which are made, in this case, to reduce the impact of ongoing and the proposed expanded quarry operations on the surrounding environment. Overall, we remain concerned that a large scale mining operation located directly adjacent to a nationally significant Civil War landscape and antebellum plantation, poses challenges to maintaining the area's historical setting and significance. As you know, Congress designated Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park as a unit of the National Park System on December 19, 2002 (see 16 U.S.C. §410 iii et seq.). Among other things, the Act established the park in order to "help preserve, protect and interpret a nationally significant Civil War landscape TAKE PRIDE"? IN AmE R I GA `..,,tom% 0 0 and antebellum plantation for the education, inspiration, and benefit of present and future generations" [16 U.S.C. §410 iii (1)]. Further, the Act highlights that "[t]he panoramic views of the mountains, natural areas, and waterways provide visitors with an inspiring setting of great natural beauty" [16 U.S.C. § 410 iii-1(6)]. While the Middletown Quarry is not located in park boundaries, it is important to note that the Act states that "[t]he Secretary and the Commission shall encourage conservation of the historic and natural resources within and in proximity of the Park by land owners, local governments, organizations, and businesses." Given this explicit statutory language and direction contained in NPS Management Policies, we applaud the collaborative approach the park has taken in working closely with local permitting entities as well as Cedar Creek and Belle Grove partners to minimize possible adverse impacts to the park from existing and future mining operations. One of the predominant concerns that surfaces regarding the proposed rezoning of the Middletown property is why Carmeuse Lime and Stone continues to pursue the rezoning of 691 acres when the company insists that only 12% of that acreage will actually be mined. Carmeuse's Proffer Statement contends that rezoning the entire 691 acres from "Rural Areas" to "Extractive Manufacturing" will allow the company to use the remaining, unmined, 88% of the property as "... a buffer to protect neighbors from noise and vibration." We do not understand how rezoning the property to "Extractive Manufacturing" will allow any additional protections to adjacent properties that the existing "Rural Areas" designation would not. If Frederick County were to rezone portions of the Carmeuse property, then we recommend that the rezoning be limited to the acreage proposed specifically for mining and that the changes below be incorporated in the permit documents for the mine expansion. Specific Comments Proffer #2, Site Development, 2.3 — This section discusses a maximum berm height of 30 feet and landscaping the berms with a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings. We suggest the berm height be varied, when possible, to best conform to the surrounding landscape. Proffer #3, Historic Resources, 3.1 — The last sentence of this section states that "[s]aid [8 acre] reserve land shall be dedicated to a recognized historical association ...." The proffer should more clearly state whether the property will be deeded to a recognized historical association if that is the intent. Proffer #3, Historic Resources, 3.3 — When discussing the "second cemetery" located on the quarry property, this section states that "[t]he Applicant proffers to open said right-of-way so that it can be used for access by the relatives of those in the cemetery." If Carmeuse plans to block access to this historic cemetery to all but relatives of those in the cemetery, the proffer should state how access will be controlled and safe passage through the industrial operation by cemetery visitors will be assured. Proffer #5, Groundwater — Proffers in this entire section are inadequate to secure the protection, or remediation if necessary, of groundwater impacts associated with quarry operations. Section 5.1 states that Carmeuse will install a minimum of three monitoring wells . . TAKE PRIDEIVE—.4 INAMERICA, 0 0 . within 500ft of the property's boundaries." Yet, the Rezoning Application Materials previously submitted by Chemstone in 2005 revealed that up to a 1 Oft aquifer drawdown could occur up to 960011 horizontally from the project boundary, Further, Section 5.2 promises the applicant ".. . shall remediate any adverse impacts to wells on surrounding properties caused by mining operations on the Properties." Section 5.2 fails to indicate at what distance Carmeuse will consider remediating groundwater -related problems. Proffer #5 also fails to address possible ground water influences on the surface waters of Cedar Creek. Groundwater drawdown associated with mining activities may potentially affect the quality and quantity of surface water available for Cedar Creek. The proffers should address mitigation of possible impacts to this water resource. Proffer #8, Traffic, 8.1 — Information provided by Carmeuse Lime and Stone states that the previous study projecting "1300 trucks per day" accessing the Middletown Quarry was in error. The company now proffers no more than 200 trucks per day passing through the quarry scale house. First, this proffer fails to make clear if the mine plan contemplates 200 loaded trucks per day leaving the site (400 trips through Middletown) or 200 round trips. Second, informational materials provided by Carmeuse state that "... the quarry operation is not getting bigger. The quarry operation will continue to follow the same limestone vein it has been following for 50 years with ... the same number of trucks and rail cars." Considering that Carmeuse'is informing the public that the mining rate will not increase, we fail to understand why the company is proffering a 400% increase in truck traffic as the quarry expands. If mining rates are not increasing, the company should proffer a continued 50 trucks per day through the facility. The Geologic Resources Division appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions or if we can be of any further assistance, please contact Kerry Moss, External Minerals and Energy Development Coordinator, at 303-969-2634. TAKE PRIDEVE=IJ r NAM E R I GA ­� 0 United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE + 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 IN REPLY REM TO: MEMORANDUM TO: Diann Jacox, Superintendent, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Hist al Park FROM: Paul Hawke, Chief, American Battlefield Protection Program / SUBJECT: Proposed Rezoning of Battlefield Parcels DATE: 16 Apri12009 The American Battlefield Protection Program is quite concerned about the proposed rezoning of 691 acres of the Cedar Creek battlefield. I understand that O-N Minerals would like to rezone this agricultural land for the purposes limestone extraction. Such a drastic change in land use will destroy significant portions of the Cedar Creek battlefield landscape. Expanded mining will also intensify the existing adverse effects of quarry operations on the setting and viewshed of the protected, intact portions of the battlefield. The National Park Service, its partners, and the community recognize, of course, that Cedar Creek is one of the most important Civil War battlefields in Virginia and in the nation. I would like to address how the parcels under consideration contribute to that larger and pivotal history. The land proposed for rezoning is critical to understanding the way in which the Union and Confederate armies used the landscape for military benefit during the conflict. The heights of Red Hill above Cedar Creek on the southern parcel under consideration, and the stream valley of Middle Marsh Brook, which runs through the northern parcels under consideration, were especially important terrain features in this battle. Red Hill was the location of the fortified encampment of the Union VI Corps, and understandably so. Here is high ground protected by Cedar Creek itself to the west, a formidable obstacle to an attacking opponent. Well elevated, Red Hill provided not only a good defensive position, but also a good location for observation of adjacent fields. During the morning of 19 October 1864, as Confederate forces swept northwest across the Valley Pike, portions of the surprised Union XIX Corps retreated to the relative safety of their comrades' position on Red Hill. Archeological investigations will likely reveal the extent of the fighting that occurred on the heights and along the creek to the west of the hill. 0 .0 As the Confederate army pressed its attack and Red Hill became untenable, the Union troops retreated to the northeast, using the Middle Marsh Brook stream valley as a significant avenue of withdrawal. The terrain associated with the stream valley is and was wide and flat, making it an easily traversable, a key attribute when speed would have been needed. The Confederates pursued along the same terrain. This area is also the location of Brig. Gen. Wesley Merritt's cavalry encampment of October 18-19, near the local landmark of Nieswander's Fort. Historic maps and accounts are clear about the role this same land played in the last and perhaps most dramatic stage of the battle. The left wing of the reformed Confederate infantry line --mainly Maj. Gen, John Gordon's division --was positioned across the stream valley, bisecting it. Brig. Gen. George Custer's cavalry attacked from the north, focusing on the western end of the Confederate line. Stretched across the stream valley and unable to maintain cohesion at its flank, the Confederate left wing broke. These decisive actions took place on the northern section of land being considered for rezoning. The disintegration of the Gordon's division on the left caused the Confederate center to collapse, unable to hold its position under attack from its left and its front. The entire Confederate army retreated as Sheridan's troops "pushed with vigor." In dramatic fashion, Sheridan's Union army found itself victorious at the end of the day. Given the importance of the landscape and key terrain within the proposed quarry expansion, most of which retains a high degree of integrity from the Civil War period, the American Battlefield Protection Program can only recommend against the rezoning of these critical parcels. Lowe, David W. Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, 1992 (109-113). ECS Mid -Atlantic LLC. "Archaeological Delineation and Restoration Plan for the Historic Tabler and Nisewander Family Cemeteries, Frederick County, Virginia." Fredericksburg, VA, March 2008 (13, 41, 45). Sheridan to Grant, Official Records of'the War of the Rebellion, Series 1, Vol. 43 (Part 1), 33. Whitehorne, Joseph W.A. The Battle of Cedar Creek: Self -guided Tour. Washington, DC: Center of Military History, United States Army, 1992). 9 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street RA PH Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 To Organ izationlCompany: From: Date: Project Name/Subject: Mike Ruddy Frederick County Planning and Development Patrick Sowers 17, 2008 Chemstone Rezoning Exhibits Memorandum Please find attached 30 copies of the Phasing/Viewshed renderings for the Chemstone rezoning application. If you have any questions or need additional copies, please feel free to call. Thank you. PRS • 40 LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C. 120 EXETER DRIVE, Su1TE 200 POST OFFICE BOX 2740 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 TELEPHONE: (540) 665-0050 FACSIMILE: (540) 7224051 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street, 2"d Floor Winchester, VA 22601 VIA HAND -DELIVERY Dear Mike: March 20, 2008 THOMAS MOORE LAWSON • TLAWSON(a7LSPLC.COM Re: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Our File No. 462.006 REZ #03-06 Per your request enclosed please find an executed copy of the updated proffers in the above matter. Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, Thomas Moore Lawson TML.jk Enclosure cc: Carmeuse Lime O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Board of Supervisors John Riley, County Administrator Gary A. Lofton, Supervisor Gary W. Dove, Supervisor Philip A. Lemieux, Supervisor Bill M. Ewing, Supervisor Gene E. Fisher, Supervisor Charles S. Dehaven, Jr., Supervisor MAR 2 0 2008 FRONT ROYAL ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 602, FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630, TELEPHONE: (540) 635-9415, FACSIMILE: (540) 635-9421, E-MAIL: SILEKJ(a LYNXCONNECT.COM FAIRFAX ADDRESS: 10805 MAIN STREET, SUITE 200, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030, TELEPHONE: (703) 352-2615, FACSIMILE: (703) 352-4190, E-MAIL: THOMASO.LAWSON@a VERIZON.NET • 0 LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C. 120 EXETER DRIVE, SUITE 200 POST OFFICE BOX 2740 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 TELEPHONE: (540) 665-0050 FACSIMILE: (540)722-4051 March 19, 2008 John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Frederick County Board of Supervisors 292 Green Spring Road Winchester, VA 22603 Bill M. Ewing, Supervisor Opequon Magisterial District P.O. Box 27 Stephens City, VA 22655 Gene E. Fisher, Supervisor Shawnee Magisterial District 246 Bush Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Philip A. Lemieux, Supervisor Redbud Magisterial District 106 Dell Court Winchester, VA 22602 Re VIA HAND -DELIVERY Dear Gentlemen: MAR, 1 9 20108 THOMAS MOORE LAWSON • TLAWSON01LSPLC.COM Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street, 2"d Floor Winchester, VA 22601 Charles S. Dehaven, Jr., Supervisor Stonewall Magisterial District 2075 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Gary W. Dove, Supervisor Gainesboro Magisterial District 821 Apple Pie Ridge Road Winchester, VA 22603 Gary A. Lofton, Supervisor Back Creek Magisterial District 711 Buffalo Marsh Road Middletown, VA 22645 Carmeuse Lime O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Our File No. 462.006 As you know, the quarry rezoning is scheduled to be heard on the April 23, 2008 Board of Supervisors' meeting. Much has been accomplished during the time that this rezoning has been before Frederick County. Since we were last before the Frederick County Planning FRONT ROYAL ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 602, FRONT ROYAL, VIROINIA 22630, TELEPHONE: (540) 635-9415, FACSIMILE: (540) 635-9421, E-MAIL: SILEKJ(. LYNXCONNECT.COM FAIRFAX ADDRESS: 10805 MAIN STREET, SUITE 200, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030, TELEPHONE: (703) 352-2615, FACSIMILE: (703) 35241", E-MAIL: THOMASO.LAWSON*VERIZON.NET John R. Riley, Jr., eto March 19, 2008 Page 2 Commission, we have had several meetings with citizens both as a group and also on a one-on- one basis. We have also had follow-up with Planning Staff and have revised our proffers to address the concerns raised by our neighbors as well as the various reviewing agencies. I enclose materials for your information and to provide you with the latest and most updated information concerning the rezoning. Spencer Stinson and I would also like to have the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the rezoning in greater detail. After you have had an opportunity to review the enclosed, please give me a call with your available times for a meeting. Also, I should point out that we plan to have another follow-up meeting with our neighbors at the Wayside Inn on April 2, 2008. You are certainly invited to attend. Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation, I look forward to meeting with you at your earliest convenience. TML:J'k \ Enclosures cc: Carmeuse Lime O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company 0 Response to Mitchell, Thomas and Ruddy Comments on Proposed Proffers MITCHELL - Clarify that these proffers supersede the proffers made relating to this property. First Sentence -The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject properties ("Properties'), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers on the Properties that may have been made prior hereto. MITCHELL - Remove second sentence of second paragraph. The sentence, "The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Properties adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein " was left in so that berms and other improvements/monitoring will not be required until the areas become active mining areas — consistent with the phasing proffer. MITCHELL - Delete "Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void" from the second paragraph. This sentence was retained as changes to regulations or existing regulations of which the Applicant is not aware should not negate the rezoning. RUDDY - Generalized Development Plan. 1. Designate areas of land disturbance. 2. Locate buffers, berms, screening, tree preservation, site development improvements, and landscaping. A generalized development plan dated (will be updated at final submittal) will be included with the proffer submittal. MITCHELL - 1.1 not a proffer — proposes required things. Clearly state if limiting uses. RUDDY - Clarification of uses not to be engaged in. THOMAS - Proffer out EM uses that will not be conducted on the site. 1.1 The Properties shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, and shall therefore conform to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 1.2 The Applicant hereby proffers not to engage in the following uses on the Properties: Oil and natural gas extraction; Asphalt and concrete mixing plants; Brick, block and precast concrete products; Cement and lime kilns; and Coal and natural gas,fred power plants* *This is not to be interpreted as a restriction against using power plants on the Properties as necessary to support extractive mining activities. RUDDY - Clarify access to property at Chapel Road. 2.1 Properties' access via public secondary roads shall be limited to the existing quarry entrance on McCune Road (Route 757). Access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the Properties shall not be limited. RUDDY - Proffer Viewshed Mitigation Plan. Chapel Road Viewshed mitigation. MITCHELL - Distance buffers, screening and berms — Quantify distance exceeding requirements. 2.2 Distance buffers shall be provided along the perimeter of the Properties in addition to those required by the Zoning Ordinance. The depth of said buffers shall be determined at the time of site plan submission, and will vary based upon the topography of the site boundary. 2.3 Earthen berms installed around the Properties' active quarry pits shall be landscaped to minimize impacts to the viewshed of the surrounding community. Such landscaping shall consist of a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed in a random manner in order to be consistent with existing vegetation patterns. Said berms shall be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet. RUDDY - Riparian buffer preserving mature woodland areas adjacent to the creek — include in GDP. 14.2 The Applicant agrees that the area currently in trees, which is outside of the rezoned Properties, and which is more specifically described in the attached and incorporated plat, intentionally is not part of this rezoning. Applicant intends to use best management practices of the trees located thereon. 14.3 The Applicant proffers to keep its mining operations at least 200 feet from the edge of Cedar Creek. In other designated areas (as designated on the attached and incorporated plat), the distance may be increased. RUDDY - Historic Reserve — identify and incorporate recipient and mechanism into the proffer. 3.1 ... Further, the Applicant shall place restrictions on the reserve land for how the reserve will be used by the Properties' owner and future owners. Said reserve land shall be dedicated to a recognized historical association and/or group within one year of final rezoning. The Applicant has not yet determined the appropriate entity, nor has it been approached by an entity interested in managing the historic reserve. Once an interested party is determined, the Applicant will work with that group to determine the best method for protection — easement, conveyance, etc. RUDDY - Helpful to dedicate area of no disturbance and/or tree preservation around the site to assist in preserving the integrity of the dedicated area. The 8-acre reserve incorporates a buffer around the identified areas. RUDDY - No commitment to archeological survey beyond a Phase I. Global should commit to any necessary additional surveys required by Dept. of Historic Resources. 3.2 The Applicant shall complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Northern Reserve and Middle Marsh Properties as depicted on the GDP within one year of final rezoning or prior to any land disturbance of the portion of parcel 83-A-109 and parcel 90-A-23. Said survey shall locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects on the parcels. Such survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines for a Phase I Survey as defined in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources "GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY IN VIRGINIA - Chapter 7: Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Virginia, " 1999 (Rev. Jan. 2003). RUDDY - Address cemetery sites. 3.3 Two cemeteries have been identified on the Properties. The first cemetery is located adjacent to Chapel Road and is in an area that is not designated for mining and is also outside of the berming area. That cemetery is currently undergoing a historical restoration. The second cemetery is located in the area where berming is slated to be installed. The Applicant proffers the berming will be located in such a way as to not encroach on the cemetery. This cemetery is also currently undergoing a historical restoration. In addition, the cemetery is accessed through a right-of-way which is of record providing access to the cemetery from Route 625. The Applicant proffers to open said right-of- way so that it can be used for access by the relatives of those in the cemetery. It is anticipated that once said right-of-way has been opened, the Applicant will provide continued maintenance and have use of same. RUDDY - Proffer 4.1 unnecessary as FCSA already has an agreement in place securing ground water resources. MITCHELL - Proffer 4.1 informing of FCSA agreement does not appear to be a proffer. This proffer has been left in the application. RUDDY - Proffer 8.1 traffic monitoring mechanism not independent and indisputable measure of truck traffic. THOMAS — Traffic analysis. The proffer provides for the Applicant to monitor truck trips to and firom the site, and provide the County with documentation as to the number of trips. While not independent, compliance with all proffers is dependent on the Applicant's commitment to adhere and retain its conditional zoning. 8.1 The Applicant agrees to restrict truck traffic to the Properties to a maximum of 200 truck loads per day averaged over the prior 30 days through the scale house hauling mined materials on and/or off the proposed quarry site from the existing quarry entrance. The maximum number of trips will be regulated by the Applicant and its successors and/or assigns. A record of the actual number of truck trips per day shall be kept current (and maintained for one year) by the Applicant at its scale house office. Said record shall be made available in a form which confirms the number of trips and the form will be produced to Frederick County officials upon demand with reasonable notice. RUDDY - Address impact of truck trips. Address impact of truck trips on Middletown. Truck trips have been capped at a number consistent with current truck trips through Middletown, so there will not be an additional impact on the community. RUDDY - Proffer 5.1 — Well locations identified and independently determined as appropriate. Will wells be located on the Property, or on adjacent residential properties within 500 feet of the property line? 5.1 The Applicant shall install a minimum of' three monitoring wells to effectively establish and monitor the groundwater level in order to avoid detrimental impacts to surrounding properties. Said wells shall be installed prior to any land disturbance of the portion of the Properties identified as parcel 83-A-109 by the GDP, and shall be located within 500 feet of the Properties' boundaries. A minimum of one monitoring well shall be installed within 500 feet of the Northern Properties' boundary. • RUDDY - Proffer 5.2 — Describe how adverse impacts would be determined and who will determine if they are caused by mining operations. Second paragraph of 5.2 should be removed as it is descriptive. 5.2 Subject to and consistent with the provisions of paragraph 9.2, the Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations on the Properties. Costs associated with any required remediation shall be borne by the Applicant. Furthermore, the Applicant agrees to participate in a pre -blast survey and well monitoring survey, as further described herein. The intent of the aforementioned surveys is to provide a mechanism to remediate any adverse impacts to wells and/or structures, which are caused 'by the mining operations on the Properties. 9.2 The Applicant will offer voluntary well monitoring surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the Properties' boundaries. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent well drilling farm, which will investigate and document the pre -blast conditions of the participants' wells. All citizens who have property located within 1,500 feet of the Properties' boundaries can and are encouraged to participate in the sun�ey by contacting the Applicant and scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent well drilling firm to visit the party 's residence to document and survey the pre -blast condition of the party's well. A record of these pre -blast conditions will be kept by the independent well drilling firm, with copies retained by the Applicant and the participating property owner. In the event a change of condition is alleged by the property owner as a result of mining operations, the well drilling firm will then conduct a follow-up visit and investigation and use pre -blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. If it is determined that the status of the neighboring property owner's well has deteriorated from the condition it was in at the time of the pre -blast survey, then the Applicant agrees to restore the well to its condition existing at the. time of the pre -blast survey and/or provide the adjoining property owner a replacement well of the same condition (or better) of that which existed at that time of the pre -blast survey. RUDDY - Proffer 6.1 is required by the applicant's permit. Inclusion of Proffer 6.1 informs residents of DEQ permit requirements and gives the County an opportunity to address dust suppression, should citizens become affected by same. 17_� • 6.1 Dust from drills, shot piles, material handling, screens, crushers, conveyors, feeders, hoppers, load -outs, and traffic areas shall be controlled by wet suppression or equivalent, and controlled by and consistent with the terms of the Department of Environmental Quality general air permit. The Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the mining operations on the Properties. RUDDY - Proffer 7.1 — Define the blasting methods prohibited (Block Holding — Adobe) and method of regulation (DMME or County)? MITCHELL - First two sentences of proffer 7.1 do not appear to be a proffer, but a statement of DMME regulations. Block holing is defined as the breaking of boulders by loading and firing small explosive charges. Adobe blasting is defined as blasting by placing a quantity of explosives against a rock or other object without confining the explosives in a drill hole. 7.1 ...Applicant agrees to have an approved blasting plan in place at all times. An example of the current blasting plan is attached. Further, in addition, Applicant agrees that there will be no block holing or adobe blasting conducted on the Properties... RUDDY - Proffer 9.1 - Mechanism for pre -blast surveys should be established prior to the acceptance of the proffer statement. 9.1 The Applicant will offer voluntary pre -blast surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the Properties' boundaries. The mechanism of voluntarily electing to participate in pre -blast surveys met with general approval at the public meetings. RUDDY - Properties immediately adjacent should be clearly defined. (Adjacent to both parcels or just 83-109) The proffer statement defines "Properties " in the heading, as parcels 83-A- 109 and 90-A-23. RUDDY - Who bears expense? 9.1 The Applicant will offer voluntary pre -blast surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the Properties' boundaries... The Applicant is offering the pre -blast surveys to properties within 1,500.feet. The Applicant will bear the expenses associated therewith. RUDDY - Proffer 9.2 — Ensure that replacement wells are fully operational. 9.2 If it is determined that the status of the neighboring property owner's well has deteriorated from the condition it was in at the time of the pre -blast survey, then the Applicant agrees to restore the well to its condition existing at the time of the pre -blast surrey and/or provide the adjoining property owner a replacement well of the same condition (or better) of that which existed at that time of the pre -blast survey. Same or better condition indicates that the well will be able to draw at the same or better rate that existed at the time of the survey. RUDDY - Proffer 9.3 — Bonding only applicable for properties participating in 9.1 and 9.2 surveys. If neighbors elect not to participate in pre -blast sun�eys and monitoring, there is not a baseline from which to determine if mining operations had any impact on the property. Bonding will be reserved for those who participate in the survey and monitoring programs. Helpful to provide information on Global's current bonding status with DMME, participation in the Minerals Reclamation Fund, and potential costs associated with remediation and repair of adjacent wells and properties. Bonding and insurance will apply to any successful liability claim against the Applicant, but will only be relied upon in the event of Applicant's insolvency. 9.3 In addition to the above, the Applicant agrees to maintain in force an insurance policy or other sufficient security for a period of time covering the active mining operations on the Properties and to maintain in effect for a period of one year from the date of cessation of said mining operations, and to cover the costs of any remediation and/or repair, which is required pursuant to the terms of sections 9.1 and 9.2 above. Said policy or surety shall be in the amount of no less than One Million and 00/100 Dollars ($1, 000, 000.00) per occurrence. RUDDY - Demonstrate how the ultimate design and layout of the properties would occur upon the cessation of mining operations and subsequent use of the property as a water source. Reclamation plan should be designed so any reclamation activities and materials would be located in their final natural position. 10.1 It is intended that pursuant to the terms of the agreement reached with the FCSA that at the time of cessation of' mining activities, the Properties' quarry pits shall be used by the FCSA as water reservoirs. The control of the water levels in the quarry pits shall be handed over to the FCSA. It is intended that the quarry pits at that time will contain quantities of water monitored and directed by the FCSA, and which will be conducive to the general betterment of natural habitat. RUDDY - Proffer 10.2 may be unnecessary. Removed, but it was explanatory of FCSA's fixture use of the Property. RUDDY - Proffers 11.1, 12.1, and 13.1 are redundant as they are required by the Applicant's permit. These can be removed, but they do provide information on what is required of the Applicant. RUDDY - Proffer 13.2 — Clarify re Cedar Creek Discharge point. 14.1 In addition to compliance with the VPDES water discharge permit already in place, the Applicant agrees to work with a recognized environmental entity of the Applicant's choosing during its operations to ensure that the water emissions from water flowing from the quarry operations on the Properties is of a quality consistent with the water quality in Cedar Creek so as to maintain an environment conducive to natural habitats. No additional water discharge points will be added. w 06/07/2006 14:45 8043672391 DEPT OF HISTORIC RES • 0 PAGE 02/04 COMMONWEALTH O 7 i� 4 Office of the Governor L. Preston Bryant Secretary of Natural Resources April 26, 2006 Ms. Julie Clevenger 451 Westeraview Drive Middletown, VA 22645 Dear Ms. Clevenger: Thank you for writing Governor Kaine regarding the quarries proposed for development in the vicinity of Middletown. Governor K.aine has asked that I respond to you on his behalf, I understand that quarry excavation, and likely subsequent reservoir development, is proposed for several sites within an approximately 639-acre tract in'the vioinity of Cedar Creek and Meadow Brook, just north of Middletown in Frederick County, The projects currently are in planning and rezoning stages and have not yet been, coordinated with relevant state agencies, such as the Department of Envirot=ental Quality and the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, which may have regulatory authority over the quarry excavation or water supply aspects of this project. To date, the Department of Enviroza rental Quality (DEQ) has not received any permit applications, including air and wetlands, for the proposed quarry expansion by O-N Chemstone. DEQ would not have a permit requirement unless the company decides to expand their crusher and oonveyarace systems, which would require changes to their existing air permit. I have asked the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) to help me identify potential project impacts on the local wildlife and habitats. DGIF is the state wildlife agency and has jurisdiction over the Commonwealth's terrestrial wildlife, freshwater fish and other aquatic resources, and state or federally endangered or threatened species other than insects. DGIF is a consulting agency under the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination .Act, and it provides environmental analysis of projects or permit applications coordinated through DEQ, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and other state or federal agencies. DGIF's role in, these procedures is to determine likely impacts upon fish and wildlife (resources and habitat, and to recommend appropriate measures to avoid, reduce, or compensate for those impacts. Based orz early DGIF research, it is my understanding that a variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitats would be affected by the proposed project. A preliminary review of DGIF's wildlife data suggests that wood turtles, a state tbreaten,ed species, may occur in the project area. Patrick Henry Building 1 1111 Fast BrOad Stteet + Richmond, Virginia 23219 • (804) 786,0044 • 7iY (800) 828.1120 06/07/2006 14:45 8043672391 DEPT OF HISTORIC RES PAGE 03/04 0 Ms. Julie Clevenger April 26, 2006 Page 2 You also expressed concern that bald eagles, currently a federally threatened species, may nest on the tract as well. Any information that you can provide to DGIF about eagle nests in this location would be greatly appreciated. DGIF's databases contain historic records of other imperiled bird species from this area, including the state threatened loggerhead sbxike, Bewick's wren, and upland sandpiper. The nearby Meadow Brook is designated a Class V Coldwater Stream capable of supporting a stockable trout fishery. I have some concerns over potentially adverse impacts of the proposed project on these and other sensitive wildlife resources and habitats on the site. Additional information is needed so that we may further evaluate potential wildlife impacts. ,Additionally, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) has been tracking the rezoning application for several months. On December 20, 2005, DHR advised the Frederick County Department of Planning through its History Advisory Board that the proposal had the potential to result in significant adverse impacts on archaeological and historic resources located directly in the parcel in question, Accordingly, DHR recommended that the County require the applicant to conduct an assessment of all archaeological and historic architectural resources within the parcel before taking action on the rezoning application. Based on follow up discussions with the County's planning staff, it is DH.R's understanding that the County is likely to require O-N Chemstone to undertake such an. assessment. Be advised that if wetlands are affected, such an investigation may be required of O-N Chernstone pursuant to Section 106 of the National Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, as a condition of receiving a federal wetlands permit from the Corps. If the project comes to be defined as a federal undertaking, the Corps would be required to consult with DHR, and DHR would consider in its review and recommendations not only the effect of the project on historic resources located on the development parcel but also the potential visual impacts of the development on nearby historic property such as the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation. Further, the Department of Conservation and Recreation has identified, in its 2002 Virginia Outdoors Plan, Cedar Creek in Shenandoah and Frederick Counties as a potential component of the State's scenic rivers system. And both DCR. aad the Virginia Department of Transportation have recently determined that U.S. Route 11 qualifies for designation, as a Scenic Byway. It is my hope that County officials consider these items as they contemplate the quarry and its potential impacts on the region's significant scenic, natural, and cultural resources. Because the authority to regulate local land use is the prerogative of local government in Virginia and the ultimate decision to approve the rezoning application is Frederick County's to make, I strongly encourage you to continue expressing your concerns about this project directly to your local elected officials. I also recommend that you contact Nfx. Icon Stouffer of the Corps (703-221-6967) for further information on whether the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act may be triggered in this case by a federal permit application as O-N Chemstone's development proposal moves forward. Governor Kaine and I are committed to conserving Virginia's rich natural diversity for all of its citizens. We also recognize that economic development and water supplies are vital to the 06/07/2006 14:45 8043672391 DEPT OF HISTORIC RES PAGE 04/04 J, Ms. Julie Clevenger April 26, 2006 Page 3 region and that a balanced approach is needed to accorm odate economic and environmental needs. My agencies and I are committed to working with you and other interested parties, including the County and the permit applicants, to ensure this balance is achieved, and we look forward to cooperating with you, your local government agencies, and other stakeholders in this regard, Again, l encourage you to contact David Whitehurst, Director of'DGF's Wildlife Diversity Division, and talk with him further about the role that the DGIF has in this project and the informatio-n. that they have about wildlife resources. Mx. Whitehurst may be reached at 804-367-4335 or via c-mail at David.Whifehurst d 'f.vix 'ma. ov, Thank you for taking time to let Governor Kaine know about your concerns. We appreciate your interest in the natural resources of Virginia. Sihcerely, L. Preston Bryant, Jr. LPBJr/cbd 16.2 L� LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C. 120 ExETER DmvE, 9uITE 700 POST OFFICE Box 2740 WFNCHUTER, VA 22604 TLLEPHONL: (540) 665-0050 FAMMILLE: (540) 7224051 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET Date: April 1, 2008 To: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director Planning and Development Fax Number: 540-665-6395 From: Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire Our File No: 462.006 Number of pages including cover; 3 Message: Please see attached. 40 Q 001i003 The information contained in this facsimile message is information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be attorney/client privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. FRONT ROYAl. Annag ! PORT OWFICII Box 002, F".1 ROYAL, VIRGIMIA IM31, TF.v OOM! (540) 05-9415, FA04WI.R! (MO) 09-W1, E-MAIL: RMKXIC L%WXCDNNECr ODM FAIAFAIi A0 ILM: IH05 MAW STUET, SMIT 260, FAIRFAX, VI2GWIAZZ0,10,'IU"VONE: (703) 3S"I5, FAODULE: (T03) 3S24190, E-MAW TiIOMA90LAW0oN0vBFI7UM-NVT 04/01/2008 18:27 FAX [a 002/003 0 LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C. 120 EXETER DRIVE, CVITE 200 POST OFFTr.E PAU 2740 WINCHESTER,VA 22604 TELEPHONE: (540) 665-0050 FACSIMILE: (540) 722-4051 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street, 2Id Floor Winchester, VA 22601 VIA FACSIMILE: .Dear Mike: April 1, 2008 THOMAS Mom LAWSON 9'I'LAWSQN((L)LSP1XC:,C9M Re: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Our File No. 462.006 REZ #03-06 Enclosed please find a replacement page 3 of the Proffers regarding the above -referenced rezoning. The revision was made to confirm the historical restoration work. Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very yours, Z1,4 Thom s M ore Lawson TML;sjw Enclosure cc: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company FRONT ROVAL ADDRESS: POST OPPICE BOX 602. FRONT ROYAL, V1ROINIA 22630. TELEPNON£: (940) 036.94 LE, FACSIMILE: (-W) 639.9421, E-MAIL: S1LEKJf,)LVNXCONN6CT.COM VADWA%ADIIugmn 10905 MAIN 5T0YK7. SUITC ZOO, FAIOKAX, VI01jINIA 2VB01TKI.VrII 1NV.: (707) 157-2615, FA(`XIMII,kt (7D3) 352-4190, r-MAIL:,rKC IMANO.I.A\V\[INQMY%YI%IIN.NAT 04/01/2008 16:27 FAX [A003/003 0 final rezoning or prior to any land disturbance of the portion of parcel 83-A-109 and parcel 90-A-23. Said survey shall locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects on the parcels. Such survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines for a Phase 1 Survey as defined in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources "GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY IN VIRGINIA - Chapter 7: Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Virginia," 1999 (Rev_ Jan. 2003). 3.3 Two cemeteries have been identified on the Properties. The first cemetery is located adjacent to Chapel Road and is in an area that is not designated for mining and is also outside of the berming area. That cemetery is currently undergoing a historical restoration. The second cemetery is located in the area where berming is slated to be installed. The Applicant proffers the berming will be located in such a way as to not encroach on the cemetery. This cemetery is also currently undergoing a historical restoration. In addition, the cemetery is accessed through a right-of-way which is of record providing access to the cemetery from. Route 625. The Applicant proffers to open said right-of-way so that it can be used for access by the relatives of those in the cemetery. It is anticipated that once said right-of-way has been opened, the Applicant will provide continued maintenance and have use of same_ 4. Rights to Water Supply 4.1 The Applicant shall guarantee the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) rights to the water resources available on the Properties in accordance with the existing agreements between the Applicant and FCSA. 5. Ground Water 5.1 The Applicant shall install a minimum of three monitoring wells to effectively establish and monitor the groundwater level in order to avoid detrimental impacts to surrounding properties. Said wells shall be installed prior to any land disturbance of the portion of the Properties identified as parcel 83-A-109 by the GDP, and shall be located within 500 feet of the Properties' boundaries. A minimum of one monitoring well shall be installed within 500 feet of the Northern Properties' boundary. 5,2 Subject to and consistent with the provisions of paragraph 9,2, the Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations on the Properties. Costs associated with any required remediation shall be borne by the Applicant. Furthermore, the Applicant agrees to participate in a pre -blast survey and well monitoring survey, as further described herein. The intent of the aforementioned j/17/2008 15:21 FAX 1a002/002 0 0 LAWSON AND SILLK, P.L.C. 120 EXETER VRIVF, SUITE 200 POST OFFICE BOX 2740 WINCRESTER, VA 22604 TELEPHONE; (540) 665-0050 FACSIMILE: (540) 722.4051 March 17, 2008 John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 THOMAs Worm LAwsor4 • TLAWS0NAA I,5Pk,C.COM Re: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Our File No. 462,006 REZ #03-06 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S, MAIL Dear John: I am in receipt of your letter dated March 14, 2008. I apologize for the confusion, but I assumed we were on the Board of Supervisors' Agenda for April 23, 2008. This is to confirm O- N Minerals (Chemstone) Company's request for the same. As. an aside, I plan to hand -deliver rezoning materials to the Board of Supervisors and Staff tomorrow to help everyone become re --familiarized with the project. Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation. Please give me a call if you need anything fiuther. truly yours, Thorn M re Lawson TML-.atd cc: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company FMNT COVALADDREM: Purr 0MC& Box 682, FRGr'rROYAI VMOTMA 12A30,TYAKrlloHr. (940) 63&9413, FACAIWA; (SO) 635-9421, E-MAIL; 61ISIU®LrnXCOtfNECTtOM FAIRFA.CADDRF.S.Y: l9E0S MNn gnzicr,3Jlrr.206,PAli<lA7�VlaCRliw T2030, TaurHO[It:(7W)35T-T615, FA[7@IIIS: (7o3)353-1�9u, iIMAIL:TeoMAAO.LAWaonpvcvzonrET COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 540/665-5666 Fax 540/667-0370 E-mail: jriley@co.frederick.va.us March 14, 2008 Thomas More Lawson Lawson & Silek, P.L.C. P.O. Box 2740 Winchester, VA 22604 Re: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company REZ #03-06 Dear Ty: I am writing as a follow up to my February 6, 2008 letter to you regarding the above topic. As of this date, I have not received a response and am inquiring as to your desire relative to the Board of Supervisors' consideration of this matter. Please let me know how you wish to proceed. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. JAVIR. Riley, Jr. County Administrator JRR/j et 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • • February 6, 2008 Thomas Moore Lawson Lawson and Silek, P.L.C. P.O. Box 2740 Winchester, VA 22604 Re: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company REZ 903-06 Dear Ty: COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 540/665-5666 Fax 540/667-0370 E-mail: jriley@co.frederick.va.us In response to your letter of January 30, 2008 regarding the above referenced subject, please be advised that it would be my advice to the Board to take this item to public hearing at its April 23, 2008 meeting. This approach will allow the Board to get through the budget public hearing and adoption process and more fully devote their time and attention to this application. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Y, R. Riley, Jr. ty Administrator JRR/j et 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • 0 LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C. 120 EXETER DRIVE, SUITE 200 POST OFFICE BOX 2740 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 TELEPHONE.- (540) 665-0050 FACSIMILE: (540) 722-4051 January 30, 2008 John Riley, County Administrator County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 THOMAS MooRE LAWSON • Re: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Our File No. 462.006 REZ #03-06 Dear John: We would like to place the O & N Minerals rezoning matter on the Board of Supervisors Agenda for consideration. I am mindful of the fact that budget will be a large part of the March Board hearings. Would it be possible to place this matter on the Board of Supervisors' Agenda for the second meeting in February? Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation. I look forward to hearing from you shortly. Very t urs, Thom s oore Lawson TML:sjw cc: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Board o Supervisors FRONT ROYAL AIIRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 602, FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630,TELEPHONE: (S40) 635-9415, FACSIMILE: (540) 635-9421,E-MAIL: SILEKJ@LYNXCONNECT.COM FAIRFAX AUURESS: 10805 MAIN STREET, SUITE 200, FAIRrAX, VIRGINIA 22030, TELEPHONE: (703) 352-2615, FACSIMILE: (703) 352-4190, E-MAIL: TIOMASO.L1\VSON(n_1VERIZON.NET F E 3 B 2008 04/03/2007 12:13 FAX 9 0 16002/002 LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C. 120 EREWIL DRM SUITF, IN Posr OFFICE BOX 270 wEryca nTER, V&21604 TEI.EPiYoNk: (540) 6b5-0#50 FAC&MILB: (540) U2 40Si April 3, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator 107 North Dent Street Winchester, VA 22601 VIA U.S. MAIL Richard C. Shickle, Chairman. Frederick County Board of Supervisors 292 Green Spring Road Winchester, VA 22603 THOMAS MOORE LAWSON ■ T •�4N Q ► 4P► r rOM Ike: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Compmy Our File No, 462,006 Dear Gentlemen: This is to request a postponement of the public hearing before the Board of Supervisors on the above matter. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. If anything further is required to effect the postponement, please advise me immediately. TML:c; mh cc: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Ft11NT ROYALAf1b.Rt1:?L97 f)Ff(C t 60X f p11ONTROYAI., YInGINTA 116I0� TYI.Y!)fO]fE: (Sf0) i35-l�15. FAG8Pni3: (sN) 575-vaz[, (._�utu sn_exlpaLVNXcawNecErnM FAW.XADDAGR411NOS MAP( STREET, 8mrc 2DN, FAIlVAT. �'n101N1A 22070. Tf�.[+^4� (70]).TSY-7i1S, WACUMVLR: (7m) 3n4l"- !!MAIL: TROM•➢U.LAU*LION(9VM1NI71()"Vr Igj VVG1 VVG 12/08/2008 17:47 FAX LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C. . 120 EX-BT RR nRrM, SMITE 200 POST 0MC9 BOX 2740 Wi NCHESTER, VA 22604 TELEPHONE: (540) 665.0050 FACSIMILE[ (540) 7224051 December 8, 2006 Mir. Jay E. Tibbs Deputy County Administrator County of Frederick, VA 107 N. Kent Street Wimabester, VA 22601 THOMAS MOORE LAWSON • rl AW90NQjU;PLC.CO) A Re: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Rezoning Our File No. 462.006 VIA FACSIMILE AND U,S, MAIL Dear Jay, pursuant to our conversation of today, this is to confirm O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company does not wish to be placed on the January le Board of Supervisors' Agenda, We will contact you to set up a. date in the future. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call ` Very Thom s Moore Lawson TML:atd cc: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Fggrff IWYAp AOnMru= VW P"IM Box 602, FIO W RuYAL, VIAGINIA 22630, TELEPNM#!EI (560) 63"415, FAC9 MI; (540) 05-9421, &MAIL• SFLRKI@LYNYCONNBCECOM FAIPWAx AtIMUAr 10505 MAIN SrnsET, 5V1M Z", V.NrWAT, VMM- IA 22ga9, TJt er"UNV (M) 3'h-2615, FAC6tlIh,E: (703) J52�190, S-MAID TNnMAFO.LAwF{�l+Qr�vA,w.rtrr 0 0 DEC 1 2006 LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C. 120 EXETER DRIVE, SUITE 200 POST OFFICE Sox 2740 WINCIIESTER, VA 22604 TELEPHONE: (540) 665-0050 FACSIMILE: (540) 722-4051 December 1, 2006 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street, 2nd Floor Winchester, VA 22601 THOMAS MOORE LAWSON • TLAWSON(h).LSPLC.COM Re: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Our File NTo. 462.006 REZ #03-06 VIA HAND DELIVERY Dear Mike: This is to confine our earlier conversation that we would like to have the O-N rezoning placed on the January 10, 2007 Board of Supervisors' Agenda. A copy of the revised Proffers is included for your review. Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. TML:atd Enclosure cc: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Richard C. Shickle, Chainnan Board of Supervisors John Riley, County Administrator FRONT ROYAL ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 602, FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630, TELEPHONE: (540) 635-9415, FACSIMILE: (540) 635-9421, E-MAIL: SILEKJ©LYNXCONNECT.CONI FAIRFAX ADDRESS: 10805 MAIN STREET, SUITE 200, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030, TELEPHONE: (703) 352-2615, FACSIMILE: (703) 352-4190, E-MAIL: TIIOMASO.LANSONQa VERIZON.NF.T • • REZONING: PROPERTY: RECORD OWNER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE(S) PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT RZ# 03-06 Rural Areas (RA) to Extractive Manufacturing (EM) 639.13 Acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 (the "Properties") O-N Minerals Chemstone Company O-N Minerals Chemstone Company Chemstone - Middletown June 13, 2005 January 16, 2006 February 8, 2006 August 28, 2006 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject properties ("Properties"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers on the Properties that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above -referenced EM conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Properties with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the teen rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Properties adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. Any proffered conditions that would prevent the Applicant from conforming with State and/or Federal regulations shall be considered null and void. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, O-N Minerals (Chemstone)" dated (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: 1. Land Use 1.1 The Properties shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, and shall therefore conform to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 1.2 The Applicant hereby proffers not to engage in the following uses on the Properties: Oil and natural gas extraction; Asphalt and concrete mixing plants; Brick, block and precast concrete products; Cement and lime kilns; and Coal and natural gas -fired power plants* *This is not to be interpreted as a restriction against using power plants on the Properties as necessary to support extractive mining activities. 2. Site Development 2.1 Properties' access via public secondary roads shall be limited to the existing quarry entrance on McCune Road (Route 757). Access by vehicles needed for periodic maintenance of the Properties shall not be limited. 2.2 Distance buffers shall be provided along the perimeter of the Properties in addition to those required by the Zoning Ordinance. The depth of said buffers shall be determined at the time of site plan submission, and will vary based upon the topography of the site boundary. 2.3 Earthen berms installed around the Properties' active quarry pits shall be landscaped to minimize impacts to the viewshed of the surrounding community. Such landscaping shall consist of a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed in a random manner in order to be consistent with existing vegetation patterns. Said berms shall be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet. 3. Historic Resources 3.1 The Applicant shall create an 8 acre historic reserve as shown on the GDP, within which archeological resources and other historic activities have been identified. Further, the Applicant shall place restrictions on the reserve land for how the reserve will be used by the Properties' owner and future owners. Said reserve land shall be dedicated to a recognized historical association and/or group within one year of final rezoning. 3.2 The Applicant shall complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Northern Reserve and Middle Marsh Properties as depicted on the GDP within one year of final rezoning or prior to any land disturbance of the portion of parcel 83-A-109 and parcel 90-A-23. Said survey shall locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects on the parcels. Such survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines for a Phase 1 Survey as defined in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources "GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY IN VIRGINIA - Chapter 7: Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Virginia," 1999 (Rev. Jan. 2003). 3.3 Two cemeteries have been identified on the Properties. The first cemetery is located adjacent to Chapel Road and is in an area that is not designated for mining and is also outside of the berming area. That cemetery will remain in an undisturbed state. The second cemetery is located in the area where berining is slated to be installed. The Applicant proffers that cemetery will also remain undisturbed and the berining will be located in such a way as to not encroach on the cemetery. In addition, the cemetery is accessed through a right-of-way which is of record providing access to the cemetery from Route 625. The Applicant proffers to open said right-of-way so that it can be used for access by the relatives of those in the cemetery. It is anticipated that once said right-of-way has been opened, relatives will see to the continued maintenance of said right-of-way. 4. Rights to Water Supply 4.1 The Applicant shall guarantee the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) rights to the groundwater resources available on the Properties in accordance with existing agreements negotiated between the Applicant and FCSA. 5. Ground Water 5.1 The Applicant shall install a minimum of three monitoring wells to effectively establish and monitor the groundwater level in order to avoid detrimental impacts to surrounding properties. Said wells shall be installed prior to any land disturbance of the portion of the Properties identified as parcel 83-A-109 by the GDP, and shall be located within 500 feet of the Properties' boundaries. A minimum of one monitoring well shall be installed within 500 feet of the Northern Properties' boundary. 5.2 Subject to and consistent with the provisions of paragraph 9.2, the Applicant shall rernediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations on the Properties. Costs associated with any required remediation shall be borne by the Applicant. Furthermore, the Applicant agrees to participate in a pre -blast survey and well monitoring survey, as further described herein. The intent of the aforementioned surveys is to provide a mechanism to remediate any adverse impacts to wells and/or structures, which are caused by the mining operations on the Properties. 6. Dust Control 6.1 Dust fiorn drills, shot piles, material handling, screens, crushers, conveyors, feeders, hoppers, load -outs, and traffic areas shall be controlled by wet suppression or equivalent, and controlled by and consistent with the terms of the Department of Environmental Quality general air permit. The Applicant shall remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by dust associated with the mining operations on the Properties. 6.2 All materials being stockpiled on the Properties shall be kept adequately moist to control dust during storage and handling or covered as necessary to remediate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties and to minimize emissions. 7. Blasting Control 7.1 All blasting associated with mining operations on the Properties shall be limited by the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (DMM) of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy. Peak Particle Velocities (PPV) associated with blasting on the Properties shall not exceed the levels stipulated by said permit. In addition, Applicant agrees to have an approved blasting plan in place at all times. An example of the current blasting plan is attached. Further, in addition, Applicant agrees that there will be no block holing or adobe blasting conducted on the Properties. Any damage to surrounding properties caused by blasting on the Properties shall be remediated at the Applicant's expense. 8. Traffic 8.1 The Applicant agrees to restrict truck traffic to the Properties to a maximum of 200 truck loads per day averaged over the prior 30 days through the scale house hauling mined materials on and/or off the proposed quarry site from the existing quarry entrance. The maximum number of trips will be regulated by the Applicant and its successors and/or assigns. A record of the actual number of truck trips per day shall be kept current (and maintained for one year) by the Applicant at its scale house office. Said record shall be made available in a form which confirms the number of trips and the form will be produced to Frederick County officials upon demand with reasonable notice. 9. Pre -Blast Surveys 9.1 The Applicant will offer voluntary pre -blast surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the Properties' boundaries. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent engineering firm, which will investigate and document the pre -blast conditions of the participants' residences and/or outbuildings. All citizens who have property adjacent to the Properties can and are encouraged to participate in the survey by contacting the Applicant and scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent engineering firm to visit the party's residence to document and survey the pre -blast condition of the party's residences/outbuildings. The Applicant's and/or its engineering firm shall further have the right to visit and inspect the party's residences/outbuildings to monitor the condition of the same. A record of those pre -blast conditions will be kept by the independent engineering firm with copies retained by the Applicant and the participating property owner. In the event of a change in condition, which is alleged by the adjoining property owner as a result of reining operations, the engineering firm will then conduct a follow-up visit and investigation and use the pre -blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. Said analysis shall be used to determine the cause of any negative change in condition. If it is determined there is a change in condition in the residences/outbuildings, which has been caused by the Applicant's mining activities on the Properties, then the Applicant agrees to remediate and/or repair said negative change in condition to restore it to its status prior to blasting operations. In addition, the Applicant agrees to establish seismic monitoring of the proposed quarry site to monitor all blasting activities and keep records of said seismic monitoring as required by the Virginia Division of Mines, Minerals and Energy. 9.2 The Applicant will offer voluntary well monitoring surveys of properties that are within 1,500 feet of the Properties' boundaries. The aforementioned surveys will be conducted by an independent well drilling firm, which will investigate and document the pre -blast conditions of the participants' wells. All citizens who have property located within 1,500 feet of the Properties' boundaries can and are encouraged to participate in the survey by contacting the Applicant and scheduling a mutually agreeable time for the independent well drilling firm to visit the party's residence to document and survey the pre -blast condition of the party's well. A record of these pre -blast conditions will be kept by the independent well drilling firm, with copies retained by the Applicant and the participating property owner. In the event a change of condition is alleged by the property owner as a result of mining operations, the well drilling firm will then conduct a follow-up visit and investigation and use pre -blast information as a control and basis for subsequent analysis. If it is determined that the status of the neighboring property owner's well has deteriorated from the condition it was in at the time of the pre -blast survey, then the Applicant agrees to restore the well to its condition existing at the time of the pre -blast survey and/or provide the adjoining property owner a replacement well of the same condition (or better) of that which existed at that time of the pre -blast survey. 9.3 In addition to the above, the Applicant agrees to maintain in force an insurance policy or other sufficient security for a period of time covering the active mining operations on the Properties and to maintain in effect for a period of one year from the date of cessation of said mining operations, and to cover the costs of any remediation and/or repair, which is required pursuant to the terms of sections 9.1 and 9.2 above. Said policy or surety shall be in the amount of no less than One Million and 00/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. 10. Reclamation 10.1 It is intended that pursuant to the terms of the agreement reached with the FCSA that at the time of cessation of mining activities, the Properties' quarry pits shall be used by the FCSA as water reservoirs. The control of the water levels in the quarry pits shall be handed over to the FCSA. It is intended that the quarry pits at that time will contain quantities of water monitored and directed by the FCSA, and which will be conducive to the general betterment of natural habitat. 11. Noise Abatement 11.1 Operations on the Properties will not exceed the Virginia Department of Mines and Minerals Engineering's decibel guidelines. The Applicant will make all reasonable efforts to locate mining machinery in the quarry pit or behind berms. 12. Lighting 12.1 There shall be no permanently affixed lighting structures above -ground on the berms other than as may be used for conveying or pit crushing facilities or for mining activities, with the exception as may be required for or provided by regulations that affect the plant operations, including but not limited to, Mine Safety Health Administration ("MSHA"), Virginia Department of Mines and Minerals and Energy ("DMME"), and any other governmental or regulatory body that oversees mining operations, there shall be no permanently affixed lighting structures. Conveying and pit crushing facilities shall also be interpreted as including such other devices or activities that perfolin similar or related functions that may come into use and/or existence at some time in the future while the extractive mining use is still in effect on the Properties. 13. Air Permit 13.1 The Applicant shall maintain its existing general air permit controlling emissions in accordance with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality standards and also see that the existing general air permit covers all activities conducted on the rezoned Properties. 14. Environment 14.1 In addition to compliance with the VPDES water discharge permit already in place, the Applicant agrees to work with a recognized environmental entity of the Applicant's choosing during its operations to ensure that the water emissions from water flowing from the quarry operations on the Properties is of a quality consistent with the water quality in Cedar Creek so as to maintain an environment conducive to natural habitats. No additional water discharge points will be added. 14.2 The Applicant agrees that the area currently in trees, which is outside of the rezoned Properties, and which is more specifically described in the attached and incorporated plat, intentionally is not part of this rezoning. Applicant intends to use best management practices of the trees located thereon. 14.3 The Applicant proffers to keep its mining operations at least 200 feet from the edge of Cedar Creek. In other designated areas (as designated on the attached and incorporated plat), the distance may be increased. 15. Phasin 15.1 The Applicant agrees that mining activities on the Properties shall occur with the following phasing: After the rezoning is approved, the Applicant will start creating beans on the newly rezoned Properties and the Applicant shall start quarrying in the area identified as the Northern Reserve. Mining in the Northern Reserve area shall occur from the time period commencing with the approval of the rezoning for a period of time which is estimated to be twenty years. For the newly zoned area, which is north of the existing EM zoned property, and south of Chapel Road, mining activities will commence no earlier than ten years from the date that the rezoning referenced herein is approved. For the newly zoned area, which lies north of Chapel Road, mining will commence no earlier than twenty years from the date that the rezoning referenced herein is approved. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES 0 Respectfully submitted, O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) CORPORATION Its: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006, by NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: r ,/ I TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP `� Deputy Director COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: Request to Schedule a Public Hearing; Rezoning Application RZ#03-06, O-N Minerals (Chemstone). DATE: February 6, 2008 The County Administrator's Office received a request from Mr. Ty Lawson, dated January 30, 2008, to place the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) rezoning application, RZ#03-06, on a future Board of Supervisors Agenda for consideration. The purpose of this memorandum is to inform the Board of this request and to receive direction from the Board of Supervisors regarding the timing of when the Board would like to schedule this item for a Public Hearing. The Board's upcoming schedule includes consideration of the Budget and its associated public hearings. This is anticipated to occur during the month of March and be concluded at your first meeting in April. Therefore, the Board's second meeting in April (April 23, 2008) may be a good choice. As the Board is aware, following the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of this rezoning request, Mr. Lawson, on behalf of his client, requested that the Board of Supervisors postpone consideration of this request for an indefinite amount of time. At this time, it is appropriate to schedule this request for a public hearing at a time suitable to the Board. Please contact me if you have any additional questions. Attachment MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 • LAWSON AND S I LEK, P.L.C. 120 EXETER DRIVE, SUITE 200 POST OFFICE BOX 2740 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 TELEPHONE: (540) 665-0050 FACSIMILE'.(54O)722-4051 January 30, 2008 John Riley, County Administrator County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 THOMAS MOORE LAWSON • Re: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Our File No. 462.006 REZ #03-06 Dear John: We would like to place the O & N Minerals rezoning matter on the Board of Supervisors Agenda for consideration. I am mindful of the fact that budget will be a large part of the March Board hearings. Would it be possible to place this matter on the Board of Supervisors' Agenda for the second meeting in February? Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation. I look forward to hearing from you shortly. Very t urs, Thom s oore Lawson TML:sjw cc: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Board o Supervisors FRONT ROYAL ADDRE.S.S: POST OFFICE BOX 602. FRONT ROYAL. VIRGINIA 22630, TELEPHONE: (540) 631-9415, FACSIMILE: (540) 615-9421, E-MAIL: SILEKJ*I.YNXCONNF.CT.COM FAIRFAX ADDRESS: IOAOS MAIN STREET, SPITE 200, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 220.10, TF.1.£PHONE: (703) 352-2615, FACSIMILE: (703) 352-4190, E-MAIL: THOMASO.I.AWSON(',VF,RI70N.NET 0 N? April 4, 2007 Thomas Moore Lawson Lawson and Silek, P.L.C. P.O. Box 2740 Winchester, VA 22604 Re: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Rezoning Request Dear Ty: COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 540/665-5666 Fax 540/667-0370 E-mail: jr] ley @co.frederick.va.us This letter confirms receipt of your most recent request, on behalf of the applicant, to postpone the public hearing before the Board of Supervisors on the above referenced application, which you had previously requested to be scheduled for the April 25, 2007 Board of Supervisors' agenda. Please be advised that the County will honor your request for postponement, as we have done on two prior occasions (i.e. June 2006 and December 2006). We would request that the applicant notify us in writing at such time in the future as they wish the County to consider this rezoning application. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 540-665-6382. ',;Sincerely, Jo 'R. Riley, Jr. Conty Administrator JRR/j et 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Wj V V G/ V V L 12/08/2006 17:47 FAX � • LAWSON AND SILEK5 P.L.C. 120 Ex$TFR DRM, SL'ITF 200 POST omCR Box 2740 WnCHESTER, VA 22604 TELEPHONE: (540) 665-0050 FACSIMILE: (540) 7224051 December 8, 2006 Mr. Jay E. Tibbs Deputy County Administrator County of Frederick, VA 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 THOMA6 MOORE LAWSON * Tj AW'SCINCa. L5PLC.CO� Re: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Rezoning Our File No. 462.006 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Dear Jay; Pursuant to our conversation of today, this is to confirm O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company does not wish to be placed on the January 10`h Board of Supervisors' Agenda, We will contact you to set up a date in the future. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to Five me a call. TML:atd cc: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company F[q}rr FoVA( A0o[[sx: Pptlr pnec� Box 602, PDONi RUVAL, VI[GINIA 22630, TELEPHONE: (560) 63"415- FACSD41.E: (560) 635-9421. r-MA2: 9II.UU0LVN%C0NNBCT.00H -r790, PAIAYAx ADDRUS; IONS MAIN STULT, 514TTE Z00. Yr M)PAa, YMMMIA 2203O.TMEMUN[: M3) 362.2615, VACSIWLC: (703) 352 B-MAfL: TM4MAFOd.Aw'FONCOv[n¢ox.rt[r • LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C. 120 EXETER DRIVE, SUITE 200 POST OFFICE BOX 2740 WINCHESTER, VA I2604 TELEPHONE: (540) 665-0050 FACSIMILE: (540)722-4051 December 1, 2006 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street, 2"d Floor Winchester, VA 22601 DEC 1 THOMAS MOORE LAWSON • TL.AWSON(d),.LSPLC.COM Re: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Our File No. 462.006 REZ #03-06 VIA HAND DELIVERY Dear Mike: This is to confirm our earlier conversation that we would like to have the O-N rezoning placed on the January 10, 2007 Board of Supervisors' Agenda. A copy of the revised Proffers is included for your review. Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Very tru Thoma Moo a TML:atd Enclosure cc: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Board of Supervisors John Riley, County Administrator FRONT ROYAL ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 602, FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630, TELEPHONE: (540) 635-9415, FACSIMILE: (540) 635-9421, E-MAIL: SILEKJGILVNXCONNECT.COM FAIRFAX ADDRESS: 10805 MAIN STREET, SMITE 200, FAIRFAX. VIRGINIA 22030, TELEPHONE: (703) 352-2615, FACSIMILE: (703) 35241". E-MAIL: THOMASO.LAWSONCAVERIZON.NET Patton Harris & Associates Engineers, Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects • MAY 2 6 2006 May 26, 2006 Mr. Eric Lawrence Director of Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: O-N Minerals Chemstone Rezoning Application Dear Mr. Lawrence: PR /A At their April 5, 2006 meeting, the Frederick County Planning Commission voted to HL t table the rezoning application for O-N Minerals Chemstone for a period of 60 days. While the application, in its current form, is consistent with the requirements of Frederick County in order to proceed with the rezoning process, we would CORPORATE: respectfully ask to postpone the public hearing date for an additional 30 days in Chantilly order to provide additional information that will aid both the Frederick County VIRGINIA OFFICES: Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in the decision making process. Bridgewater Chantilly Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Charlottesville Fredericksburg Leesburg Newport News Sincerely, Virginia Beach Winchester Patton Harris Rust & Associates Woodbridge LABORATORIES: Chantilly J/ Fredericksburg Patrick R Sowers MARYLAND OFFICES: Baltimore PRS Columbia Frederick cc: Spencer Stinson Germantown Hollywood PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: Allentown WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE: Martinsburg T 540 667 2139 F 540 665,0493 117 East Piccadilly Street P;\Planning\ReZonrngApplicakonr\Fiedenck Gmnty\ Global -Middletown\PorPoneLetter052606.doc Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX:540/665-6395 FAX TRANSMISSION TO: COMPANY: P FAX #: && S OBI �,3 Remarks: Date: <r / -7 f 6 (,- Number of Pages (including cover sheet) q � �'�-/C)& From the desk of: /w , U � �/ UPy Y6 Ej COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 TO: Board of Supervisors Planning Commission FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: Correspondence Regarding O-N Minerals Rezoning Application DATE: May 12, 2006 Please find enclosed correspondence from Mr. Woodward S. Bousquet regarding the O-N Minerals Rezoning Application (RZ# 03-06). Mr. Bousquet asked that the letter which pertains to the environmental evaluation of the rezoning application be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for your information. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the letter or the rezoning application. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 AENANDOAH I &I I UNIVENTY • Mr. Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 re. Rezoning. Application #03-06, O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Dear Mr. Ruddy: • APR 2 5 2006 April 22, 2006 I attended the Frederick County Planning Commission's public hearing on April 5 regarding rezoning application #03-06 (O-N Minerals, Chemstone). In response to the request you made at the end of the meeting, I am submitting questions and comments about the application for consideration by the planning staff, the applicant, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. These remarks are based upon my familiarity with Cedar Creek and its surrounding watershed that comes, in large part, from an ecological assessment that I conducted with four undergraduates in Shenandoah University's Environmental Studies Program in 2004. Our studies focused on evaluating water quality and on identifying ecological communities and habitats throughout the watershed in Frederick, Warren and Shenandoah Counties. We conducted these investigations in collaboration with the Potomac Conservancy, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Virginia Natural Heritage Program. Our findings are contained in Cedar Creek Revealed: A Study of the Ecological and Historic Context of Cedar Creek, a report released by the Potomac Conservancy this past December. I have provided copies of this report to you, to Mr. Chuck Maddox (Patton Harris Rust & Associates) and to Mr. Karl Everett (Environmental Health and Safety Manager, O-N Minerals). I understand that the Potomac Conservancy has provided copies to members of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. Additional copies are available from the Conservancy's Winchester office, 19 West Cork St., 667-3606. My interest in the area has continued since our 2004 project. Under my supervision, another group of Shenandoah undergraduates will begin a second round of studies in Cedar Creek and its watershed next month. The comments that follow are my personal questions and recommendations only; as such, they do not constitute an official position of Shenandoah University. 1460 University Drive, Winchester, VA 22601-5195 1 www.su.edu 1. Review evaluations. In regard to the review evaluations listed on pp. 2-3 of the planning staff report dated March 20, 2006, I am surprised that the VA Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF), the Virginia Natural Heritage Program, and the Army Corps of Engineers were not invited to review the Chemstone rezoning request. The project has potential impacts on water quality, wetlands, floodplains and terrestrial habitats. uestion: Why weren't any of these agencies part of the review and evaluation process for a 600-plus-acre rezoning application? Recommendation: Staff members in these agencies possess the expertise to identify and evaluate those environmental impacts and then advise the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors accordingly. These agencies need to be consulted in regard to a project of this magnitude. 2. Environmental protection goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The rezoning application and the report by the Frederick County planning staff makes several references to the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Among the elements of the Plan directly referenced are those pertaining to agriculture (Comprehensive Plan, p. 6-55), mining operations (p.p. 6-9-11- 72), rural businesses (p. 6-60), water supply (pp. 5-3-4), historic resources (pp. 2-11-13) and transportation (pp. 7-1). Other relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan are not addressed. These are provisions (pp. 5-8-9) that pertain to environmental quality. They include the following three goals: • Protect the natural environment from damage due to development activity. • Provide for development according to the capacity of the natural environment to carry that development. • Identify and protect important natural resources. Among the implementation methods and proposed actions listed in the Comprehensive Plan (pp. 5-8-9, 10-9) to achieve these goals are: • Avoid development in identified environmentally sensitive areas. • Prohibit uses that damage or pollute the environment. • Continue to require that information on carrying capacity be included with development proposals and use that information to evaluate the impacts of the proposals. uestion: Why are these goals and implementation methods not specifically addressed in the staff report and rezoning application? Recommendation: Protecting environmental quality is an essential component of the Plan's primary goal, "to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County" (p. 1-1). It is also a worthwhile end for its own sake. Rezoning applications and staff reviews need to include greater attention to these commendable goals when, as in this case, the impacts are potentially substantial. 4 3. Impact analysis. The rezoning application provides an Impact Analysis Statement by Global Stone Chemstone Corporation dated February 2006. This document draws from the Potential Impact Analysis prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in August 2002 and included as Appendix A. Such analyses should enable the planning staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to determine how well a proposed rezoning or development enables the County to meet the three goals related to environmental protection that appear in the Comprehensive Plan (pp. 5-8-9). In fact, the Impact Analysis Statement (p. 4) states that the, "scope of the SAIC study is extensive, and is comparable to that of an environmental assessment (ES) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)." In my opinion, the Impact Analysis Statement and the appended SAIC study — while informative in many respects — are inadequate in others: a. Lack of limitations on the scope of operations. I agree with the planning staff s reservations (rezoning report, pp. 6-7) about the maximum scope of operations that could take place if the proposed rezoning is approved. Recommendations: First, I recommend that maps accompanying the rezoning application should designate specific areas that will not be disturbed, including not only historic sites but also stream beds, riparian zones, flood plains, steep slopes and distinctive ecological communities. Second, the applicant should be required to guarantee conditions that assure that the impacts resulting from the rezoning (if approved) will be limited to and consistent with those discussed in the SAIC Impact Statement and the additional impacts identified through further analyses I recommend in Item 1 above, and in Items 3b and 3c below). b. Inadequate analysis of steep slopes, forests and other ecological features on the Northern Reserves. The SAIC's Potential Impact Analysis, Section 3.1-Affected Environment (Forests) states: The Northern Reserves property is difficult to access due to lack of roads, steep slopes and heavy vegetation. The site contains a larger Oak -Hickory Forest community ... [and this] site offers a larger and more contiguous forest than the Oak -Hickory Forest on the Middle Marsh property, and likely offers better biotic habitat for the variety of species described above. There are areas of dense Eastern red cedar of the upland portions of this site as well as Eastern red cedar pasture. [emphasis added] However, Global Stone's Impact Analysis Statement (p. 4) states that no steep slopes greater than 50% are present. Although I have not conducted actual slope measurements, a May 2005 kayak trip I made down Cedar Creek past the Northern Reserves, plus my examination of the topographic map and aerial photography, indicates that steep slopes are indeed present on the property. The limestone bluffs and cliffs that rise steeply from Cedar Creek's edge to the uplands above are one of the scenic, although little-known, gems of the Shenandoah Valley. Their ecological characteristics are also noteworthy. Our 2004 investigations at Cedar Creek Battlefield sites approximately a mile from the Northern Reserves showed that the limestone -based slopes and the adjacent forested uplands represent some of the watershed's most diverse ecological communities. Distinctive bluff vegetation includes arborvitae trees (Thuja occidentalis) and the globally imperiled shrub Canby's mountain lover (Paxistima canbyi). The deciduous forests above contain an impressive variety of plant species (over 100 in a single 400 square -meter plot, for instance) including five not previously recorded in Frederick County. Recommendation: It is probable that the scenic and ecological characteristics of the Northern Reserves are similar to the areas Shenandoah University investigated in 2004. The Northern Reserves and Middle Marsh properties need to be more thoroughly evaluated, and their environmental features identified. Such areas represent distinctive elements of Frederick County's natural heritage. They are likely to be compromised by the development that would follow the proposed rezoning. These scenic and ecological features need to be afforded the same protection that is proposed for historic resources and for environmental features already identified in the rezoning application. (The latter are discussed on pp. 4-5 of Global Stone Chemstone Corporation's Impact Analysis Statement.) c. Inadequate Analysis of Potential Impacts on Surface Water. The SAIC's Potential Impact Analysis, Section 4-Streams (p. 6) states that an estimated 793 of 10,984 linear feet of stream channel in the Middle Marsh property (i.e., Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook) could be impacted by quarrying and associated operations such as stockpiles, berms, spoil piles and buildings. A table in the Impact Analysis Statement by Global Stone Chemstone Corporation (p. 4) indicates that 0 of 8,921 linear feet of streams in the Northern Reserves (i.e., Cedar Creek) could be affected. The Impact Analysis Statement further states (pp. 4-5): Areas for excavation, processing and storage will be located and managed to protect identified environmental features from deleterious impact. ... Moreover, in any case where disturbance is proposed, appropriate mitigation strategies will be employed pursuant to the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Office and all applicable state and federal regulations. ... Encroachment within riparian areas will be limited [as per the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance] ... which will likely result in a lesser impact on stream areas than projected in the SAIC study. Despite increasing development in the watershed, studies by Shenandoah University and by the Friends of the Shenandoah River show that Cedar Creek's water quality is among the best in the Shenandoah Valley. It is appropriate that the applicant's analyses for the Chemstone rezoning are designed to include the impacts not only of the quarrying itself but also of the associated buildings, roads, stockpiles and so forth. I also appreciate the fact that the applicant intends to limit encroachment in riparian areas. I found it difficult, however, to interpret the small (letter size) aerial photographs I examined that depicted the areas of potential impacts to the two sites. This limited my ability to evaluate discussions provided by the applicant and the planning staff. If the Chemstone rezoning is approved, my concerns are that the eventual impacts on surface water quality and stream habitats could be much greater than those identified in the rezoning application if actual excavation and associated operations extend beyond the areas "projected" 4 and "estimated" by the applicant. If the steep cliffs above Cedar Creek, for instance, are disturbed, the riparian zone and Cedar Creek could be severely compromised. If mitigation and erosion -sedimentation control measures along Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook are inadequate, these streams could be compromised as well. Questions: What government agencies (local, federal, state) will monitor the construction, operation and reclamation of the quarrying operations on these two sites? How often will on -site inspection and environmental monitoring occur? Recommendations: First, if the applicant will not limit industrial operations to the type and extent described in the application (see p. 6 of the planning staff s rezoning report, and Item 3a above), then the applicant should evaluate the maximum potential impacts on water quality and other characteristics that could occur after the rezoning, if approved. Second, the applicant should guarantee conditions that assure that the impacts resulting from the rezoning will be limited to and consistent with those discussed in the application. Without these evaluations and guarantees, it does not appear possible to assure that streams and other features on and adjacent to the site will be adequately protected. 4. Impacts on the viewshed of Cedar Creek. Impacts on the viewshed from historic sites and the surrounding community are discussed in several parts of the application materials including the planning staff s rezoning report (pp. 6, 10) and the applicant's proffer statement (p. 2). However, impacts on the viewshed of Cedar Creek itself are not addressed. Cedar Creek's beauty and recreation potential, while they may be under -appreciated, have not gone unnoticed. For instance, Ed Grove's whitewater canoeing guidebook Classic Virginia Rivers (Eddy Out Press, 1992) describes Cedar Creek as, "perhaps the best trip for shepherded novices in the state," and states that an adjacent stream section is "a positively delightful trip for all who love nature". Fishing occurs at many places along the creek. Recommendation: Cedar Creek's beauty and recreation potential should not be compromised. In considering the Chemstone rezoning application, the potential impacts on the viewshed from Cedar Creek should be given the same attention as other viewsheds, as should provisions to avoid damaging the creek's aesthetic and recreational qualities. 5. Mitigating impacts on groundwater — In its proffer statement, O-N Minerals Chemstone Company (Section 5.2, p. 3) agrees to, "remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations...." uestion: Although I teach environmental science courses, I am not a professional hydrologist. Nevertheless, I am curious about the burden of proof in the event that adjacent wells appear to be affected. Wells run dry for reasons other than adjacent quarrying operations. How will it be determined that impacts to wells are caused by mining operations? 5 0 Thank you for considering these observations, questions and recommendations. Please contact me if you would like further information. Sin erely, Woodward S. Bousque Professor of Environmental Studies and Biology Coordinator, Environmental Studies Program cc: Mr. Karl Everett, O-N Minerals Chemstone Operation Mr. Chuck Maddox, Patton Harris Rust & Associates Ms. Heather Richards, Potomac Conservancy Ms. June Wilmot, Frederick County Planning Commission rel 0 9 Mike Ruddy From: Patrick R. Sowers [Patrick. Sowers@phra.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 4:34 PM To: 'Mike Ruddy' Subject: FW: DMME Contact Info Spencer Stinson.vcf (244 B) Mike, Sorry for the delay in getting this information to you. I left the office early Friday and was out sick on Monday, so I didn't get your message until this morning. This is the information Spencer provided me regarding contacts for the State. -Patrick -----Original Message ----- From: Spencer Stinson[mailto:SStinson@global.onco.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 5:20 PM To: Patrick.Sowers@phra.com Subject: DMME Contact Info Willie Cochran, Mine Inspector Phone: 540-249-5859 E-mail: willie.cochran@dmme.virginia.gov David K. Benner, Mine Inspector Suprevisor Phone: 804-739-8052 E-mail: dkb@mme.state.va.us Spencer C. Stinson General Manager 0-N Minerals (formerly known as Global Stone) Chemstone Operation 1696 Oranda Road P.O. Box 71 Strasburg, VA 22657 540-465-6819 sstinson@onco.com 1 COUNTY of FREDERICK i Department of Public Works 540/ 665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 March 27, 2006 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates, p.c. 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Chemstone Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Patrick: The revised proffer statement furnished to this office on March 21, 2006, has adequately addressed our rezoning comments dated .Tune 29, 2005. Therefore, we grant our approval for the subject rezoning assuming that any impacts are mitigated as indicated in the revised proffer statement. Sincerely, lli ! Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Mike Ruddy, Planuling and Development file CAProgram Piles\lvardPerfecf Office 1ITliondn\TEN,TPCOD•IiA4LNTS\CIIENISTONrRI ZPROSTAT\IT.irpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 January 24, 2006 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. PHR&A 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Rezoning Application. Dear Chuck: The O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Rezoning application submitted to this office on Friday, January 20, 2006 is enclosed and is being returned to your office. As presently submitted, the application is incomplete. The application, in its current form, fails to fully identify the impacts associated with the rezoning request. The concerns of the County Engineer regarding the hydrological, geological, and secondary impacts of the rezoning have not been addressed. Approval from the County Engineer should be obtained prior to re -submittal. In addition, the continents offered by the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) should be more adequately addressed. Particular attention should be paid to the first two comments offered by the HRAB, which are provided to ensure that the potential impacts of the rezoning application are fully understood and that appropriate measures are taken to ensure that mitigation of any impacts are addressed. Further, that the mitigation of the impacts are incorporated into the applicant's proffer statement. The efforts to address the anticipated impacts that have been incorporated into the Proffer Statement are not sufficient to guarantee the mitigation of their potential impact. At such time the application has been revised to more thoroughly address the impacts associated with the request, through coordination with the entities identified by the HRAB and with the approval of the County Engineer, the County would be in a position to move forward with the acceptance of this application. Presently, staff is not supportive of this request based on the content of the application. However, the County does look forward to working together with the applicant to advance a positive rezoning application that addresses the impacts associated with the request and is a positive enhancement to the County. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director cc: Mr. John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator Attachments MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 _0RDER AND BACXGR O-N PMU-Ras ((MEMSTCNE) GOANY P.O. BOX 71 1696 ORANDA ROAD STRASBURG VA 22657-0071 PAY THIS AMOUNT ;'Seventy -Two Thousand One Hundred Fifty and 00/ PAY TO THE ORDER OF TREASURER OF FREDERICK COUNTY COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA P.O. BOX 220 WICHESTER VA 22604 VS A 1114!ZpiT u F1A4 SSEPMNIT WATERMARK Loa THE- FACK - 1101.33 AT ".21Ou'E TO � • c. N0.498013 I 56-382/412 v Walla Fargo Bank N.A. 115 Hospital Drive 0 liars Van Wert, Oh 4M1 s CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT ,s 1/20/2006 $*****72,150.00 e: ti AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE SIGNATURE.4R£A CONTAINS A KNIGHT & FiNGERPRiNT CHECK WORCING lie 498❑1311, 1:04120313241: 960005493511' Aa c,EACE r-F ; !Nd , J.S. PATENT NUMBERS UNDER SIGNATURE INDICATES CHECK 15 FRAUDULENT. PATENT NUMBERS ARE PRINTED'•NITH HEAT SENSITIVE INK & WILL DISAPPEAR WHEN BLOWING OR RUBBING FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CHEMSTONE - MIDDLETOWN PROPERTY Back Creek Magisterial District January 2006 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone:540-667-2139 Fax:540-665-0493 PHRn J A N 2 0 2006 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed hh,plannim� ,S'taJ - p Fee Amount Paid S Zoning l nicndment Number Date Received <, I C„licarinc, Date -- — BOS Hearing Date Thefollowing information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Telephone: 540-465-6819 Address: 1696 Oranda Road, P.O. Box 71 Strasburg Virginia 22657 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Address: 3. Contact person if other than above Telephone: Name: Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. (PHR+A) Telephone: 540-667-2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 0 0 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property 7. Adjoining Property: See Attached PARCEL ID NUMBER USE Undeveloped Quarry ZONING 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The subject parcels are situated generally west of the Town of adjacent to Middletown. Specifically, the Middle Marsh Property is located east and Belle View Lane (Route 758), and west and adjacent to Hites Road Route 625), and is further traversed by Chapel Road (Route 627). The (Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). 2 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) kAowledge. Applicant/ Date Owner d/iiln-4erals (Chemstone) 4 ADJOINERS CHEMSTONE - MIDDLETOWN Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Plamung Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. Pie Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2"d floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name Address Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: Keith A. & Linda A. McNeely 443 Westernview Dr Property #: 84-6-10 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Mark A. & Karen Griffith 411 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-9 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Fred & Shirley Potter 379 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-8 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Steven M. & Deborah M. Miller 357 Westernview Dr 84-6-7 Middletown, VA 22645 -Property#: Name: Donald J. & Donna W. Hopkins 325 Westernview Dr Property #: 84-6-6 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Lawrence E. & Wendy J. Hamilton 277 Westernview Dr 84-6-5 Middletown, VA 22645 -Property#: Name: Jeanne Rapa & Shellie L. Sellards 241 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-4 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Kevin D. & Elizabeth M. Barrington 205 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-3 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Gary S. & Dale A. Nichols 1405 Handley Ave Property#: 84-A-7 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Richard A. & Janet S. Dye 11310 Vale Rd Property#: 84-A-12 Oakton, VA 22124 Name: H & E, LC 1832 Chapel Rd Property #: 84-A-17 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Jennifer L. Nichols 1875 Hites Rd Property#: 84-A-17A Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Edith M. Renner 152 Veterans Rd Property#: 91-A-7 Middletown, VA 22645 0 Name: Garrett Farms, LLC 508 Veterans Rd Pro ert #: 84-A-16 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Timothy D. & Lisa M. Rickman Rt 1, Box 695 Property #: 91-A-7A Swords Creek, VA 24649 Name: Carlton R. Boyer 156 N Eberly St Property #: 83-A-107 Strasbur , VA 22657 Name: Carlton R. Boyer 156 N Eberly St Property #: 83-A-108B Strasburg, VA 22657 Name: Dennis F. Boyer 165 Drover Ln Property #: 83-A-108B Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Deborah R. Dorman 9345 River View Rd Property #: 83-A-106 Broomes Island, MD 20615 Name: Rock Builders, Inc P.O. Box 1146 Property #: 83-A-103B Berryville VA 22611 Name: Garrett Farms, LLC 508 Veterans Rd Property #: 90-A-20 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Richard A. McDonald 470 Meadow Mills Rd Property #: 90-A-30 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Meadow Mills Union Chapel RR 1 Box 446 Property #: 90-A-29 Edinburg, VA 22824 Name: Joseph L. & Frances Kenny 516 Meadow Mills Rd 90-A-29A Middletown, VA 22645 -Property#: Name: Thomas G. II & Cornelia E. Lekas 536 Meadow Mills Rd Property #: 90-A-28 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Albert H. Hodson 536 Meadow Mills Rd 90-A-27 Middletown, VA 22645 -Property#: Name: National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Ave NW Property #: 90-A-33 Washington, DC 20036 Name: Malcom & Mildred G. Brumback 420 Belle Grove Rd 90-A-26 Middletown, VA 22645 -Property#: Name: Barry L. Bowser P.O. Box 221 Pro ert #: 90-A-25 Middletown, VA 22645 46 0 REZONING: PROPERTY: RECORD OWNER APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE (S) : PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT RZ. # Rural Areas (RA) to Extractive Manufacturing (EM) 691 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 83-A 109 & 90-A 23 (the"Properties") O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Corporation O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Corporation Chemstone - Middletown June 13, 2005 January 16, 2006 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property (`Propert�), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced EM conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant (Applican�, these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with"final rezonin� defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors (the`Board) decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Boards decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered. herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term"Applicant' as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan; shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, O-N Minerals (Chemstone)' dated June 13, 2005 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Land Use 1.1 The Property shall be developed with extractive manufacturing land uses pursuant to the mining permit approved by the Division of Mineral Mining (DN" of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, and shall therefore conform to the Mineral Mining Law and Reclamation Regulations for Mineral Mining of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Proffer Statement 2. Site Development is Chemstone - Middletown 2.1 Site access via public secondary roads shall be limited to the existing quarry entrance on McCune Road (Route 757). 2.2 Distance buffers shall be provided along the perimeter of the Properties in addition to those required by the Zoning Ordinance. The depth of said buffers shall be determined at the time of site plan submission, and will vary based upon the topography of the site boundary. 2.3 Earthen berms installed around active quarry pits shall be landscaped to minimize impacts to the viewshed of the surrounding community. Such landscaping shall consist of a mix of deciduous and coniferous plantings placed in a random manner in order to be consistent with existing vegetation patterns. Said berms shall be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet. 3. Historic Resources 3.1 The Applicant shall create an eight acre historic reserve as shown on the GDP, within which archeological resources associated with Belle Grove Plantation have been identified. Said reserve shall be dedicated to the Belle Grove Foundation within one year of final rezoning. 3.2 The Applicant shall complete a Phase I Archeological Survey of the Property, to include the site of Nieswander Fort within one year of final rezoning. 4. Rights to Water Supply 4.1 The Applicant shall guarantee the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) rights to the groundwater resources available on the Properties in accordance with existing agreements negotiated between the Applicant and FCSA. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES January 16, 2006 Page 2 of 3 Proffer Slalement Chemslone - Middletown Respectfully subnutted, O-N MIN 1LS (CHFI\ISTO 1✓) CORPORI-1TION B37: 7L Date: �00-6 STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FRDDERICIL COUNTY, T o-wit: The foregoing instrumeQ-,vas acl�nowledged before me this ��� day of 2006, byC5,n�-,f)Ct' Y My commission expires r 1) Notary Public January 16, 2006 Page 3 of 3 COUNTY of FREDERICK June LJ, LUUJ Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates, p.c. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Chemstone - Middletown Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Patrick: We have completed our review of the proposed rezoning from RA to EM and offer the following continents: Refer to page 4, Environmental Features: The discussion indicated that an enviromnental report prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) was included with the impact statement as Appendix "A". A copy of this report was not included with our submittal. Please provide us with a copy of this report for our review. Refer to page 6, Soils/Geology: The geology discussion should be expanded to include hydrogeology and the impact of the project on the local groundwater. In particular, the proposed expansion of the mining operation will be close to existing residential subdivisions which rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. General: The impact analysis has not addressed one very important item related to a rezoning from RA to EM. That item is the impact or effect of blasting on adjacent residential buildings. This issue should also be expanded to include the impact of dust on adjacent residential dwellings. I can be reached at 722-8214 if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, HaneyEZawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Planning and Development file A Achemstonereuom.wpd 107 North Kent Street ® Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 January 3, 2006 Mr. Chuck Maddox, Jr. P.E. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Rezoning Proposal Location: The subject parcels are situated generally west and adjacent to the Town of Middletown. Property Identification Numbers (PINs):53-A-90, 91 Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas) Dear Mr. Maddox: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting of December 20, 2005. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, information provided by the applicant as well as information provided by various groups that were in attendance of the meeting. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the property in question as being located within the core battlefield of the Battle of Cedar Creek and the property (691 acres) also contains the site where the Nieswanger Fort once stood. It is the intent of the applicant to rezone this property to the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Zoning District to accommodate the expansion of the quarry operation. The FIRAB expressed concern that the proposed rezoning was not protecting the viewshed of tl;e battlefield and the Belle Grove property as well as the archeological resources present on the Cedar Creek Battlefield and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. The HRAB felt that the applicant still needs to address many issues with this rezoning before it should be considered by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB could support the approval of this project if the following suggestions are considered in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources: A Phase I Archeological Survey needs to be done on the site, focusing on core battlefield areas and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. If warranted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, subsequent studies should be performed. (Phase II/III). • A detailed Viewshed Mitigation Analysis/Plan needs to be completed that will show the effects of the new quarry operation from key points (critical areas and views/pull-offs to be determined by the National Park Service, Belle Grove and the Cedar Creel: Battlefield Foundation). This plan needs to be completed before any land disturbance is allowed on the site and implementation of any 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 El Mr. Chuck Maddox Re: O-N Minerals Rezoning Proposal January 3, 2006 Page 2 suggestions that may result fi•om the plan should be given a proffered timeline. In addition, the viewshed study should also ensure that views from Chapel Road are not impaired. • Cedar Creek should be bridged so that quarry trucks can use this route instead of going through historic Middletown and passing by the Belle Grove entrance. • The conveyer system being discussed should be studied further to ensure that it does not impact the viewshed or create noise issues. The amount of traffic this system will alleviate should be provided as well. The applicant should propose a plan for the conveyer system that will not have a huge visual impact on the surrounding landscape. • A timeline for the removal of the existing stockpile of dirt (overburden) that can be seen from the Cedar Creek Battlefield needs to be provided with this proposal. • Strategic landscaping needs to be looked at, as well as preserving natural existing landscaping, as opposed to high berms to try to screen the operation. A detailed landscaping study needs to be done for the site. • The location for the overburden from the new quarry operation needs to be provided so that large piles of dirt similar to the current operation are not present, maximum elevations for new berms need to be proffered. A documented plan for any new berms and overburden stockpiles needs to be provided. • Perimeter fencing and lighting details need to be provided so that they do not affect the adjacent historic uses. • The proffers provided to the HRAB included an eight acre reserve for Belle Grove. The proffer states that, "Said reserve shall be set aside for future dedication to Belle Grove Foundation". This proffer includes no timeline for the dedication of the property and as provided, the dedication could never happen. A specific timeline for the dedication of this property needs to be provided to ensure that the Foundation is given this property. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comnitnts from the HRAB. Sincerely, 1 Candice E. Perkins Planner II CEP/bad cc: Rhoda Kriz, Harold Lehman, HRAB Members Bill Ewing, Opequon District Supervisor Mike Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director Document Approval Form PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IF THIS DOCUMENT MEETS YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE INITIAL AND PROVIDE THE DATE AND TIME OF YOUR APPROVAL. IF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT MEET YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COMPLETED. INITIALS DATE & TIME Candice Bernie Mark Susan Eric Mike Kevin John COMMENTS: Received by Clerical Staff (Date & Time): PQnNTIAL IMPACT ANAL IS OF MINING OPERATIONS AT THE MIDD MARSH AND RESERVES PROPERTIES I f. 1 i 2C Prepared for i G.W. Cliff9rd Associates, Inc. r� 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 i 1 t •; V_ August 2002 Prepared by l cience Applications Inter: / n' -9 Corporation' 11 $istne$s Parkway South Suite 10- We"inster, Marylan l-157 __' _ _ ' � \ ` 'kid ., � r � x ♦ • i� r�',� { Tf <RA TO MINERALS' u \ EMSTU i I 4*6 iv NV 4;6 PRffP i ..t 1• J.,•, �'. 1 1 ` :w;. �• to * � �„ .�� J \ '�� .�(� �j� i� tit*. �.y;. �� ,�' •ai REZ❑N NG � `' ' •.`\ •C�^ •s!/,�0�,, > �,� •�\j%�!�� •• �� a�:(' is . , i� �. .� MSS y��� `�- ''��D •%ill*�! � •� is � /" � ���,� •� ,,� .� 't.��: '�> ���;♦;�;�/ ,�'`*� ,. IL 1. ,1 . • y ..K � -� �� �/ '.C+:y'Y.,�q� � mil, � I\r��y .7P `•/ �� �4 • 6`n 1 •• 1 1 -•_\�` ..✓;O'er. - ��. \ •• � , ,��S,''vv�v ��� '\� nos,*:• ) � � U Q_ °J C14 o o U � v cD � vy� � 5 L li +� U Cf) � 5 N co _ (6 = o a w c ,_,,j U O r— O O Revised 611 J105 1 "= 1500' ; n: y • la . _ z . a .'fir p„ .p^• ,� . �' � ii' , `�" � r i , r _ r p� r AY , W ; ' 9 7 t r \, 3 F , k • I ✓ .c a x �r E +µ L t - a-. a .. `:� 'dS;; �Ft. - ' I .I ' M� �� — � � � ,��a+T�� ,•r>����'�. 1w♦:D `��Ye'-��� \.��s.. �9 z-/ :x a,_3es, rl •1• a �,- ��✓� � ���,.� ��* �.'%i� � �� � #�rl/ ����. - �� � I.aa• •a SCR ,I -. • -.I «I`: s - � �.��J`'J \ " ..i!'•' ' ��!a kt�,'���J��.✓�„F9' n},. �rr , '"ag,�. Y. � `{ �. ®ate � �./,• �;� �.f^-��r�, � '; `� I r� y Revised 6113105 1V/ �.J u 4 Pre6erv, /:,- " ,cc� August 31, 2007 Mr. John Riley Frederick County Administrator 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Riley, P.O. Box 562 Middletown, VA 22645 preservefrederick@yahoo.com www.preservefrederick.org SEP 5 I want to thank you, Mr. Ruddy and Mr. Lawrence for meeting with Anne and me today regarding the #03-06 O-N Minerals (Chemstone) application. We appreciate you reviewing our proposal and offering input on how to proceed. We have sent a certified/registered letter this afternoon to the CEO, CFO and Senior Vice President of Operations of Olgebay Norton in Cleveland. We requested that we receive a response by September 171h. We are also sending copies of the letter and proposal to you, the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Ruddy, Mr. Lawrence and the Preserve Frederick Board of Directors. We will call you as soon as we get a response from Olgebay Norton. If you have any questions regarding this proposal or anything else, please feel free to contact me at 540-869-5024 or you can email me at wj1madd84Caao1.com. Sincerely;-) Wendy HamVon CC. Eric Lawrence, Frederick County Director of Planning Michael Ruddy, Frederick County Deputy Planning Director Preserve Frederick promoter compatible development that strengthens our communities, protects our hutoric and natural resources, and preserves the rmral character of Frederick County, Viqinia r7 0 �re6eiv� �re�� August 31, 2007 Mr. Michael J. Minkel Senior Vice President, Operations Oglebay Norton Company 1001 Lakeside Avenue, 151h Floor Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Minkel, P.O. Box 562 Middletown, VA 22645 preservefrederick@yahoo.com www.preservef rederick.org I am writing on behalf of concerned citizens in southern Frederick County, Virginia, regarding your company's (O-N Minerals — Chemstone) pending application for a rezoning of 639 acres near Middletown from agricultural to extractive manufacturing uses. The rezoning was denied on June 7, 2006 by the Frederick County Planning Commission and is pending before the County Board of Supervisors. More than 14 months ago, company officials agreed to amend the application to address concerns raised by the planners and residents about the scope and scale of the rezoning and the potential impacts of greatly expanded ironing and other industrial uses at that location. To encourage resolution of the rezoning issue, Preserve Frederick, a non-profit local citizens group, offers the attached alternative plan for your consideration. This alternative rezoning plan was designed to accomplish four goals: • Significant mining rights are retained. • Historic resources are preserved. • Natural resources are protected. • Traffic, dust and noise problems are addressed. Our local elected officials and county staff have encouraged Preserve Frederick to send you this alternative plan. It was well -received by all of the major stakeholders affected by the rezoning, including adjacent landowners, battlefield preservation groups and the National Park Service, and the Greater Middletown Business Association. We believe it balances the needs of your company with those of the community. For this reason, we are unlikely to be able to gain local support for any major changes to the attached alternative rezoning plan. We ask that you please review this alternative plan and the attached letter of county recommendations dated January 3, 2006 from planner Candice E. Perkins and respond to Preserve Frederick by September 17, 2007 . Preserve Frederick promotes compatible development that strerrgthens our communities, protects our historic and natural resources, and preserves the rural character of Frederick County, Virginia, • Specifically, please let us know 1) If your company is willing to amend the rezoning application to reflect the terms in this alternative plan or 2) If your company finds the alternative plan an unacceptable option for the property. Thank you for you attention to this matter. We look forward to working with you and your company to end the long delay in resolving the Middletown mining rezoning. Sincerely, Wendy Hamilton President CC. Michael D. Lundin, President and Chief Executive Officer, Oglebay Norton Julie A. Boland, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer, Oglebay Norton Frederick County Board of Supervisors John Riley, Frederick County Administrator Eric Lawrence, Frederick County Director of Planning Michael Ruddy, Frederick County Deputy Planning Director Preserve Frederick Board of Directors • 0 Reasonable Alternatives to O-N Minerals Application #03-06 ELIMINATE FROM APPLICATION • All of Parcel # 83-A-109 • All other uses in Extractive Manufacturing Zoning ADDITIONS TO REZONED PARCEL #90-A-23 • Large buffers on Cedar Creek and neighbors • No disturbance in buffers • Soil erosion plan in mining area • A biological study on an environmentally sensitive area • All requested proffers in 1-03-06 Historic Resources Advisory Board letter written by Candace Perkins to O-N. (See letter) 0 • Alternative: Middletown Mining Rezoning Alternative to the O-N Minerals rezoning application for 639 acres near Middletown: rezone only Parcel 90-A-23 from agriculture to extractive manufacturing, subject to following restrictions: • Restrict limestone mining to "Disturbance Area" marked on map above. • Extinguish all other land uses permitted in the extractive manufacturing zoning category. • Preserve buffers on Cedar Creek and adjoining landowners, with no soil or other disturbance within the buffer. • Implement a soil erosion control plan on dirt mounds created by mining. • Adopt the recommendations for control of traffic, dust, noise and visual impacts contained in the Frederick County Planning Department review of the O-N Minerals rezoning application. • Withdraw application to rezone Parcel 83-A-109. 0 • Benefits of Middletown Mining Rezoning Alternative . 'V /ConfederateMorningPositions-� w /Federal Morning Positions �newhere FederalsRegrouped O—N L artherst Confederate Advance c• NCLster's Flank Attack 4IFederal Vlth Corps Trenches t C; '14 - Federal Camps Edinburg Limestone 0 Lincolnshire Limestone ��•`�"'`� New Market Limestone es q Significant Mining Rights Retained: O-N Minerals facilities in Frederick County represent just 10 percent of the company's known limestone reserves. Combined with existing operations, limestone on Parcel 90 A 23 (southern portion of map) would support mining operations for at least 30 years. Historic Resources Preserved: The historic resources associated with the Battle of Cedar Creek are concentrated on Parcel 83 A 109 (northern portion of map). Historic resources on the southern parcel are already impacted visually by the existing limestone mining operation. Natural Resources Protected: Properly designed buffers on the southern parcel can greatly reduce, mitigate or eliminate the impacts on Cedar Creek and rare plant and animal species upland. Traffic, Dust, Noise Addressed: County staff recommendations would greatly reduce, mitigate or eliminate these impacts. 0 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning sad Development 3 0/ 6"-"31 FAX: 54016654393 January 3, 2006 Mr. Chuck Maddox, Jr. P.E. Patton Harris Rust &- Associates, pc 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Rezoning Proposal Loeadon: The subject parcels are situated generAlly Neat and adjacent to the Town of Middletown. Property Identification Numbers (PINS):53-A-90, 91 Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas) Dew Mr. Maddox: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisor; Board (HR.AB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting of December 20, 2005. The I; IRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 ?stational Park Service Study pf Ci-Y i, War. S1tg5 ;r the 5henandga,-, Valle. information provided by the applicant as well as information provided by various groups that %were in attendance of the meeting. HIstoric Resources Advisory Board Concerns The ; 992 National Park Service S-uy,: of Civil «'ar Sims it tf e Shenandoah Valley shows a portion of the Property in question as being located within the core hattlefield of :he Battle of Cedar Creek and the property (691 acres) also contains tl:e site where the Nieswanger Fort once stood. It is the intent of the applicant to rezone this property to the EM (Extractive 14iar.ufacturing) Zoning District to accommodate the expansion of the quarry operation. I he H Ab expressed concern that ire proposed rezoning Was 11Ut prutV%Aing t11e t1twslied ofthe battlefield and the Bclle Grove property as well as tac amhcoiogicai rrsoarcos pr sent on the Coder Crook Sattlefleld and tho site of the Nieswanger Fort. The HRA13 felt that the epplicant stil'. needs to address many 'issues with this rezoning before it should be considered by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The HRAB could support the approval of this project if the following suggestions are considered in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources: • A. Phase I Archeological Survey needs to be done on the site, focusing on care battlefield areas and the site of the Nieswanger Fort. if warranted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, subsequent studies should be performed. (Phase 1141f). • A detailed Vie,:vshed Mitigation Anaiysis!Ploi needs to be compieted that will show the effects ofthe new quarry operation from key points (critical areas and viewsipull-offs to be det rmined by the 1'ationnI Park gem itee. RF11e grove And the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation). This alas needs to be completed before an land disturbance is allowed on the site and implementation of anv zO7 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Wisichebter, Virglnia 2WI-S000 0 0 Mr. Chuck Maddox Re: O-N Minerals Rezoning Proposal I&riuny 3, 2006 Page 2 suggestions that may result frorn the plan should be giver. a �reffaxed timeline. In addition, the viewshed study should also ensure that views from Chapel Road are not unpaired. • Cedar Creek should be bridged so that quarn trucks can use this route instead of going through historic Middletown and passing by the Belle Grove entrance. • The coneyer system being discussed showed be studied further to ensure that it does not impact the viewshcd or create noise issues. The amount of traffic this system will alleviate should be provided as well. The applicant should propose a plan for the conveyer system that v ill not have a huge visual impact on the surro�mding landscape. • A timeline for the removal of the existing stockpile of dirt (overburden) that can be seen from the Cedar Creek Battlefield needs to be provided with this proposal. • Strategic landscaping needs to be looked at, as well as preserving narutUl existing landscaping, as opposed to high berms to try to screen the operation. A detailed landscaping study needs to be done for the site. • The location for the overburden from the rem quarry operation needs to be provided so that large piles of dirt similar to the current operation are not present, maximum elevations for new berms need to be proffered. A documented plar. for any new berms and overburden stockpiles needs to be provided. • Perimeter fencing and lighting details need to be provided so that they do not affect the adjacent historic uses. • The proffers provided to the HRAB included at, eight acre reserve for Beile Crove The proffer states that, "Said reserve shall be set aside for future dedication to Belle Grove Foundation". This profFer includes no timeline for the dedication of the property and as provided, the dedication could never happen. A specific timeline for the dedication of this property needs to be provided to ensure that the Foundation is given this property. Please contact me with any questions c:oocerning theses oamnicnts from the HRAB. Sin rely, Candice E, Perkins Planner ID CEP -bad cc: Rhoda Knz, Harold Lehman, HRAB Members Bill Ewing, Opequon District Supervisor Mike Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director N JOrAHlCC kE/ / /WESTE82G8V1510N /VE 10 DB , P151 Y/NsTERRE� f`060p08403 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 L5 w = d o J � LL �� 0 LLJ � N �• � I \ U2 a Q� W 00 Z / rn /J a m Qo 0 o C9 Q� 01 � 10 C8 t12 03 �2 04 RDUTE 111,5 RICNgRo F II 627 ' �1� pe 482, PG YE C18 Cr II L 19 t2o ON D — mUD �0 Z PORTION OF z w a z� _, w Q PIN 83—A-109 oz I REMAINDER OF N 2 T O a0 o z 14,253,609 SF ^'� PIN 83-A-109 co �? z N o 327.2178 AC W o a m o a o • PROPOSED EM N o J a ZONING BOUNDARY ao CD _ ) RUNS ALONG o EXISTING PROPERTY a LINES AT L22, L23 ' & L24 ONLY. — Q4, co � I J J �2? ` U% CD z GEMS r N/F a pRoov R s roNE z tL e 628 pG 720 I I o I � I Q 00 LJ cq LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH NOTES: 8R6 q'Qi L1 N37'2Lj 2908.33' pG, S 0'21"E � L2 N44'12'04"W 353.46' 1. FREDERICK COUNTY PIN: 698 C c L3 N37'45'19"E 1587.57' 83—A-109 x x L4 N83'55'47"E 1427.97 2, PROPERTY OUTLINE AND w E S56'50'54"E 2031.06' GRAPHIC SCALE o MERIDIAN SHOWN HEREON ARE cv 533'19'31"yy 359.18' BASED ON THE PLAT ATTACHED 0 500�000 z000 mS51'08'46"W 1771.57' TO DEED OF BARGAIN AND SALEN44'S4'24"yy 547.10' RECORDED IN DB 620, PG 186 ( IN FEET) AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF a L9 557'S3'12"W 326.61' 1 inch = 1000 it. w FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA, L10 S40'29'59"W 180.07" INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS "ZONING BOUNDARY EXHIBIT A" a L11 534'14'59"W 75.78' NOT BASED ON A CURRENT A PORTION OF THE Cr L12 S50'29'5911W 52.91' FIELD RUN SURVEY. ADJOINING PROPERTY CONVEYED TO 3 L13 539'S9'45"W 100.50' PROPERTY OWNERS ARE BASED } ON INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CHEMSTONE CORPORATION w L14 S42'59'56"W 100.41' FREDERICK COUNTY GIS WEBSITE, DEED BOOK 620, PAGE 186 L15 S41'44'59"W 101.79' MAY, 2008. BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT L16 S08'30'00"W 15.91' FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA o 3. NO TITLE REPORT. SCALE: 1" = 1000' DATE: FEB. 15, 2006 1 L17 54i 4'44'59"W 48.70 REVISED: MAY 20, 2008 L18 N50'27'01"W 19.00' Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc 1-19 S70'47'59"W 33.21' Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects, L20 S44'23'32"E 873.66' 117 East Piccadilly Street. Suite 200 L21 536'28'S8W 3079.05' Winchester, Virginia 22601 0 HBA L22 N41'30'31"W 1997.30 T 540.667.2139 a L23 N4239'21"E 62.27' i L24 IF540.665.0493 SHEET 1 OF 1 1\143'20'04"W 558.68' 0 K PHR+A 2008 N CV (� 0 a N 00 L0 m 0 N /F l CHEMSTONE CORPORATION SyF oG���c 61' DB 628, PG 721 �tigti 000 ti ��'o 1°�yc s�`� ��* N /F GARRETT FARMS, LLC G y09 DB 846, PG 698 \ LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 S37'00'10"E 1046.22' L2 S46'56'50"W 262•12' L3 S43'05'07"E 889.86' L4 S29'32'22"E 615.38' L5 S35'51'02"W 863.68' L6 S89'56'36"W 475.26' L7 N17'59'22"IN 645.46' L8 N40-1I'll 4"W 1720.29' L9 N52'18'45"E 1336.75' NOTES: 1. FREDERICK COUNTY PIN: 90—A-23. 2. PROPERTY OUTLINE AND MERIDIAN SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE PLAT ATTACHED TO DEED RECORDED IN DB 582, PG 122 AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA. INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD RUN SURVEY. ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM FREDERICK COUNTY CIS WEBSITE, MAY, 2008. 3. NO TITLE REPORT. GRAPHIC SCALE 0 500 1000 2000 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 1000 ft. L6 \ REMAINDER OF PIN 90-A-23 B&,o — RP\�RDpD *PROPOSED EM ZONING BOUNDARY RUNS ALONG EXISTING PROPERTY LINES AT L1, L2, L3 & L4 ONLY. "ZONING BOUNDARY EXHIBIT B" A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO CHEMSTONE CORPORATION DEED BOOK 582, PAGE 122 BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1" = 1000' DATE: MAY 20, 2008 Patton Harris Rust & Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. PHRA 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 SHEET 1 OF 1 0 m x w I 0 N N i a w a Y Ir Li Of 1-1 I rn n N PHR+A 2008 CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH Cl 1876.78' 66.33' 02'01'30" S 78'41'59" W 66.33' L7 r ' 351,803t SO. FT. I V; � �RC) gyp= I8.0763t ACRES y ♦ C 15 / < L14 `C 12 / L10 C\ - - -- B & 0 RAILROAD -� i i NV5 DETAIL ��ti�cF♦ 1.. = 50' lQ EXISTING RETAINING WALL 00 • BR Z TIN - LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S 59'38'45" W 142.52' L2 N 4742'49" W 9.59' L3 N 15'52'44" W 22.16' L4 N 44'25'50" W 53.96' L5 N 42'01'49" W 57.18' L6 N 37'5533" E 292.45' L7 S 86'35'28" E 1303.64' L8 S 18'05'05" E 87.01' L9 S 29'06'54" E 240.71' L10 I S 89-32'16" W 443.23' L11 N 02'54'34" E 39.16' L12 N 73'35'59" W 34.99' L13 N 61-11'46" W 55.17' L14 N 79'13'29" W 88.69' L 15 N 73' 10'45" W 129.48' L16 N 24'46'35" W 63.00' L17 N 74'55'35" W 111.16' L18 S 64'37'31" W 81.52' L 19 N 78' 12' 1 7" W 61 .62' L20 N 51'30'49" W 52.51' L21 N 64'44'51" W 73.52' L22 S 71'26'56" W 50.03' L23 S 65'36'51 " W 151.36' L24 S 41'51'08" W 79.70' 1 1 1 1 CHEMSTONE PROPOSED OFF -CONVEYANCE 8.076 ACRES ± BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: AS SHOWN DATE: DECEMBER 2003 URBAN ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS o LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS o LAND SURVEYORS 600 PEGASUS COURT, SUITE 101 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 450-0211 • They should show future quarry expansion location and berms locations and maximum elevations of berms should be established as well as types of screening. Archaeology should be performed at Nieswanger Fort. • Core areas of Battlefield and union encampments existed on the land to be rezoned. • Areas not to be quarried should be kept in agricultural use or put under protective easements. • Old quarry areas should be reused as much as possible for overburden. • Could the old Meadows Mills Road be reopened to mitigate traffic on U.S route to Shenandoah County. • Areas that were campgrounds and battlefield should be surveyed by professionals for establishing the significant areas of the battlefield for future interpretation at the adjacent Natural Park. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Department of Historic Resources W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr. 2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221 Kathleen S. Kilpatrick Secretary of Natural Resources Director Tel: (804) 367-2323 Fax: (804) 367-2391 TDD: (804) 367-2386 wwwAhnstate.va.us TO: Frederick County History Advisory Board FROM: David Edwards, Director, Winchester Regional Office � �c,u DATE: December 20, 2005 RE: Chemstone Rezoning Request In reference to the Chemstone—Middletown property rezoning of 691 acres from RA to EM (Extractive Manufacturing District), DHR requests that a Phase 1 archaeological and architectural survey of the entire 691 acres be conducted to identify and document historic resources in that area prior to granting a rezoning. This type of study will probably be required as part of the Federal and State Mining permit process under Section 106 of the National Preservation Act of 1966. This survey would provide detailed recommendations for the treatment of historic resources, which at this point have not been identified. Administrative Svcs. 10 Courthouse Avenue Petersburg, VA 23803 Tel: (804) 863-1685 Fax: (804) 862-6196 Petersburg Office 19-B Bollingbrook Street Petersburg, VA 23803 Tel: (804) 863-1620 Fax: (804) 863-1627 Portsmouth Office 612 Court Street, 3rd Floor Portsmouth, VA 23704 Tel: (757) 396-6709 Fax: (757) 396-6712 Roanoke Office 1030 Peninar Avenue, SE Roanoke, VA 24013 Tel: (540) 857-7585 Fax: (540) 857-7588 Winchester Office 107 N. Kent Street, Suite 203 Winchester, VA 22601 Tel: (540) 722-3427 Fax: (540) 722-7535 Marshall Brown Councilman, Town Of Middletown 7994 Main Street Middletown, VA 22645 20 December 2005 Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board After careful review of the Impact Analysis Statement provided by Global ChemStone Corporation, request that the Historic Resources' lum Advisory Board strongly oppose anrezoning efforts until a more - - Y g suitable transportation option is �F adopted. VIA!, � According to data provided by �''��►- Chemstone in their June 2005 f Impact Analysis Statement, the expansion of their Middletown facility will generate a total of 1305 vehicle trips per day or nearly one per minute, 24 hours _ a day, six days a week, directly into the historic district of Middletown. Half of this traffic will continue through Middletown's historic district, in front of the Wayside Theater & Wayside Inn, while the other half will proceed along the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove National Historic Park. Even with the addition of an uncertain future conveyor system, this would still put 693 vehicles through the 5Ih & Main streets intersection every day or one every two minutes around the clock. This continuous heavy industrial traffic will: • Increase the potential for damage to historic structures and viewscapes • Decrease the quality of life for our residents by harming the air quality and increasing noise pollution • Permanently harm any attempts by Middletown to generate income through tourism in southern Frederick County and adversely affect current businesses • Increase the potential for death or injury in our nation's newest national park and Middletown's residential areas Chemstone Corporation must revisit the transportation options outlined in their o41 June 2005 Impact Analysis Statement and s eliminate all vehicular traffic though the R "wow ��`� historic district of Middletown. Rather than utilizing separate vehicle entries for Ql@"} Ra Meadow MiNs ' the Strasburg processing facility and the A � "�� Middletown quarry, an upgrade of their existing internal road system would �98 _oranda .................... .". completely eliminate the need to use Cedar Creek th Wayside,: iA Routes 757, 625 and 5 Street. This can `2981 = >> - soo be accomplished by rerouting all truck 05microsoftcntp@2oo4NOV1EQ:anafnrGor,Inc. traffic internally to 1-81 exit 298. This additional option hinges on Chemstone replacing the existing low water bridge which crosses Cedar Creek adjacent to tax parcel 90-A-23, which they destroyed some years ago in order to deny access to their properties. I ask that Frederick County officials reject the ChemStone rezoning until a firm commitment is made to redirect all heavy industrial vehicle traffic away from Cedar Creek, Belle Grove and Middletown's historic district prior to any expansion of operations. Councilman, Town of Middletown .0 A •^ t `-. X: a t.� 4 Rt. 55 Frederick Co. �... / Shenandoah C . + -''�' ,�t 1'� Warren Co. ' Strasburg - �..'' - /' � --- •-; 10 •� ••, _,� 1 ' :;:" ", `e , i all •'`.' �� : � ./� �. �,... .� • :•.. y '"''•.._, ' ,__rat"'•-•%: "••..r'' ,' _ .,•t t � -" � :ter � `•.�? "' i i—fifi -' Ex. 73 • r '• � ` : � `� ''t �••�' t � i ' i Front Roya I •� •`.� •, t t ..., r ( v • G .. '`:z::>�, �~ �'' F 522 Retained N40rlty -r. Lost N340 ts rlt ` Y 7 •� Study Area Boundary ! v'• \ .., :• d't s Con Area Boundary;''- A tZ.•}�'+ 5 :...... Roads "—•t••. ..•.k - 1 L Streams and Riven •..., i'• l - '`........ .:` r! �'_ — _ i County or City Boundary ,: It '{...•••---••'�'„i.. p• +, w_ , I �'� The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation The Standards (Department of Interior regulations, 36 CFR 67) pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types,sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and the building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. =■ 05/23/2008 16:06 FAX 202 367 1865 vsit v CIVIL WAR PRES TRUST 0001 Theodore Sedgwick Chairman CIVIL WAR PRESERVATION TRUST Saving America's Hallowed Ground James Llgh hirer Prastdent Fax To: Eric Lawrence Company: Frederick County Planning Department Fax: 540-665-6395 Pag®s: 3 (including cover page) From: Tod Sedgwick Date: May 23, 2008 X Urgent X For Your Information O Please Reply ❑ Review Comments: Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please contact me or Jim Campi of the CWPT staff at 202-367-1861. Thank you. Tod Sedgwick MAY 2 3 2008 WASHINGTON OFFICE I HAGERSTOWN OFFICE 133114 Street NW • Suite 1001 • Washington, DC 20005 11 Public Square • Suite 200 • Hagerstown, MD 21740 Phone: (202) 367-1861 or (800) 298.7978 6 Fax: (202) 367-1865 Phonc: (301) (65-1400 or (888) 606-1400 6 Fax: (301) 665.1416 05/23/2008 16: 07 FAX 202 367 1865 CIVIL WAR PUS TRUST Z 002 ti CIVIL WAR PRESERVATION TRUST Saving America's Hallowed Ground Theodore Sedgwlck James Ughthizer Chairman Prevident May 23, 2008 The Honorable Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Frederick County Board of Supervisors 292 Green Spring Road Winchester, Va. 22603 Dear Mr. Chairman: The purpose of this letter is to reiterate the willingness of the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) to work towards a compromise solution in the matter of the Carmeuse Lime & Stone rezoning. We believe the revised proffers (dated May 22, 2008) still 'do not give adequate consideration to historic land associated with the 1864 battle of Cedar Creek. As part of a potential compromise, CWPT would be willing to consider acquisition of all or part of the property in question. CWPT has a strong record of working with developers and government officials to protect battlefield land. In Prince William County, we worked with Centex Homes to protect 127 acres of the Bristoe Station Battlefield. In Spotsylvania County, we worked with Tricord Homes and Toll Brothers to protect 214 acres associated with the Chancellorsville Battlefield. In both instances, local government officials were praised for working with CWPT to achieve compromises that benefited all parties involved. CWPT is no stranger to large -dollar land acquisitions either. In 2006, CWPT engineered the largest private -sector battlefield acquisition in history, purchasing the $12 million Slaughter Pen Farm on the Fredericksburg battlefield in Spotsylvania County. Last.year, CWPT invested $4 million in the Glendale battlefield in Henrico County. In Frederick County, we have invested $3.3 million in the Third Winchester battlefield — $2.5 million for acquisition of the property in 1995, and $800,000 for very popular walking and biking trails opened in 2007. CWPT has been able to make these acquisitions by securing federal and state battlefield preservation grants, matched with generous donations from our members and private sector foundations. We also have a strong record of working with like-minded preservation groups, such as the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. Overall, CWPT has facilitated the preservation of more than 25,000 acres of battlefield land for use by local citizens and tourists. WASHINGTON OFFICE I HAGERSTOWN OFFICE 1331 H StrcetNW . Suite 1001 • Washington, DC 20005 11 Public Square • Suitc 200 • Hagerstown, MD 21740 Phone: (202) 367-1861 or (800) 298-7878 a Fax: (202) 367-1865 Phone: (301) 665-1400 or (888) 606-1400 9 Fax: (301) 665-1416 05/23/2008 16:07 FAX 202 367 1865 CIVIL WAR PRES TRUST U 003 a Letter to Chairman Riehard C. Shiekle Page Two May 23, 2008 There is no question that the debate over expansion of the Carmeuse quarry expansion has been a long and heated one, creating divisions among Frederick County residents. A compromise solution would help bridge these divisions, enable Carmeuse to mine part of the property for decades to come, and provide the county with additional historic open space to attract the onslaught of visitors expected for the Civil War Sesquicentennial commemoration, which begins in 2011. Plus, it would help address some of the other concerns raised by local residents, including an increase in truck traffic, ground water contamination, noise pollution, and air quality issues. At this point, the key to any compromise would be for the Board of Supervisors to either table or reject the Carmeuse rezoning proposal as presently constituted_ Without such action, the mining company has no incentive to work with the preservation community, and CWPT will have no opportunity to discuss acquisition options. We sincerely hope you will urge Carmeuse representatives to meet with CWPT and other preservation groups so an alternative compromise can be explored in good faith. In a letter of May 22, 2008, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park superintendent Diann Jacox proposed that the county, Carmeuse, and the preservation community enter into facilitated discussions to explore potential compromise solutions_ CWPT would be most happy to participate in such discussions and, if necessary, help underwrite a facilitator. As we. noted in our April 21, 2008 letter to the board, and -as has been so eloquently stated by other groups and local residents, the property in question is hallowed, blood-soaked ground. In 1993, a blue-ribbon commission established by Congress identified Cedar Creek as a Priority I, Class A site — its highest designation (Only a few battlefields in the country, such as Gettysburg, Antietam, and Chancellorsville, have this level of significance). If there are any questions in the minds of county officials and board members about the historic significance of this property, please do not hesitate to ask -- we would be happy to address them. Thank you for your consideration. We sincerely believe a mutually acceptable compromise solution is in the best interest of Frederick County, as well as the historic preservation community. We would be most happy to work with you to engineer such a solution. If you have any questions, please contact me or Jim Campi of the CWPT staff at 202-367-1861. Sincere , Theodore Sedgwick, Chairman cc: Fredrick County Board of Supervisors Mr. John Riley, Frederick County Administrator Mr. Eric Lawrence, Frederick County Planning Director ARCHAEOLOGICAL DELINEATION AND RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE' HISTORIC TABLER AND NISEWANDER FAMILY CEMETERIES, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ECS PROJECT NO. 21:9244 Prepared For: MR. SPENCER STINSON O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) FEBRUARY 7, 2008 REVISED MARCH 6, 2008 f 1 ECS MID -ATLANTIC LLC U�ro�4rr n� uc� Geotechnical - Construction Materials - Environmental - Cultural Resources Mr. Spencer Stinson Chemstone Operation 1696 Oranda Road Strasburg, VA 22657 February 7, 2008 Revised March 6, 2008 ECS Project No. 21:9244 Reference: Archaeological Delineation and Restoration Plan for the Historic Tabler and Nisewander Family Cemeteries, Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Stinson: ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC (ECS) is pleased to provide you with the revised report of our Historic Cernetery Delineations for the referenced properties. Our services were provided in general accordance with ECS Proposal No. 21:17309-REP, dated December 14, 2007. If there are any questions regarding this report please contact us. Respectfully submitted, ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC. Raymond Ezell, RPA Senior Archaeologist Douglas J. Finch Environmental Services Manager RDE/L\Cultural Resources\Projects\4000-4999\4966 On Minerals Cem Delineation\Report\Revised Final Report.Doc ' 915 Maple Grove DrL'W, Suite 206, Fredericksburg, VA 22407 - (540) 785-6100 - FAX (540) 785-3577 - www.eeslimited.com Aberdeen, MD • Bal<iriore, MD • Chantilly, VA • Charlottesville, VA • Frederick, MD • Fredericksburg, VA • Manassas, VA • Ocean City, MI)* Richmond, VA • Roanoke, VA • Virginia Beach, VA • Waldorf, MD • Williamsburg, VA • Winchester, VA • York, PA * testing services only FINAL REPORT PROJECT Archaeological Delineation and Restoration Plan for the IIistoric Tabler and Nisewander Family Cemeteries, Frederick County, Virginia. CLIENT SUBMITTED BY O-N Minerals (Chemstone) 1696 Oranda Road Strasburg, VA 22657 ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC 915 Maple Grove Drive, Suite 206 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22407 PROJECT 21:9244 DATE February 7, 2008 REVISED March 6, 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During January 2008, ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC (ECS) conducted cemetery delineations at the historic Tabler and Nisewander family cemeteries west of Middletown, in Frederick County, Virginia. The delineations were conducted on behalf of O-N Minerals (Chemstone) which owns the property. The delineations were designed to locate and identify the limits of the historic cemeteries. The results of this investigation are to be used for planning and cemetery restoration purposes. To this end, the cemetery delineation consisted of archival research, fieldwork, and report preparation. The cemetery delineations determined the horizontal extent, minimum number of graves, and alignment of these graves in each cemetery. The Nisewander cemetery was found to contain at least 22 individual interments and the potential (based upon size) to contain up to approximately 60 individual graves from the 18°i-early 19"' centuries. The Tabler family cemetery was found to contain at 5 individual interments from the late 19°i century. If these cemeteries are to be avoided by quarry operations, ECS recommends that these cemeteries should be restored to their historic appearance. If avoidance of the cemeteries by quarry activity is not possible, a professional archaeological excavation of the burials and their re -interment at another location in Frederick County under the guidelines of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) should be conducted. u 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................... iii LISTOF FIGURES........................................................................................................... iv I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1 A. Description of Project Area.................................................................................... 1 B. Geology and Topography....................................................................................... 5 ' C. Hydrology............................................................................................................... 5 II. RESEARCH DESIGN............................................................................................ 6 A. Archival Research................................................................................................... B. Fieldwork................................................................................................................6 6 C. Report Preparation.................................................................................................. 6 III. HISTORIC CONTEXT.......................................................................................... 7 ' - A. The Development of Frederick County.................................................................. 7 IV. RESULTS............................................................................................................. 17 A. Archival Review................................................................................................... 17 B. Delineation Fieldwork . 33 C. Cedar Creek Battlefield Condition Integrity Assessment and Impact to Project ' Area................................................................................................3 V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CEMETERIES RESTORATION ....................... 8 46 VI. REFERENCES CITED......................................................................................... 52 IAPPENDIX I: Representative Photographs I LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1. Map of Virginia Showing the Approximate Location of the Project Area. Figure 2. Location of the Project Area................................................................................ 2 Figure 3. Location of the Nisewander Family Cemetery .................................................... 3 Figure 4. Location of the Tabler Family Cemetery............................................................ 4 Figure 5. Troop Positions During the Late Morning of October 19, 1864....................... 14 Figure 6. Vicinity of Tabler Family Cemetery................................................................ 18 Figure 7. Nisewander and Tabler Cemetery Areas on Historic Mapping ........................ 19 Figure 8. Historic Mapping of the Area........................................................................... 20 Figure 9. 1885 Map of the Opequon Magesterial District ............................................... 21 Figure 10. Nisewander Family Cemetery on Historic Mapping ...................................... 22 Figure 11. Photographs ofNisewander's Fort................................................................. 24 Figure 12. 1986 Land Plat................................................................................................ 29 Figure 13. Schematic Planview of Tabler Family Cemete►y........................................... 34 Figure 14. Schematic Planview of the Nisewander Cemetery .......................................... 37 Figure 15. Map of the O-N Minerals Parcels, 2008.......................................................... 40 Figure 16. Northeast Oblique of House on Tabler Tract, 2008........................................ 42 Figure 17. Views West and South from Middle Marsh Brook and Tabler Cemetery ...... 43 Figure 18. Views North and East from Middle Marsh Brook and Tabler Cemetery........ 44 iv I. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of cemetery delineations on Tax Map 84: Parcel 8 and Tax Map 83: Parcel 109 in Frederick County, Virginia (Figure 1). These delineations ' were conducted during January 2008 by ECS Mid -Atlantic, LLC (ECS) for O-N Minerals (Chemstone) which proposes to develop the property for industrial/quarry use. LI 1 u Although the project was not required by regulatory agencies, the project was conducted in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's standards (Department of the Interior, 1983, 48 44720-44723), as well as the state standards entitled Guidelines For Conducting Cultural Resource Survey in Virginia: Additional Guidance for the In7plennentation of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines (48 FR 4472, September 29, 1983) 1999 (rev. 2000). Figure 1. Map of Virginia Showing the Approximate Location of the Project Area. A. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA The project area includes two locations where historic cemeteries have been noted by O- N Minerals (Chemstone) personnel (Figures 2-4). The historic Tabler family cemetery is located on Tax Map 84: Parcel 8 several hundred feet north of Chapel Road (Rte. 627) west of Middletown. This cemetery is on a small bench just west of Middle Marsh Branch. The historic Nisewander family cemetery is situated on Tax Map 83: Parcel 109 and is adjacent to the south side of Chapel Road (Rte. 627) along the margin of a pasture. This area is on the gentle slope of a ridge on the east side of Middle Marsh Branch. At the time of this project, the Nisewander family cemetery was dominated by a stand of third - growth mixed hardwoods with a ground cover of introduced periwinkle (Vinca sp.) roses, vines, ivy, and other undergrowth. Mature hardwoods included Locust, Ash, Oak, Cherry, and Sycamore. Vegetation at the Tabler family cemetery included a few Cedars and Osage Orange trees. No ornamental groundcover was noted at this cemetery. 11 7M M MM M M =M] sm Tabler Family Cemetery � � • .. l / . � �' \ ire ti 'ti, � . i ' N NieswsndFort 0 1Rulr,$) 0 Nisewander Family Cemetery '3� I i •o It Cb i or .. • \ 700, O-N MINERALS CEMETERY FIGURE 2 DELINEATIONS ECS Project 21:9244 Locations of Project Area I February 2008 sRwers�a Vicinity of Nisewander's Fort Site O-N MINERALS CEMETERY DELINEATIONS Location of the Nisewander Family Cemetery 3 Nisewander Cemetery FIGURE 3 ECS Project 21:9244 iL—ll--�C February 2008 -rJL 4� 'I �»_- �'i\��?}\2��/��� '%\ !f' ����r� �/�,� _� \'` �� �a illf, ,�\ � ^ ^ AL va V 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) B. GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY The project area is located within the Valley and Ridge physiographic province and is situated within the Middle Marsh Branch drainage. The terrain of the project area consists of gently sloped northeast/southwest trending ridges and shallow valleys. In general, the Valley and Ridge province is characterized by alternating ridges of resilient sandstone and limestone formations that have greatly affected the flow of the major drainages and their attendant tributaries, creating a modified rectilinear or trellis pattern of drainage. The major geologic formations underlying the project area include the Conococheague limestone and sandstones, the Beekman dolomite formation, the Martinsburg and Oranda shales and limestone formation, and Oeln limestone and shale formation (Gathright et al. 1993). C. HYDROLOGY The largest watercourse in the vicinity of the project area is Middle Marsh Branch which runs from southwest adjacent to the cemeteries to Cedar Creek to the South. Cedar Creek flows south to the North Fork of the Shenandoah River. The Shenandoah River then flows northeast to the Potomac River and thence to the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. E O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations LCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) II. RESEARCH DESIGN The historic cemetery delineations were designed to locate and identify unmarked historic graves associated with the late 19t" century Tabler family cemetery and the late 18°'-early 19th century Nisewander family cemetery. Utilizing the results of the delineation fieldwork and archival review, recommendations were also made for the restoration of the cemeteries to their original historic/vernacular character. This cemetery delineation consisted of archival review, fieldwork, analysis, and report preparation. A. ARCHIVAL RESEARCH Archival review for the cemetery delineations was conducted with two primary goals: (1) to identify any historic records or cartographic sources pertaining to the presence of the cemeteries, and (2) to delineate (if possible) the number of historic burials present within each cemetery and dates of use. Historical documentary and cartographic review was conducted using the resources of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), the Library of Virginia, Library of Congress, Handley Regional Library, and the Central Rappahannock Regional Library. B. FIELDWORK The primary purpose of the cemetery delineation was to identify the location and extent of the cernetery thought to be associated with the historic occupations of the landforms. This locale was carefully examined for headstones, footstones, or east/west oriented depressions indicative of historic Christian burials. The locale was also carefully inspected for common plant species normally associated with 18-19"' century Christian burial sites including periwinkle, cedar trees, roses, and lilies commonly associated with such burial areas. The fieldwork involved the use of heavy equipment equipped with a smooth -blade, operated by an operator under the direct supervision of a professional archaeologist. The heavy equipment was utilized to carefully strip away the plowzone down to sterile subsoil in an attempt to delineate any graveshafts that might be present at each cemetery. Field notes were made of the process, and the exposed graveshafts were mapped and photographed. Scaled drawings of the investigated locales were made, as well as the limits of the suspected cemetery. C. REPORT PREPARATION The results of the archival review, fieldwork, and analysis were synthesized and are summarized in this report. The report describes the results project and is illustrated by selected maps and drawings. Appendix I presents representative photographs of the cemetery locales. 6 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) III. HISTORIC CONTEXT A. THE DEVELOPMENT OF FREDERICK COUNTY The earliest European settlement of what is now Frederick County had its tentative beginnings in the first quarter of the 18t" century when explorers and fur trappers entered the valley attracted by the promise of rich natural resources. Despite the evidence of major pre -contact trail systems, the region that is known today as Frederick County had only a small native population when it was first settled by the European colonists in the early 18t1i century. Although famines or epidemics of European origin might have depopulated the region, a more probable explanation is that the area became a buffer zone located between the Iroquois to the north and the powerful Cherokees to the south. While neither tribe claimed the area for settlement, it appears that both groups used the area for hunting. The Shawnee were the predominant native population identified in the region at contact. Exploration and Early Settlement, 1716-1783 The Shenandoah Valley was first seen by European trappers in the early 18t" century, but the first well -documented explorer was Alexander Spotswood who is said to have viewed the valley on August 1, 1716. Accompanied by a group of some 50 fellow adventurers dubbed "The Knights of the Golden Horseshoe," Spotswood crossed into the valley through Swift Gap Run and returned back to the Tidewater with glowing reports about the region. The presence of large groups of hostile Shawnee Indians prevented many settlers from entering the valley, but by 1726, German immigrants from eastern Pennsylvania were making inroads into the region, and they soon founded the settlement of New Mecklenburg (Greene 1926). These new settlers were encouraged through tax waivers and land grants to settle in the area, and thus help protect Virginia's western borders. By 1730, surveys were being conducted in the area, and a survey of 583 acres on Abraham's Creek was identified on this date. Colonel Robert Carter, the agent of Lord Fairfax, was awarded 63,000 acres in the region from Governor Gooch of Virginia, and settlers soon flocked to the region. In 1738, Frederick County was created by the division of the pre-existent Orange County, although no formal Frederick County government was created until 1743. Much of the lands in the region were soon surveyed by a young Virginia planter named George Washington who surveyed properties throughout the area in 1747 and 1748. Washington maintained close ties with the region between 1748 and 1765, and during this time he had a survey office located in the town of Winchester (Greene 1926). By 1750, many settlers were in place along the fertile floodplains of the Shenandoah River, although political and military actions by the French in the Ohio River valley rapidly changed the situation (Rice 1986:18). Following the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle of 1748, France took steps to strengthen their claim on the lands to the south and east. In the 7 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:9244 f cbruary 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) following three years, the French signed peace treaties with the tribes north of the Ohio, and the predations by the French -backed tribes forced many English traders to the south. Soon, a series of French forts were constructed along the upper reaches of the Ohio River, posing a direct threat to the English colonists. In January 1754, Governor Dinwiddie of Virginia created the First Virginia Regiment and ordered the immediate construction of forts at the Forks of the Ohio River and sent out militiamen to start construction (Titus 1991:78-79). In April of the same year, two companies of Virginia militia, under the command of Major George Washington, were sent out to garrison the western frontier forts. Washington's force skirmished with a smaller French unit near Great Meadow, Pennsylvania, and fearing a large-scale French attack, Washington halted his advance and quickly built a small fort, naming it Fort Necessity. A large French force soon arrived and laid siege to the fort, forcing its surrender. Washington was allowed to withdraw his troops back to Virginia only after promising the French that no other British forts would be constructed in the Ohio Valley for a year, thereby initiating the French and Indian War. Despite the presence of numerous forts on the Virginia frontier, hostile Indian attacks increased, and many settlers chose to move back east to avoid the threat of warfare. As the threat of war with the French and their Indian allies escalated, Governor Fauquier of Virginia made a formal plea to the British Board of Trade on behalf of the beleaguered settlers, seeking formal protection from the Crown (Titus 1991). Despite the Board's tacit approval of settling the area, the settlers were warned to not arouse the Lldians, and the powerful Shawnee tribe was promised use of the area for hunting. The native populations at first tolerated their new neighbors, but intercultural conflicts between the two groups soon escalated into open war. George Washington was elected to the Virginia House of Burgess in 1758, and again in 1761, and this period of time saw the gradual expulsion of the Shawnees to the west (Greene 1926). Continuing taxation by the British Crown on their subjects in the colonies began to take their toll on the colonists, who chafed under the edicts. After the colonies declared their independence on July 4, 1776, King George III of England ordered the military forces of the Crown to end the colonist's rebellion by force of arms. The lower Shenandoah area promptly raised two companies of infantry for the new Continental Army, and one company, under the command of Captain (later General) Daniel Morgan, fought with distinction throughout the war. Progress and Prosperity, 1783-1860 As the Revolutionary War continued, British forces were drawn back east to help engage the Continental Army forces on the Atlantic seaboard, leaving the British western frontier forts either abandoned or in disrepair. The remnants of the various Native American tribes in the Shenandoah Valley area, already weakened internally and externally by the decades of warfare, pulled back from this portion of Virginia, creating a relatively quiet and stable frontier by 1785. t O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Many gristmills were soon in operation in Frederick County, taking advantage of the bounty reaped from the rich soils of the river floodplains. During the late 18t" and early 19t" century, Virginia underwent a radical transition from the early colonial tobacco - based plantation economy and a new diversified grain -based economy that would characterize the region through the 19t1i and into the 20°' century. By the time of the American Revolution, all arable land in the Tidewater and Piedmont regions of Virginia had been planted in tobacco at least once, and most areas were experiencing the effects of severe soil depletion. Between 1790 and 1820, as many as 250,000 Virginians moved from the older settled parts of the state to the recently opened southwest frontier, taking approximately 150,000 enslaved Africans with them. Despite the obvious benefits of the transition from tobacco to grain crops, the farming methods of the late 18t1i and early 19t" centuries continued to have a deleterious effect on exhausted soils. Under the traditional three -crop rotation system, a field first would be planted in corn, the following year in wheat, then left unplowed the third year to provide grazing for cattle and hogs. Recognizing the need for improved agricultural practices, LOUdOL111 County farmer John A. Binns spearheaded the agricultural reform movement in Virginia. Binns' (1803) Treatise on Practical Fartning, which won the admiration of President Thomas Jefferson, outlined a formula for improving crop yields that would come to be known as the "Loudoun System." In his widely read book, Binns recommended deep plowing, the use of gypsum to restore soil productivity, and revising the old crop rotation pattern to include a third year of clover (Poland 1976: 84-88). Frederick County continued to be the domain of small subsistence level farmers throughout the first half of the 19°' century, and the agrarian character of the county remained much as it had been in the late 18t" century. The War of 1812 found the citizens of Frederick County ready and willing to protect their new country from English aggression, and three companies were raised, including one raised by Willoughby Morgan, the son of Revolutionary General Daniel Morgan. Following the war, the Town of Winchester continued to become more urbanized, and by 1829, iron water pipes were being laid through the town, drawing water from the springs that issued forth from the limestone formations on the town's north side, near the site of colonial Fort Loudon. The earlier north/south trending native American trail, known as the Warrior Path, was improved and soon became known as the Great Wagon Road. Regular stagecoach service along this road was instituted in 1817, and, in 1834, the Valley Turnpike Company was founded. Canals vied for the trade along the James and the Rappahannock rivers until the late 1830s, but neither turnpikes nor canals could compete with the railroad. New transportation routes were rapidly expanding and the Winchester and Potomac Railroad Company was incorporated on March 14, 1832 to connect the Town of Winchester with the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal at Harpers Ferry, 32 miles to the north (Moredecai 1940). The Valley Turnpike Company i' 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) had improved the early Great Wagon Road, and a macadamized turnpike known as the Valley Pike was completed in 1840. This major road provided an avenue for the flow of goods and people through the Shenandoah Valley during the following years, and it became a critical strategic route for the movement of troops and materials for both the Confederate and the Federal forces during the Civil War (Reidenbaugh 1996:2-3). Civil War and Secession, 1861-1865 By the 1860s, the issues of slavery and states' rights had precipitated armed conflict, and Virginia dissolved her ties to the Federal government. With the passing of the Ordinance of Secession on April 17, 1861, Frederick County immediately raised troops for the defense of Virginia and the Confederacy. The first units of volunteer militia were formed up and they immediately marched north to wrest control of the Federal government arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. For the first year of the war, Confederate Frederick County was largely untouched by the Federal forces, although small skirmishes were noted across the valley. By early 1862, the Shenandoah Valley region took on strategic importance for both the Confederacy and the Union. With the creation of the Mountain Department, 35,000 Federal troops, under the command of General John C. Fremont, were tasked with protecting the Federal rail lines and the destruction of the Confederate Virginia and Tennessee railroad which ran from Richmond to Knoxville. The town of Winchester, located to the north of the project area, soon became the focus of both side's military actions, and the town was under alternating Confederate and Federal control some 72 times during the next 4 years (Ebert and Lazazzera 1988:52). Third Battle of Winchester At the Third Battle of Winchester on September 19, 1864, Federal forces, under General Sheridan attacked Confederate cavalry troops north of Middletown and forced them to retreat southward towards Strasburg. In a bold attempt to end the Confederate control of the rich Shenandoah Valley following this battle, General Sheridan ordered his troops to destroy all the resources of the area in an attempt to break the back of Confederate resistance. For the next three weeks, the Federal forces raided and burned any properties in the Valley that they could find, resulting in the confiscation of 50,000 head of livestock and the destruction of 2,000 barns and 120 mills, with a loss of an estimated 500,000 bushels of grain. The burning of the countryside effectively depleted the civilian resources in the Shenandoah Valley. Confederate troops under the command of General Jubal A. Early encamped south of Cedar Creek remained a viable fighting force. Battle of Cedar Creek At the Battle of Cedar Creek on October 19, 1864, Confederate forces under the command of General Early, surprised the Federal troops encamped on the north bank of Cedar Creek. The ferocity of the pre -dawn Confederate attack initially overwhelmed the Federal troops and forced them to retreat, but by that afternoon General Sheridan rallied 10 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2009 (Revised March 6, 2008) his forces north of Middletown and ordered a counter-attack. By day's end, the Federals had pushed the Confederate forces back south across the creek and claimed victory. Significance of the Battle of Cedar Creek This battle effectively crushed the organized Confederate military resistance in the Shenandoah Valley, and coupled with Federal General William T. Sherman's successful campaign in Atlanta, ensured the re-election of President Abraham Lincoln in 1864. The Battle of Cedar Creek is thus considered to be one of the last major battles of the Civil War. The Federal Army of the Shenandoah, numbering 32,000 men under the command of Major General Phillip 1-1. Sheridan was encamped along the north bank of Cedar Creek on October 17t1' and 18°i of 1864. General Sheridan had been summoned to a conference in Washington, D.C. and in his absence Major General Horatio Wright, the commander of the Federal Sixth Corps, was temporarily in charge of the force. His headquarters was located at the Belle Grove plantation. Opposing the Army of the Shenandoah were five Confederate infantry divisions and two cavalry divisions numbering 21,000 men under the command of Lt. General Jubal A. Early. On the night of October the 17t1', Confederate Major General John Gordon and the well-known Confederate topographic engineer Jedediah Hotchkiss climbed Signal Knob on Massanutten Mountain to reconnoiter the disposition of the Federal forces along Cedar Creek. They devised a daring but risky plan to turn the Federal left flank (Whitehorse 1987). In the late evening of the 18t1' and the early pre -dawn hours of October 19`I', three divisions of the Confederate Second Corps under the overall command of Confederate General Gordon left their positions and quietly crossed the North Fork of the Shenandoah River. After capturing the small force of Federal pickets guarding Boman's and McInturfrs Fords, Gordon's Division then re -crossed the North Fork, and by 4 A.M. the Confederate force had formed up in line of battle beyond Crook's Corps. Kershaw's and Wharton's divisions moved north along the Valley Pike through the town of Strasburg. Kershaw's division moved to the right and stopped at Bowman's Mill Ford in preparation for the pre -dawn attack. Wharton's division continued along the Valley Pike to Hupp's Hill, where they deployed for the assault on the Federal left flank. The Confederate artillerymen massed their guns on the Valley Pike south of Strasburg, awaiting the news of the infantry assault so that they could quickly be brought to bear on the most vulnerable portions of the Federal lines. Confederate Brigadier General Thomas Rosser's cavalry division advanced along the Back Road to Cupp's Ford, and Confederate Brigadier General Lunsford Lomax's cavalry division was ordered to advance on the Front Royal/Winchester Road and cross over the Valley Pike near Newtown (modern-day Stephens City). For reasons that are still unclear, Lomax did not advance as ordered (Whitehorse, personal communication 2006). O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations LCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) ' The weather favored the Confederates, and the entire area was blanketed in dense fog in the pre -dawn hours, masking the Confederate movements and their positions. Flush with their recent success in the burning of the Valley, the Federal troops had prepared defensive positions to defend their camps from attack from the east, using Cedar Creek as a natural obstacle. At 5 A.M. on the morning of October the 19"i, Kershaw's division opened the attack with intense volleys of fire on Thoburn's division, followed I' immediately by the assault which overran the surprised Federal troops (Whitehorne 1992). The initial Confederate attack by Kershaw on Thoburn's division was successful, and the Confederate forces quickly pushed northward through the hastily -abandoned Federal XIX Corps camp. The Federal I st and 3r`r Divisions were already preparing for a reconnaissance that morning, and they maintained their positions in the face of the determined Confederate attacks until they were flanked, forcing them to retreat to the north. General Gordon's division began its advance at 5:20 A.M., smashing through the VIII Corps flank. Although Hayes' veteran troops initially stood their ground, the Confederate division soon turned the Federal left, and by 5:30 A.M, the VIII Corps was in retreat. Hearing the roar of battle, What-ton's division quickly advanced to the banks of Cedar Creek at 5:40 A.M. and deployed, awaiting the approach of the Confederate artillery. The Confederate artillery set up their guns on the heights of Hupp's Hill and began bombarding the Federal XIX Corps. At this time, a detachment of Confederate cavalry attempted to reach the Belle Grove plantation house, hoping to capture Federal General Sheridan; however, Ile had been summoned to a meeting in Washington D.C. two days earlier. The Confederates continued their assault pushing the Federal forces northward, but by 10:00 A.M. General Merritt's Cavalry Division extended the Federal line east of the Valley Pike, nearly'/4 of a mile northeast of Middletown. The Confederate forces paused along Old Forge Road on the northern edge of Middletown to reorganize and prepare for the next phase of the battle. So far, the battle had been a stunning victory for General Early, resulting in the capture of over a thousand Federal soldiers, nearly two dozen field guns, and enough food and supplies to sustain them for the next few weeks. At 1:00 P.M. the Confederate forces reformed, and continued north to Miller's Mill Road for their final assault on what they believed to be a disorganized and broken Federal force. The area adjacent to Lord Fairfax Community College was described by Dr. Joseph W. A. Whitehorne (1992) as the extreme northeastern portion of the battlefield. Having already been forced to hastily move his remaining guns north and east to prevent their capture, Artillery Captain Henry A. DuPont requested permission to move Gibb's Battery onto the turnpike. Crook replied "I can give you no support," to which I answered that I did not need any support, as there was a body of our cavalry there. He gave me the desired permission and 12 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ' RCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) I went to the battery and put it in position near the turnpike to the north of Middletown and opened fire with marked effect. The officer in command of the cavalry, who belonged to the New York Mounted Rifles, said to me: --"You are going to have these guns captured." I said: "No, I shall not unless you desert me:" and later General Devens gave me a squadron of cavalry to support the Battery which, as our lines fell back, moved north on the turnpike until the retrograde movement ceased (Dupont:1921:17). After retiring nearly a mile north of Middletown, DuPont was rejoined by the 5 ' remaining guns of Battery B, 5t" U.S. Artillery, which increased his force to nine guns. DuPont finally set up the two partial batteries north of the town, south of the Dinges farm. DuPont's guns were protected by a squadron of General Deven's cavalry, which dismounted and formed a skirmish line to protect the batteries. Wharton's and Pegram's Confederate forces were stopped by the combination of the artillery fire from DuPont's guns and General Devens's cavalry troopers. After riding south from Winchester, General Sheridan established his command post near the Dinges farm and re -assumed command of the Federal force (Figure 5). Sheridan then ordered Custer's cavalry division to ride west towards the left flank of the Confederate lines, seeking a gap in the Confederate line. As Custer's cavalry moved west, Confederate General Gordon ordered his command to shadow the movement of the Federal troopers westward to prevent the Federal cavalry from flanking his force. This westward movement resulted in a gap between his force and Confederate General Kershaw's troops to the east (Whitehorne, personal communication 2006). About 3:00 P.M., General Merritt's cavalry advanced on the Union left, putting pressure on the Confederate right flank north of Middletown. The firepower of the Federal cavalry skirmishers forced the Confederate skirmishers back on their main line along the Miller's ' Mill Road and west. Custer maneuvered into position on the Federal right, confronting Confederate General Gordon's men near Middle Marsh Branch. About 3:30 P.M., Custer's cavalry and elements of the XIX Corps advanced against the Confederate left ' flank composed of Gordon and Kershaw's troops. Merritt's forces had been encamped along Middle Marsh Branch in the vicinity of Nisewander's fort before the battle began. With his ammunition running dangerously low, DuPont was compelled to send three of his artillery pieces north to the Federal ammunition train to refill their limber chests. As the Federal left flank continued its advance southward, DuPont moved Battery L of the lst Ohio Artillery and two guns of Battery B of the 5tl' U. S. Artillery forward and placed them in position a short distance north of Middletown. Gibb's Napoleons and the shells from the rifled guns of Light Battery B fired with great effect on the Confederates as their I northward advance stalled (DuPont: 1921:20). Custer continued his movement west beyond Middle Marsh Branch, thinning the ' Confederate lines. He then launched a counter-attack that overran Gordon's division. General Kershaw was flanked by the Federal counter-attack, and General Ramseur's force was flanked by the Federal cavalry and the accompanying infantry forces. The I ' Confederate line began to unravel from west to east, putting additional pressure on Ramseur at the center. II 13 11 Source: Hotchkiss(1864) Scale: NTS _ NOR"l 11 O-N MINERALS CEMETERY FIGURE 5 DELINEATIONS ECS Project 21:9244 Troop Positions During the Late February 2008 Morning of October 19, 1864�, 11 14 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) At 4:00 P.M. General Sheridan ordered an advance which led to fierce fighting all along the front. Ramseur's division at the Confederate center near Miller's Mill bore the brunt of the attack and repulsed several Federal assaults, in spite of the withdrawal of Kershaw and Gordon's troops on his left flank. Ramseur's defenses held until he was mortally wounded and General Early was unable to hold his left flank intact (Whitehorne 1992). With the loss of Ramseur, the Confederate resistance in this area began to collapse. Wharton's division repulsed two more Federal counterattacks, but Merritt's cavalry broke through the Confederate line forcing Wharton's division back. With the Confederate lines buckling, DuPont continued advancing his artillery batteries back south along the Valley Pike using his guns to support the Federal counterattack. Following a final Federal frontal assault and faced with Federal cavalry attacks on both flanks, the battered Confederate forces began their withdrawal from the battlefield. What began as a stunning Confederate victory in the early morning hours became a bitter defeat in the late afternoon at the hands of a much larger pursuing Federal force. The Confederate forces along the pike retreated hastily, although in fairly good order, southward along the valley towards the Federal camps they had overrun earlier that morning. Merritt pressed forward with his division, pursuing the Confederates closely as they retreated across Cedar Creek (Whitehorne 1992). DuPont continued to move his artillery south along the Valley Pike, shelling the retreating Confederates so effectively that the bridge over Spangler's Mill Run was badly damaged by the masses of retreating Confederate troops and equipment. This damage to the bridge resulted in the loss of many Confederate cannons, a large part of the Confederate baggage train, and a large number of the Federal guns captured in the early morning hours of the battle. The Federal pursuit lasted until nightfall, with General Early's battered Confederate troops finally re -grouping at Fisher's Hill, south of Strasburg, some eight miles south of the project area. The Confederate force had marched and fought its way over 15 miles during the course of the battle, and it had suffered the loss of nearly 15 percent of its soldiers killed, wounded or missing. In addition to the troop casualties, the Confederates lost the eighteen Federal cannon they had captured in the early morning hours of the battle and over two dozen of their own critical field guns during their retreat. This pivotal battle marked the end of organized large-scale Confederate military power in the Valley. Confederate General Early had failed to carry the day, and after the defeat at Cedar Creek, he was humiliated. Most of the men in Early's Corps rejoined General Robert E. Lee to defend Petersburg in December, while General Early remained in the Valley in command of a skeleton force. His force was nearly destroyed at Waynesboro, and Early barely escaped capture with a few members of his staff. General Lee finally relieved Early of his command in March, 1865, because he had doubts about Early's ability to inspire confidence in the men he would have to recruit to continue operations. Lee wrote to Early of the difficulty of this decision: 15 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) While my own confidence in your ability, zeal, and devotion to the cause is unimpaired, I have nevertheless felt that I could not oppose what seems to be the current of opinion, without injustice to your reputation and injury to the service. I therefore felt constrained to endeavor to find a commander who would be more likely to develop the strength and resources of the country, and inspire the soldiers with confidence.... [Thank you] for the fidelity and energy with which you have always supported my efforts, and for the courage and devotion you have ever manifested in the service ... (Eicher & Eicher 2001). By 1864, Frederick County residents had learned that large troop concentrations of either Federal or Confederate forces meant great loss of food, provisions, and livestock, and many farmers moved their livestock as far away from troops as was possible, to save them from being appropriated by either side. Many of the larger antebellum houses, used by both sides as headquarters and field hospitals survived, but all were damaged during the conduct of the war. The greatest impact to Frederick County was the near total loss of all livestock and crops to military raids by both sides in the years of combat. By the end of the war, most of the farms in the county had been pillaged, losing livestock and hundreds of valuable horses to both sides, taken with the promise of later payment. Four years of war had a devastating effect on Virginia, and Frederick County was no exception. The combined loss of manpower and draft animals, the neglect of agricultural land, and the emancipation of the slave population had a detrimental effect on the County's economic and social landscape in the postwar era. It I-1 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) IV. RESULTS A. ARCHIVAL REVIEW The archival review examined various historic maps to determine if the cemeteries had been illustrated during the 19t11 century (Figures 6-10). Figure 6 shows the James D. Tabler farmstead north of Chapel (Old Forge) Road but does not show the Tabler family cemetery or the Nisewander family cemetery adjacent to Chapel Road. Figure 7 shows the Nisewander family cemetery east of Middle Marsh Branch and shows a dwelling and fencelines near the Tabler family cemetery locale. However, the Tabler cemetery itself is not illustrated. Figure 8 also fails to show the Tabler family cemetery. Figure 9, an 1885 map of the area, does not show either cemetery. Figure 10 illustrates the Nisewander family cemetery in relatively close proximity to the Nisewander Fort ruins across Middle Marsh Branch. Nisewander Family Cemetery The Nisewander Family Cemetery is believed to be associated with the David Nisewander family and subsequent owners of the property. The Nisewander family was one of the original twenty families that traveled with Jost Hite to the Shenandoah Valley frorn Pennsylvania in 1731. Christian Nisewander (b. 1685) and his wife, Mary Magdalena, purchased 435 acres from Hite's 3395-acre land patent granted from Lord Fairfax, proprietor of the Northern Neck. The Nisewander descendents purchased and received land grants in the region for numerous tracts and settled in Frederick County north of Cedar Creek (O'Dell 315-316). The name Nisewander was seen as many forms in records from the 18t" century and early 19"i century. Alternate spellings were found as, Nighswander, Niswanger, Nicewanger, Nieewander, Nieswanger, and Nicewanker. The parcel on which the cemetery lies was part of a tract of land purchased by David Nicewanker (Nisewander) on May 21St, 1772 for 300 pounds. The parcel was owned by William Evins (Evans) and his wife Dority (Dorothy?), who had received the land from ' Paton on March 14t11, 1753. The original tract encompassed 400 acres. The deed between David Nisewander and William Evans described the parcel as having 267 acres and "lying ... oil the little Middle Marsh..." (FCDB 15: 329-331). The remaining 133 acres of land, which was the part of the original 400 acres, appeared to have been transferred to Adam Reagley (FCSB 1782-1808:71). ' From the land transfer frorn Evans to Nisewander, it appeared that there was a previous owner associated with the property narned, Paton. The reference to Paton as a potential previous owner may be a misspelling of the word, "patent." From a 1790 land survey, a 16 acre, 13 rod, and 11 poles tract was surveyed for David Nisewanger (Nisewander), which was considered residual of the lands of William Evans. It was noted in the survey that William Evans received a patent granted by Lord Fairfax, the late proprietor of the Northern Neck, dated March 10', 1753 (FCSB 1782-1808, 71). From this information, it appeared that William Evans received a land patent of 400 acres in 1753. He divided the land into two parcels and sold the lands to David Nisewander and Adam Reagley. 17 SSFR N. a ers h l" Tabler Cemetery Locale J Table 1-4 Ij ai iew elf �.t qA * •S. ,fit, di ll;.• • 'r @• OA 1 _ h Y_• - • L L Source: Hotchkiss (1864) Scale: NTS NORTH O-N MINERALS CEMETERY FIGURE 6 DELINEATIONS ECS Project 21:9244 Vicinity of Tabler Family Cemetery L= February 2008 uwu�,;av'1�1vuc 18 �_—� �•`•t ``_ �'� rani �'.� �'y�•'� ylyi '� } ris,f;,; rr�I fro ,¢��It i `� • 1 It L � �.-_M _ T -+ Source: Gillespie (1864) y Y _ Tabler Cemetery Locale II } 1. .. Ti L ��o- ---. r ►' r' Utl I,"C\\ Lllider Clilctc1 \ ti xr _ T 4{ L 'fl 1+ r - Cd'� r ,. ,k �r 4 AL NORTH O-N MINERALS - - CEMETERY FIGURE 7 DELINEATIONS ECS Project 21:9244 Nisewander and Tabler Cemetery _'_ `% February 2008 Areas on Historic Mapping 19 CRO 2-4. P�M, 19 TM RW"WwI w4�wY ..: w l�frr �l:Yrr '•,. +'r /I"" , Y+ , -_It JI'D�,cr�c,' • !./rrrrii, a -` W its 1• DT`M 1 p' �`KCUS"tR �{.'_ - -Eh�.-a' �l��a��;`� �f ►+.�.`Ni�tGHTI,CORP�f� �j,,c ` � _w �tk� D �� N q 1 �..�.� ,s.. 1 I • r 1 .. 420'p M Cemetery Locales a OI, 1{�,�f i � f ,��. con, , I � � � 'T4��( 'l�i�c�i • �1�C}r','}�+� ;�, fig. A.M.2D' �`. +'� 'ti 1`` ;tom ,; ' i Yltr IRA,7N` ,' ., fi�.:Im "AE 42 a . — ♦A p.iv� . F;y �� •• f l l CA M p Source: Gillespie (1864) AkL NORTH F ter � i5 C..16 l� O-N MINERALS CEMETERY FIGURE 8 DELINEATIONS LLC ECS Project 21:9244 Historic Mapping of the Area February 2008 9 I50—,X4d1/1i1NM 20 t -y t fir* • _! f; t.� ny N isc�aander's Fort Cemetery Locales 4 • i' r ' `._ i� • y `� + • I DID. r L dart O-N MINERALS CEMETERY DELINEATIONS 1885 Map of the Opequon Magesterial District AL NORTH — L� 21 FIGURE 9 ECS Project 21:9244 February 2008 W.t/tl,WA LTCR To WN �co o�c,, GeralcL ers •Harvi//iSr!'�>nf �\mil Clphe-rot Jak Wnffers (enrl -.tuft) h elm r. zorl') Icpf)s'(1Jrr.{rdnrr,:e 0 �b C r federate/ ne Lln,on � c PM 30 <<,' (enr -10 Q/ fr Herbert L rrirJr• Tenant (.RnhyGline ' cn.rY� f``zCo•� � 1 •• �SnEkIOAN A7)`ACKr Er/rya 4r% //l"�/r., y`-P— 30 Pn9; BETAS' FICLO. C01FEP,-R1frES„• 0P� C~oa/( 4/d,/oJ• vR+vEd ., crro P• Cha c!c •, GenAR cRecft; ¢ PQ �CAo /XC gt!`nS rr J r0e P p er v �\ o VU am -el MC' �I cvl,ear 9th \Lti� Movn Car L emeti? �"•rh RoAP MILL James I✓iSe Q /T r t Normnn {Vitt ( ./Yzo). < /,h /lIYO J. V Christ her set (W I A Dav"d k UNInN /IHMY � Y RE 6R 0vP.:, Din s)C ple)(ct I17v-) `\ k n.rMifl- roAN es'Tiff h"line's , \ \ e Di es Grave and Jch op tits O' • vidDitrjes,Jr. S 1 ) �;\�Y� ,•,CWflitehnll) (/8S!) �l� � -A_ %• F,�\yl\ r ,� arf�f-Ii\lakeman (1918 mid 'oµ,. �; own , 5 nr�� El nlnry \\���•:' \b� �L9enfny aFp J �\vNlnNq MY RL'6Rn✓rS—�Q,�� CGr Cfr Nffl, f0!/N vse (ca./9ii� ° A Ill./ LA (//99 �• / .� Co llf F, t� Ry y0. .'•• al rfa 0��rnan, f // .•l amer Cwerstone (cn 91 / C L4 4t\-Qr1n 'er Gra ve)•grd �1 �SIIERIOAAI �N G /lldlrr r p�ArrrIGKI , U sepl+ iron (Nathic Nixon � e '�Grav`e�s r-d �c y-y ;;oPn 1 ( 61) Arlfru �.10 . Walter Ishpa(.� f, cn /870) too, 0 \ \\ ' al Eder ,� Sr.(lq� -p �1\'\e 4r p 91 evf filler' low Q\p a R0PO Q oY� '4 ✓F QAck S Togo) \\ rP� IllE rTLE orq .HerbertSl-,ckley rnelivs ,Cfaldwinr Mill Fri c/r �c Georye W. N sell �ti 'Orville Willey, Sr., -C Jr. �. lPif-J 'Jarrr ' SaJ.mv ti nfer(4a.l8Y0) ♦ 40 (Pencil H,%/ C/9S2) / \ J Z Charter W ffea (18B3� 0 7Y7) PEKE ` Ge"rge resell (c4-192o) "r A hby / 1 \ 1 ' IS 46 Hense (cn. I87o) Ctalv,r ur Monun,cn( (19I9) 1.0I rs $ C {N _ - Q rcl WIlliarnr (C.A.!9a o\> -P a� Ja ,es Steele �r 1✓,m Leo Wal er �a (cn /700) s e war ('-� 5) rI oc of ` (/7J8) "• �•�% A Nnus/wb/ic rJ� esr, D ce l; Tovrlst CrSins r.+l,ip Ove f- r the Q Jorydfr IVkn� o APrc. s e' rayear •FA (C. C. %o Lve \y\' vA. (Mf Z%Or GravcyarrJ(100!) z -p (ear/f /Ylb) ) 1b 1 FIaEI?LR�_ t/r r R -r IAl•rn O Sperry -Rinker• Grq " rrrl 2 y ARREN FREDE cK `VN3 —o- 1/2 1 mile 1 V2 0 woo 7000 3000 feet 5000 6000 7000 8 Source: Scheel Ak NORTH O-N MINERALS CEMETERY , ' FIGURE 10 DELINEATIONSECS Project 21:9244 Nisewander Family Cemetery LLon C Februa►y 2008 Historic Mapping GaAQ��'a.QP74V4a 22 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) David Nisewander also purchased a small tract of land from Adam Reagley on August 2" d, 1784 for 5 shillings comprising 20 acres, 2 rods, and 26 poles that was adjacent to his property and was part of the 133-acre tract Reagley purchased from William Evans. The 133-acre tract was part of the 400-acre tract owned by Evans (FCDB 20:202). Buildings situated on the Nisewander tract were not illustrated in the early deeds. There was a large house on the site referred to during the Civil War and through general local history as Nisewander's Fort. The stone house was believed to have been constructed by William Evans circa 1755, or after 1753 when he received the land patent in 1753 for 400 acres. From historical accounts, it was believed that Nisewander enlarged the Evans house to its appearance seen in Figure 11. Evidence on the historical photographs that this may have occurred was found in the asymmetrical fenestration pattern on the fagade elevation. It appeared from the photographs that the window openings were placed closer together on the left side of the building and had wider spacing on the right side. It also appeared that the chimneys have different widths, which was another indication that the building may have been constructed in stages. The stone house was demolished circa 1960, when the owner allowed the stone to be carted off the site from the deteriorated remnants of the building. The house may have been used as a fortification (or station) in the 1750s through 1780s due to Indian attacks in the Shenandoah Valley. According to historical accounts, the house was also the site of a number of meetings of the United Brethren led by Bishop Newcomer (Kalbian 1999:212). The house was also used during the Civil War as Union troops encamped in the area. The site of the house is currently listed as an archeological site and no above ground remnants remain. Information about David Nisewander is sparse. Christian and Mary Magdalena Nisewander were a part of a group of settlers that arrived with Jost Hite in the Frederick County region in 1731. Known children of Jacob and Mary Nisewander are Jacob (b. circa 1715 — d. circa 1754) and Christian. It is not known if these were all the children the couple had or if those listed are the ones that came with the Nisewanders to Virginia. The known sons of Jacob, son of Christian and Mary Magdalena Nisewander, and Mary Nisewander were John, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, and Jacob. It is not clear as to the relationship of David Nisewander within these lines. He could have been a second generation descendent and appeared to have been the relative age of Jacob and Mary Nisewander's children based upon approximate death dates. It is unknown if he was a descendent of Christian, son of Christian and Mary Nisewander, or another possible progeny of Christian and Mary Nisewander. It is known that Mary Magdalena Nisewander married Jost Hite in 1741 after the 1738 death of Christian Nisewander. There were no progeny of the Jost Hite and Mary Magdalena Nisewander union (O'Dell 1995:315-316). David Nisewander appeared to have been a wealthy man, due to availability of money illustrated in loans made and the size of the house known as Nisewander's Fort. The size of the house was quite large, having three full stories and an attic story. Similar stone houses that remain or were documented were two stories or one story with a full -height basernent and an attic. The large size of this building indicates that Nisewander was quite prominent within the region. 23 O-N MINERALS iFow CEMETERY FIGURE 11 DELINEATIONS ECS Project 21:9244 Photographs of Nisewander's Fort 99L= February 2008 MUNAT1L9►N M 24 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) The availability of money at the time is another indication of wealth. There is a reference to a Deed of Trust between David Nisewander and Robert Gamble dated 1780 where Nisewander loaned Gamble 3800 or 3080 pounds (noted as two different amounts) and received collateral of a 272 acre tract owned by Gamble (FCDB 18:409 and FCDB 20:13). Nisewander's assets are only itemized for 1787 and 1801. David Nisewander was taxed in 1787 for 10 horses, mares, colts or mules and 16 head of cattle. In 1801 David Nisewander's was listed as having three males in his household and 20 horses for which he was taxed $2.40. There are no slaves listed under David Nisewander's ownership (FCPR 11:2). Nisewander was also a tenant farmer for Robert Wormeley Carter of Sabine Hall, Richmond County, Virginia. Carter owned approximately 40 tracts of land in Frederick County and leased the property for use as agricultural properties. Nisewander had a long-term lease with Carter to farm a 169-acre tract known as "Lot 823" (FCDB 23:59). From death records, two sons of Jacob and Mary Nisewander died in the late 1780s. John Nisewander died circa 1785 and Abrallam Nisewander died circa 1789. There is no death date for David Nisewander, but froth official records housed at the Frederick County Clerk's Office, David Nisewander did not appear on any tax rolls or in any deed or land transactions after 1805. It is assumed that he died sometime in 1805. No will or sale of lands was found for David Nisewander and his landholdings at his death are unknown or who inherited his property. It is assumed that David Nisewander died in 1805 because of the cessation of records with his name, but also because an Abraham Nieswander (Nisewander) was taxed in 1806 listing two white males in the household, 19 horses for a total tax of $2.28, which is very similar to the 1801 assets listed for David Nisewander (FCPR 11:2). It is assumed for subsequent deed transfers that Abraham Nisewander inherited the property from the David Nisewander estate. It is unclear about the relationship between David and Abrallam Nisewander. Abraham Nisewander may have been David Nisewander's son or nephew. It is known that Abraham Nighswander (Nisewander) married Lydia on June 23rd, 1793 (Vogt 1984:216). While there is no deed or will transferring the property from David to Abraham Nisewander, a subsequent deed transfer referred to the sale of the tract from William Evans to David Nisewander. The cemetery associated with the Nisewander tract is not described in the deed between Evans and Nisewander. The description of the tract included a house, buildings, orchards, ways, waters, watercourses, profits, hereditaments, and appurtenances. The first instance of the cemetery's description is within a October 16t", 1823 Articles of Agreement between Abraham Nisewander and John Tice of Lebanon County in Pennsylvania. The Articles described a parcel of 422.5 acres to be sold to John Tice for $9500. The parcel had increased in size to 422.5 acres from the purchase size of 267 acres. There is no additional transfer to David Nisewander to account for the increased size of the parcel. The description in the 1823 Articles of Agreement from Abraham Nisewander to John Tice includes a caveat, "excepting for the graveyard situated on the premises" (FCDB 47:445). A subsequent deed executed April 2"d, 1824 from Abraham Nisewander and Lydia, his wife, to John Tice, late of Pennsylvania, confirms the sale of the property as "mentioned in the deed to David Nisewander." Both deeds, William Evans to David Nisewander, and Abraham Nisewander to John Tice, refer to a boundary line joining the 041 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ' ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) lands of Sarah Campbell. Other indicators that this parcel is the same containing the ' original 1782 transfer to David Nisewander from William Evans is that in 1824 adjacent boundaries include the lands of Major Isaac Hite and Jacob Jodese who resided in the vicinity of this tract (FCDB 48:349). Information on John Tice and his wife, Barbara Ann, was also relatively sparse. They were noted in the 1830 US Census as having a family of seven. John Tice was listed as being between the ages of 40 and 50, and Barbara Ann was listed as being between the ages of 30 and 40. From the Census records, they most likely had a son between the ages of 20 and 30, a daughter between the ages of 15 and 20, a son between the ages of 10 and 15, a son between the ages of 5 and 10, and a daughter under 5 years in age (US Census 1830). John Tice and his wife, Barbara Ann, sold the tract, which had decreased in size to 380 acres on May 18"i, 1836 to Strother Morse (Moore) for $6000.00. The parcel was described as being conveyed to John Tice by Abraham Nieswanger (Nisewander). The tract's boundary neighbors were D. L. Danner, Dr. W. M. Hite, Doctor A. Brown, Sal•ah Campbell, and Major Isaac Hite. There were two notations within the deed that refer to a roadway and the cemetery. The cemetery notation was similar to the transfer in 1824 reading as "excepting from the land the Burial Ground situated on said tract" (FCDB 65:234-235). Moore remained on the tract for approximately two decades. The 1840 US Census yielded that the Moore family comprised eight members. Strother and Maly Moore had a daughter between the ages of 10 and 15, one son and two daughters between the ages of 5 and 10, and one daughter and one son under the age of 5 (US Census 1840). Tile following US Census in 1850 listed the family by name and age. Information also contained within the Census showed that Strother Moore's occupation was a farmer and that he and his family were born in Virginia. The assessed value of his lands was $1 100. It also appears from this Census that one daughter had died between 1830 and 1840 that was between the ages of 5 and 10 from the previous Census taken, and another was born in the 1830s. The 1850 US Census shows that Strother Moore owned seven slaves. Four of his slaves were black males ranging in age between 16 and 25 and two were black females of 47 years and 9 years. One slave listed is partially unreadable and the age, gender and race are undetermined (US Census 1850). On September 20t", 1854 Strother Moore and his wife, Mary, sold the tract described as 400 acres for $14,000 to Abraharn Stickley. The tract was described as being the one sold to Moore by John Tice and his wife Barbary (Barbara) Ann on 18 May 1836. The adjacent neighbors were William Lang, D. W. Barton, James D. Tabler, David S. Miller, and H.H. Hite. There was an additional notation about a wagon road access for the use of the farm formerly belonging to D. S. Danner. There was also a notation about the cemetery, "excepting from the land the burying ground situated on said tract..." (FCDB 82:13). 26 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Stickley had large landholdings extending from Cedar Creek to Opequon Creek. He did not reside on the tract associated with David Nisewander. His home was located near Vaucluse Station on a tract he purchased in 1826 (FCDB 73:289). It is most likely that he acquired the Nisewander tract as a landholding for farming purposes. It is unknown what the function of the house was during Stickley's ownership, and it is assumed that it may have been used as a tenant house. Abraham Stickley owned ten slaves in 1860 ranging in age from 1 to 80 years. Most were eighteen years or under and female, and two were 80 years old. His son, Benjamin, owned three slaves under the age of 16 and male (US Census 1860). It is not probable that Stickley had only slaves working his lands due to the age and gender of the slaves. He also may have had farmhands, which was not uncommon during the period. Abraham Stickley died in the late 1860s.'His will of June 1111', 1867 outlined his large landholdings and the division of his landholdings (FCWB 28:354). His heirs divided his estate very similar to the wishes in his will, which outlined the tracts he owned at his death. According to the deed that divided the property among Abraham Stickley's heirs, his son Benjamin Stickley received the place where he resided, which was most likely at Vaucluse Station named "Little Marsh" and a parcel named the "Moore Tract." Anna Stickley, daughter, received the "Chrissman Spring Tract" situated near Opequon Creek. Son, William, received an 883-acre tract adjacent to "Kline" situated between Opequon Creek and Cedar Creek. David, son of Abraham, received the "Backas" lands near the tract William received (FCDB 89:357-358). The 1885 map of the Opequon District shows that Nisewander's Fort is still extant in 1885 on the west side of Middle Marsh. Benjamin Stickley had a building situated on the east side of Middle Marsh as noted on the map. Stickley did not reside on the tract and his residence was listed north of the Moore tract near Vaucluse Station on Valley Turnpike (US Route 11). Benjamin Stickley retained the two tracts, "Little Marsh" and "Moore Tract," he inherited from his father Abraham Stickley. He renamed these tracts under his ownership changing the "Moore Tract" to `Buffalo Marsh Farm," and changing "Little Marsh Tract" to "Vaucluse Station Farm." While the "Buffalo Marsh Farm" was located on Middle Marsh, there is a Buffalo Marsh situated to the west of Middle Marsh. It is unknown why Stickley would have named the tract for Buffalo Marsh since it was not situated on the Buffalo Marsh, but numerous references to the farms in the vicinity indicated that Buffalo Marsh was an important landmark. The "Buffalo Marsh Farm" had diminished to 385 acres from 400 acres during Benjamin Stickley's ownership, which may account for a more accurate assessment of the size of the tract as there is no small transfer of lands to account for the decrease of 15 acres (FCDB 89:357-358). Benjamin Stickley died intestate circa 1890 and his heirs divided his land -holdings among themselves. Edgar A. Stickley, son of Benjamin Stickley, and Susan M., his wife, and James D. Line and Katie M., his wife and daughter of Benjamin Stickley, transferred the "Buffalo Marsh Farm" to Nannie D. Stickley, daughter of Benjamin Stickley. At this transfer on May 25"', 1894 the `Buffalo Marsh Farm" is described as having 202 acres. Nannie Stickley married F. Estes Kline after receiving the tract from the Benjamin Stickley heirs (FCDB 2113:10). She predeceased her husband, who with the Nannie D. 27 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ' ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Stickley Kline heirs sold the `Buffalo Marsh Farm" tract on July 30t", 1952. Nannie ' Kline had willed her husband, F. Estes, all her real estate and directed him to pay off a $1000 debt to Claude Stickley, who predeceased Nannie Kline, with the balance to be divided between Nannie Kline's niece, Mildred Link, and her nephew, Everett D. Kline. ' The sale in 1952 transferred the tract to Irvan T. O'Connell (FCDB 224:434). Irvan T. O'Connell retained the tract for three years, selling the tract on January 29t", 1955 to United States Steel Corporation. At this sale the tract had 201.807 acres, which is similar to the 202-acre size that Nannie Stickley Kline inherited in 1894 (FCDB 235:1 14- 115). United States Steel sold the tract along with three other tracts to Chemstone Corporation on June 27"i, 1986 (FCDB 620:186-195). Chemstone became O-N Minerals subsequently. The cemetery is not noted in any deed records filed in the Frederick County Court Clerk's Office after the 1854 Strother Moore deed. Subsequent surveys of the parcel did not note the cemetery (Figure 12). It is unclear exactly who is buried in the cemetery. A minimum of 22 graves have been identified within the cemetery during the delineation (Appendix I). The simple fieldstone markers were broken near ground level and there are no inscriptions visible on any of the stones. It is likely that the cemetery served the Nisewander family and is the possible burial site of David Nisewander. It may have also served subsequent owners, such as the Tice family and Moore family. The Moore daughter who most likely died between 1830 and 1840 may be buried in this cemetery. ' Since there are no records to indicate who is buried in the cemetery, it is unknown as to when the first or last burial occurred. From ownership information, it is assumed that the cemetery was active from circa 1780 through the early 19°i century and ended in 1854. It has been purported that Jost Hite (or Hite family members) may have been buried in this cemetery. Research conducted on Jost Hite's life and location of his burial yielded that Hite is most likely buried at Opequon Memorial Churchyard near Kernstown, Virginia in Frederick County. There is no grave marker for Jost Hite. Jost Hite resided at a plantation named Long Meadow with his favorite son Isaac Hite. His first wife, Mary, died in 1738 and was buried at Long Meadow. After Jost Hite married Mary Magdalena Nisewander in 1741, he remained at Long Meadow. According to historical accounts, when Jost Hite died circa 1761, there was a controversy as to his burial site. Allegedly, a grave was dug at Long Meadow for him, but at the last minute it was decided that Ile would be buried at the Opequon Churchyard (Wilkins 1980:233). It has been purported that the location of Jost Hite's grave is ten to fifteen feet north of the sanctuary wall near the bell tower entrance (Gordon 1996). Mary Magdalena who died in 1792 was buried by his side (Opequon Church File). Robert Allen, who was an old friend of Jost Hite, was buried on his other side in 1769 (Gordon 1996). 28 ? c I (D"X ArW11fr 60- «a Aver,�tx o s I:.M161 ram. Q)g4WA9 &NCA ifffr Awc "I" A. rat 16 �'tdr' r'itI �+� � `+ a i�.T �'du'o�•r� r0�0.a0 J3XI �',�, � � �s� � Tabler Family Cemetery ��40. d / �L � � , � � ++�i •tit' _ •J,!'a� .!i Qa w( ia►� t j C W �.! �+a ♦ � 'moo "hf ,�,,t.of "iA t� Nisewander Family Cemetery �. wr ro t ,y .,40 I -N 0 4tw it r Olt ANA ilk 4 1 �,r+�+• ►,r-10,0wlk yr�J J4'CVi(J--e4 11rr1!J'44i-r Iro Source: FCDB 620:192 A& NORTH O-N MINERALS CEMETERY FIGURE 12 DELINEATIONS ECS Project 21:9244 1986 Land Plat + February 2008 IRdUIC�+I�Vd..ICk'11fUC 29 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Tabler Family Cemetery The Tabler Family Cemetery is situated on a parcel of land that was owned by Jacob Hottel of Shenandoah County, Virginia. Jacob Hottel was also known as Jacob ("Snitz") Hottel-Huddle, Jr. He was the son of Jacob Hottel of Shenandoah County, Virginia. Jacob ("Snitz") Hottel was born most likely in January 1766. A biography of him notes that lie was an industrious and successful fanner in Shenandoah County who made investments in farmland owning over 900 acres of land in Shenandoah, Page, Frederick and Rockingham Counties, Virginia. He also owned land in Licking County, Ohio. It is unclear how he came to own the Tabler tract of land as there are no transfers of land to Jacob ("Snitz") Hottel to indicate his acquisition of the Tabler tract. He did purchase the mill on Cedar Creek from Jost Hite and had interests in the region and knowledge of the region associated with the Tabler tract (Huddle 1982:13-15). Jacob ("Snitz") Hottel died prior to March 12t", 1845, and his heirs divided his estate. On September 19"i, 1846, the heirs, who included Abraham Stickley and once owned the tract associated with the Nisewander Family Cemetery, sold two parcels to James D. Tabler, who is listed as being late of Washington County, Maryland. Tabler purchased the tracts for $3500 paid in installments of $2500 and $1000. The two parcels are described as having 167.5 acres and 215 acres. The parcel on which the Tabler Family Cemetery is located was associated with the 167.5-acre parcel. It was described as being bound by Strother Moore, formerly John Tice, Isaac Wamson, Joseph Miller, Moon, David Dinges, and George Brimley (FCDB 75:331-332). James D. Tabler remained on the tract from 1845 until his death in 1873. According to 1850 U S Census records, James D. and Catherine, his wife, Tabler had five children residing with them. Eliza Tabler was the oldest at 19 years of age followed by Samuel Tabler at 13 years of age. Joanna was 11 years of age followed by George F. who was 7 years of age. The youngest was Melker Tabler at 6 years of age. James D. Tabler's occupation was not listed, but his farm was valued at $5000. Also noted was that James D. Tabler was born in Virginia, while his wife and daughter, Eliza, and sons, Samuel and George F. were born in Maryland. His son, Melker, and daughter, Joanna, were born in Virginia. The location of the birth of Joanna Tabler may be incorrect as she falls between Samuel and George F., who were listed as born in Maryland. The Census taker may have inadvertently listed the last two children as born in Virginia as they appear on the following Census page. Also noted in the record was that there were two free Blacks residing with the Tablers in 1850. Susan Baker, a wornan of 22 years of age, and David Baker, of 2 years of age, and who may have been Susan Baker's son, are listed in the Tabler household. The Tablers did not own slaves in 1850 (US Census 1850). By 1860, the Tabler household comprised James D. and Catherine, and their son, Melker Tabler. Two additional Tabler family members were listed in the household; Franklin of 17 years of age and Rosanna at 45 years of age. The relationship of these Tablers is not known, but it is suspected that they are related to James D. Tabler. Joana Tabler had died in 1858 and was buried in the family cemetery, and it appears that the older children, 30 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations LCS Pro.jcct No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Eliza, Samuel, and George F. Tabler had left home. In 1860, James D. Tabler's farm was valued at $2000 and his personal estate was valued at $1663 (US Census 1860). The last US Census of 1870 showed that James and Catherine Tabler resided on the farmstead with their son, George F. and a farmhand named, Thomas M. Tabler. Thomas M. Tabler is the same age as Melker Tabler, and is likely Melker Tabler, who took on the name Thomas Melker Tabler. By 1870 the value of the farm was assessed at $13,000 and the personal estate was valued at $1200. After James D. Tabler's death in 1873, it appears that George F. Tabler occupied the farmstead. In the 1880 US Census, George F. Tabler and his wife, Susanna A. (Brewer), resided at the farm with their daughters, Elizabeth, Anna and Amy. In addition, Henry Brewer, Susanna's father, and a nephew named, Henry A. Brewer resided with George F. Tabler and his family. Interestingly, Thomas M. Tabler, son of James D. and Catherine Tabler, and his family resided on an adjacent farmstead (US Census 1880). James D. Tabler's heirs were unable to amicably divide his estate after his death in 1873 and filed two Chancery Causes to divide the land holdings. Resolved by 1883, George F. Tabler and his wife, Susan A. sold two tracts of land to George H. Borden. The sale of October 26t", 1883 listed the two tracts containing 121.5 acres of land north of the County Road (Route 627). The sale for $4500 described the tracts as part of a larger tract owned by James D. Tabler. The two tracts comprised 55.25 acres and 66 acres (FCDB 99:332- 333). George Borden retained ownership of the tracts until February lst, 1896 when he sold a 42 acre, 3 rod, and 16 pole tract of land to A. Taylor Ritter and Oliver B. Ritter for $1714. The tract of land is described as being located on Buffalo Marsh 1.5 miles north of Middletown. The notations include that the tract was purchased from the heirs of James D. Tabler. Additional notations within the deed stated that there are improvements on the land including a barn (FCDB 1 17:171). Oliver B. Ritter increased his landholding in the early 20t" century with the addition of two parcels to the 42+-acre tract acquired from George Borden. On November 15t11, 1912, B.F. Watson and M.F., his wife, sold a 120-acre tract of land for $6500 located two miles north of Middletown and it was described as being on the "north side of the road leading from Middletown to Marlboro," which is Route 627 (FCDB 135:233). An additional purchase of 4 acres, 1 rod, and 8 square poles was made to O(liver). B. (011ie) Ritter from R.E. and Mary C. Brumback, husband and wife, on May 13t", 1915, which was part of a land purchase from the Baldwin heirs (FCDB 138:94). The inclusion of these two tracts to the existing 42+-acre tract increased Oliver B. Ritter's landholdings to 166+ acres. Oliver B. Ritter died intestate circa 1946 and a Chancery Cause decided on January 28t", 1947, ordered the sale of his lands. Emma Ritter and Ina K. Dalton, executor of O.B. Ritter, deceased, sold to J.J. Pickeral a 173.E-acre tract, which included the three land transactions that Oliver Ritter made in the late 191" and early 20t" centuries. The sale of the land was made March 12t1i, 1947 for $12,550 (FCDB 199:51 1-512). 31 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ' ECS Prgiect No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) ' J.J. Pickeral and his wife, Dorothy W., sold the tract on January 29"i, 1955 to United Sates Steel Corporation (FCDB 235:117-119). United States Steel sold the tract along with three other tracts to Chemstone Corporation on June 27t", 1986 (FCDB 620:186- 195). Chemstone became O-N Minerals subsequently. The Tabler Family cemetery was noted on the 1986 survey of the lands transferred from United States Steel to Chemstone Corporation. From the Tabler Cemetery File housed in the Archives of the Handley Library in Winchester, Virginia, there are purported multiple burials in this family cemetery. A listing from the file is provided below. Tabler Family Cemetery Burials (from Handley Library archives) Name Born Died Caroline Virginia Tabler 15 July 1881 15 October 1881 Catherine Myers Tabler 28 July 1803 17 March 1871 Harty Clifford Tabler 7 November 1872 12 December 1883 James Daniel Tabler 6 June 1801 20 April 1873 Joanna Tabler 28 March 1839 25 December 1858 Mary Clara Tabler 7 November 1872 7 November 1872 Susana Tabler 6 January 1828 6 January 1829 William Davidson Tabler 15 July 1881 17 October 1881 According to the file, James Daniel Tabler was the family patriarch and was married to Catherine Myers Tabler. They had two daughters, Susanna Tabler and Joana Tabler, and one son, Thomas Melker Tabler. Thomas Melker Tabler married Lydia Funkhouser Tabler on May 3rd, 1870. Thomas Melker Tabler was listed as 26 years of age and Lydia F. Funkhouser was listed as 24 years of age (Buck 1994:183). Thomas and Lydia Tabler had twins in 1872, Mary Clara and Harry Clifford. Both died in their youth. Lydia Funkhouser Tabler died prior to 1881 and Thomas Melker Tabler married Sarah Funkhouser, sister to Lydia Funkhouser. Thomas Melker and Sarah Funkhouser Tabler had twins, Caroline Virginia and William Davison who lived for three months. According to the file, it is belied that Thomas Melker Tabler and both wives, Lydia Funkhouser and Sarah Funkhouser, were buried in the cemetery (Tabler Cemetery File). There is conflicting information from the field delineation, archeological evidence, and historical research frorn the US Census records, and the information housed in the Handley Library Archives for the burials in the Tabler Family Cemetery. It appears that assumptions about the number of Tabler family members buried in the Tabler Family Cemetery are based upon the genealogical record of the family. Based upon the archeological evidence and delineation, there are only five burials in the Tabler Family Cemetery. Thomas Melker Tabler and his descendants resided on an adjacent farm and it is possible that his family members are buried on that adjoining tract. It is unknown 32 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) where the other Tabler family members are buried that are listed within the Archives of the Handley Library. B. DELINEATION FIELDWORK Fieldwork for the historic cemetery delineations consisted of a pedestrian survey of the cemetery locales and a careful inspection of the cemetery areas for any visible grave markers (headstones/footstones); grave depressions or disturbed soils, as well as introduced perennials commonly associated with historic cemeteries (e.g. ninca sp. cedars, lilies, etc.). The initial reconnaissance of the Nisewander family cemetery revealed several native fieldstone grave markers within a dense stand of mature mixed hardwoods and a ground cover dominated by Vinca sp. Flowering evergreen perennial groundcover is commonly associated with historic Christian burial grounds. Based on topographic relief, landform configuration, and indicator species criteria, this landform was perceived to retain a high potential for the location of several unmarked historic graves. Visual reconnaissance of the Tabler family cemetery revealed a total of 4 formally inscribed grave markers (headstones and footstones) or large fragments thereof, a whitewashed wooden grave marker (partially gnawed), and several possible native fieldstone markers situated in two north/south oriented rows. No flowering evergreen perennial groundcover was noted at the Tabler cemetery; however, cedars and other hardwoods were located within the cemetery limits. Following the initial reconnaissance and consultation with the representatives of O-N Minerals (Chemstone) heavy equipment was brought to the project area. Heavy equipment under the direct supervision of ECS archaeologists carefully removed the topsoil from adjacent to and within the cemetery locale. The machine stripping was conducted by a backhoe equipped with a smooth blade, under the direct supervision of a professional archaeologist to identify any unmarked graveshafts in the surrounding subsoil. Any subsurface soil anomalies were marked and assessed. Tabler Familv Cemete Mechanized stripping encompassed a total area of 2687.5 ft.2 adjacent to and within the cemetery to delineate the layout and number of graves present. This cemetery delineation revealed 5 historic graves (Figure 13). Historic Christian burials are normally oriented at an approximate angle of 90 degrees east of north along their long axis. The heads (west ends) of the graveshafts identified in this cemetery are oriented at angles of 1350 (+/-) east of north. Even though there is variation from an exact east -west layout, this is typical for a traditional Christian burial ground. The graves are arranged in two rows. Row 1 contains Graves 1-4 and row 2 contains Grave 5. Osage Orange (bodark) trees have been planted at the head or foot of some graves and a cedar tree has been planted at the foot of Grave 5. Several other cedars occur near the periphery of the cemetery on the west side and northeast corner: however, these lack great maturity. 33 10 ft. i� 3150 Inscribed Headstone Footstone Whitewashed Wooden ®Marker Graveshaft ® Osage Orange Tree Cedar Tree G-1: Henry Brewer G-2: James D. Tabler G-3: Catharine Tabler G-4: Joana Tabler G-5: Unknown O-N MINERALS CEMETERY G FIGURE 13 DELINEATIONS ECS Project 21:9244 Schematic Planview of the Tabler Family Cemetery �'� February 2008 tbrurrs�.► 4 I O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) The soils at this cemetery are clayey and silt loans, and they contain dense pockets of rock residuum. Areas along the western, northern, and southern margins of the cemetery area had large amounts of fieldstone present just below the historic plowzone, and may have been where spoil from graveshafts was placed at the time of one or more burials. The naturally rocky soil in the cemetery area made the identification of graveshafts somewhat difficult even with the assistance of mechanized stripping. Identification of graveshaft locations was made primarily by a combination of soil stripping, examination of soil compaction, soil discoloration, and location of in situ grave markers. The three possible fieldstone markers at this cemetery were inspected and the underlying soils were stripped to beneath the plowzone. These areas were determined to be free of historic graves. The fieldstones were limestone rubble and had not been set into the ground and were not of the typical size and shape for vernacular fieldstone grave markers utilized in the region during this period. O-N Minerals personnel indicated that these stones were placed here by a clean-up crew who had previously removed ground cover from the cemetery locale. Additional areas surrounding the periphery of the intact graves were also stripped to determine if outlier graves were present (a common occurrence at historic family cemeteries). No additional graveshafts were identified. Gravestone inscriptions were transcribed from headstones and footstones found at this cemetery. The headstone from Grave 1 reads: Our Father HENRY BREWER Born Aug. 20, 1803 Died June 15, 1880 Rest in Peace Albin & Bro. 147in VA The footstone from this grave is inscribed, "H.B." The headstone from Grave 2 reads: In Memory of Our Father James D. Tabler Born June 6, 1801 Departed this life April 20°i 1876 Aged 68 Years 10 months &11days The headstone from Grave 3 reads: In Memory of CATHARINE ivy fe of Elder James D. Tablet - Born July 28, 1803 AND departed this life 35 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Projcct No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) May 17, 1871 Aged 67 years 9 months & 19 days A. Eagan The footstone from this grave is inscribed, "C.T." The headstone from Grave 4 reads: JOANA daughter of James D. & Catharine TABLER Born March 28 Departed this life Dec 25 1858 Aged 19 Years 8 months & 27 days t The formal markers for James Tablet-, Catharine Tablet-, and Henry Brewer appear to have had portions of the inscriptions pre -engraved on the stones (based on differences in script). This was probably done by the manufacturer who would have had a number of ' alternatives available for- purchase. This is especially noted by the combination of the phrase, "departed this life," the stylized "AND", an epitaph, and an inscribed divider line on the markets. Two of the markers retained makers marks. Henry Brewer's marker was manufactured by Albin & Brothers of Winchester; while, Catharine Tabler's marker was manufactured by ' A. Eagan. Nisewander Family Cemetery ' Mechanized stripping encompassed a total area of 11,200 ft2 at the cemetery locale to delineate the layout and number of graves present. The soils at this cemetery are ' somewhat loose clayey and silt loams, and they contain isolated pockets of rock residuum. ' This cemetery delineation revealed a minimum of 22 historic graves (Figure 14). A total of 17 of these appeared to be those of adults and 5 appeared to be subadults (based on distances between markers). Cemetery stripping was made more difficult and was slowed ' tremendously by the numerous trees, stumps, and large roots on the surface and buried below grade. After stripping began and in order to meet the project schedule, the decision was made by the archaeological principal investigator to strip only within the top 1.5 ft. ' to avoid any potential for buried human remains to be dislodged by pulled trees in the lightly compacted soils. This alteration of methodology proved useful and discovered numerous fieldstone grave markers (headstone/footstones) buried just beneath the ground ' surface. However, since time constraints on the fieldwork did not allow for stripping completely down to subsoil, additional undocumented graves may be located within the cemetery area. ' 36 M = = M = = = M = = = = = = i = 20 ft. mmft--Ii Headstone 8 Footstone Graveshaft Locust Tree White Oak Tree Ash Tree Sycamore Tree Cherry Tree \ Barbed Wire Fence O-N MINERALS CEMETERY - FIGURE 14 DELINEATIONS ' ECS Project 21:9244 Schematic Planview of the Nisewander Cemetern' Februan 2008 Wi�1d•.I�. 37 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Based on the general dimensions of the cemetery, there may be up to several dozen additional graves amongst the graves already identified. It should be also understood that stripping was accomplished with a high degree of confidence around the periphery of the cemetery, and no additional graves were found in these areas. Historic graves appear to be confined to the wooded area along the margin of this pasture lot. Graves at the Nisewander family cemetery were segregated into clusters rather than distinct rows in this cemetery, which is common for burial grounds of this size. A northern cluster was noted and contained 14 graves. One of these graves was located at the northwest corner of the cemetery at the base of a large Locust tree. This headstone may actually be a formally inscribed grave marker, but the portion that would have retained the inscription was broken off and missing. The southern cluster of graves at this cemetery consisted of 8 graves aligned on slightly different degree orientation. A pile of fieldstones at the southwest corner of the cemetery may represent the location of a grave as well. The apparent clustering in the Nisewander family cemetery indicates that the cemetery may have functioned for an extended period of time and contains multiple extended families or families associated with successive owners of the property. The lack of formal headstones is not uncommon given the fact that Federal soldiers camped in close proximity to the cemetery and were known to have frequently taken grave markers to use in the floors of huts and for hearths and chimneys. Early 20"' century improvements to Route 627 may have also disturbed an unknown number of graves as well. C. CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD CONDITION INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT AND IMPACT TO PROJECT AREA The Battle of Cedar Creek occurred in Frederick, Warren and Shenandoah Counties, Virginia. The location of the battle is sited today along U S Route 1 1 (Valley Pike) from Fisher's Hill to north of Middletown, and between Cedar Creek and Middletown. The Battle occurred on October 19t" 1864, and was a decisive victory for the Union Army. The battle was defined by a Confederate victory in the morning, which transformed to a Union victory by the end of the day. The core area of the Battle of Cedar Creek has been identified as two areas of 15,607 and 6,252 acres. The larger acreage is situated in the area of Cedar Creek, extending from the North Fork of the Shenandoah to north of Middletown. The area also encompasses the initial Confederate position at Fisher's Hill south of Strasburg. The O-N Minerals project area is situated within the larger acreage (15,607) identified as a part of the Battle of Cedar Creek. The O-N Minerals project area is situated on 539.45 acres along Middle Marsh Brook, primarily sited between the two branches of the Brook. The boundaries of the project area cross State Route 627, Marlboro Road (Figure 15) within the Cedar Creek Battlefield 38 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations LCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) area. This section will analyze the activity of the Battle on the project area as well as assess the condition of its landscape. According to historical documents and military maps of troop movement and action, the Union Army of the Shenandoah, which comprised 32,000 men under Major General Philip H. Sheridan was encamped north of Cedar Creek from near Middle Marsh Brook to the south of the Valley Turnpike (US Route 11). These encampments extended within the project area. The XIX Corps was reportedly encamped to the west of Middle Marsh Brook. Brigadier General Wesley Merritt's Calvary division tinder the command of Major General Alfred Torbert was encamped near Nisewander's Fort (see Figure 11). The fort was a stone house believed to have been constructed circa 1755 and enlarged circa 1780. During the Civil War, the parcel was owned by Abraham Stickley and most likely used as a tenant house or house for farmhands. The house is currently an archeological site and there are no above ground ruins. During the Battle of Cedar Creek, the Union forces withdrew north from the Confederate attack along Middle Marsh Brook. The project area contains portions of the Middle Marsh Brook (see Figure 15), and the line of withdraw would be situated on both sides of the Brook. After Major General Philip H. Sheridan arrived north of Middletown lie regrouped his forces to counterattack. Brigadier General George A. Custer's Calvary division was placed on the right flank riding on the west side of Middle Marsh Brook. He engaged Major General George Gordon's-troops near Middle Marsh Brook. Custer drove the troops back across the Brook as the Confederate line began to unravel. Custer pushed all the way to Cedar Creek at Hottel's Mill Ford. By dusk he had pushed the Confederates back to Fisher's Hill. we, m= m m = = = = m = = m m= m s iFREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINLI Middle Marsh Brook ON Minerals Parcels Cedar Creek Existing Quarry Frederick County Dept. of GIS Parcel Mapping Service O-N MINERALS CEMETERY DELINEATIONS Map of the O-N Minerals Parcels, 2008 Cou" eandwy ri Taarnaps C Par -tax ,�. trederck_vasd 0-1`1 f•lineral-, Parcel Watercourse-, Route 627 9. Middletow Valley Pike (US Route 11) 1 For questions pplease contact the Frederick County Dept. of GIS at 54t} 0614 DRAFT NORTH ttwrtto��•►•v-t�.�•rrrtlrvucs 40 FIGURE 15 ECS Project 21:9244 February 2008 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) The O-N Minerals project area comprises areas of the flanking attack of Custer's Calvary forces and the encampments of the XIX Corps under Brigadier General Wesley Merritt. Shown on Battlefield maps (see Figures 7-8), the area denotes general topographic features of rolling hills descending toward the Brook. The area was most likely cleared due to farming and the addition of the troops on the landscape provided for open fields. The site of the former Nisewander's Fort is also situated within this area, though there is no evidence of the fort above grade. Immediately after the Civil War, the landscape returned to its original function as farm and pastureland associated with the Stickley family on the parcel south of Route 627 and the Tabler family on the parcel to the north of Route 627. Stickley had purchased the south parcel containing Nisewander's Fort in 1854, which became part of his landholdings in the region. It is unknown if additional buildings were erected on the parcel. The Nisewander family cemetery, with approximately 22 burials, is situated on this parcel and probably pre -dates the Civil War with burials ceasing in 1854 (or before). The stones in the cemetery are unmarked and documentation naming the burials in the cemetery is unknown. Tile Tabler family had purchased the parcel north of Route 627 in 1845. The cemetery associated with the Tabler family began to be used prior to the Civil War and continued to be utilized until the early 1880s. The house situated on the parcel south of the cemetery, just west of Middle Marsh Brook, appears to date to the late 19t" century. The woodwork for the structural system and construction methods dates to the turn of the 20t" century. The foundation of the house is stone and may predate the house. The house is in deteriorated condition (Figure 16). From the 1885 map of the vicinity, there is no house noted on the Tabler parcel on the west bank of the Middle Marsh Brook (see Figure 9). It is unknown if there were additional outbuildings on the parcel and it is assumed that for farming activities there may have been other farm buildings on the site or in close proximity. Most of these types of buildings did not impact the landscape. Both the north and south parcels situated opposite of each other on Route 627 were continually used as agricultural properties through the 1950s. There have been no major modifications to the landscape. The landscape comprises rolling hills that descend toward the Brook. Cedar trees have been allowed to grow primarily along the west side of the parcels. The landscape associated with the Battle of Cedar Creek within the project area has high integrity. The sale of the parcels comprising the project area in 1955 ceased activities on the landscape. Immediately abutting the project area is a subdivided residential community with lots of approximately three to five acres in size. Parcels to the east and west comprise agricultural functions, including pasture and forest. The south comprises the existing quarry. Modern houses are visible from the tracts situated on hills to the east (Figures 17-18). These are considered intrusions to the landscape and were identified in an assessment of the battlefield as integrity comprising additions. O-N MINERALS CEMETERY FIGURE 17 DELINEATIONS ECS Project 21:9244 Views West and South from Middle 9F= February 2008 Marsh Brook and Tabler Cemetery 43 O-N MINERALS- --A CEMETERY FIGURE 18 DELINEATIONS PTi ECS Project 21:9244 Views North and East from Middle i_ February 2008 Marsh Brook and Tabler Cemetery L`;tiUlU"A Til.0 NTIC O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) The expansion of the quarry to the parcels flanking Route 627 will impact the landscape of these parcels. It will also impact the site of Nisewander's Fort. The expansion of the quarry will also impact the areas associated with Merritt's bivouac and Custer's Calvary maneuvers against Gordon. While these areas are associated with the battle, much of the decisive maneuvers associated with the battle are situated to the east along the Valley Pike. This area is situated at the west boundary of the identified battlefield and its development will not diminish the overall integrity of the battlefield. R 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ' ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CEMETERIES RESTORATION Any cemetery restoration carried out by O-N minerals should be conducted in close consultation with appropriate professional experts in the fields of archaeology/anthropology, history, and landscape design. The following section provides recommendations for O-N Minerals (Chemstone) to implement if one or both of these cemeteries is anticipated to be avoided by quarry acitivities and preserved for the benefit of the general public and residents of Frederick County. Restoration Recommendations for the Historic Tabler and Nisewander Family Cemeteries The Tabler family cemetery is small and reflects the interment of several members of a ' single family. Four formally inscribed headstones, and 2 inscribed footstones are present at this cemetery. The Nisewander family cemetery is large and may reflect the interment of several members of several extended families who once occupied this property. There are at least 22 individual interments here. Given its large size, there may be as many as 60 individuals interred at this cemetery. Field delineation at the Nisewander family cemetery placed wooden stakes at the heads of graves and blue pin flags at the feet of graves. Restoration of the cemeteries should emphasize the appropriate historic elements and features and should be congruent with the past use of the cemetery locales. Restoration should show obvious continuity with the historic fabric of the Tabler and Nisewander family cemeteries during the late 18t"-early 19t" century and the late 19t" century and include restoration of the ornamental vegetation and the markers themselves. Fill and Landscape Contouring 1. Clean fill should be transported to these cemeteries to maintenance the ground surface contours at each cemetery. A maximum of 6 inches of additional fill is recommended to be placed on each cemetery. 2. Clean fill should be spread on each cemetery by hand or with the assistance of a small bobcat or lawn tractor. No heavy machinery (e.g. backhoe, dozer, farm tractor) should be used for this operation. 3. Fill should be placed in all holes, depressions, and ruts to smooth all landscape contours. 4. Once spread, the fill should be slightly mounded at the bases of all markers to drain water from the markers. M 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Cleaning and Repair of Headstones and Footstones iIf markers are to be transported off site for cleaning, then appropriate measures should be taken to ensure stability during loading, unloading, and transportation. It is recommended ' that all cleaning and repair work be carried out on -site. 1. Use a non -tonic soap. One of the most readily available soaps is Orvusrt, commonly used in association with horse and sheep husbandry. It can be found in ' feed stores. Mix a solution of one heaping tablespoon of OrVusC to one gallon of clean water. t2. Pre -wet the stone thoroughly with clean water and keep the stone wet during the entire washing process. ' 3. Thoroughly wash the wet stone using natural bristled, wooden handled brushes of various sizes. Keep brushes wet at all times. Do not use plastic bristled or handled brushes, as color from the handles may leave material on the stone that will be very difficult to remove. Plastic may also strip away the outer layer of stone and cause pores to be exposed and failures. ' 4. Wash all surfaces and rinse thoroughly with lots of clean water. 5. Lichens and algae can be removed by thoroughly soaking the stone and then using a wooden scraper to gently remove the biological growth. This process may need to be repeated several times. 6. Not all stains can be removed. Do not expect the stones to appear new after cleaning. 7. Do not clean marble, limestone or sandstone more than once every 18 months. Every cleaning removes some of the outer table of the stone. However, occasionally rinsing with clean water to remove bird droppings and other accretions is acceptable. 8. Repair of broken markers should only be attempted if the broken fragments can be tightly refitted. Cement should not be used to reattach broken fragments, as cement is much harder than stone and may cause failures in other areas. A professional stone conservator should be consulted to repair badly broken ' markers. 9. The Tabler cemetery contains a whitewashed wooden marker. This marker has ' suffered damage from rodent gnawing along its margins. This marker should be replaced with a marker of the same size, original shape, and wood species. The replacement marker should be painted with appropriate white outdoor paint. 47 1 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations LCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) 10. Replacement of the fieldstone head/foot markers at the Nisewander cemetery is recommended. Given that an additional 3-6 inches of soil will be placed on this cemetery, it will be very likely to bury many stones that are broken/worn off near the existing ground surface. 11. Replacement fieldstone markers should be of a similar parent material and have regular surfaces. Replacement head markers should be approximately 13-15 inches long x 10-12 inches wide x 2-3 inches thick. Replacement foot markers should be 13-15 inches long x 6-8 inches wide x 2-3 inches thick. (30% of the head/foot markers should be set into the ground. See next section for recommendations on setting markers.) 12. No machine dressing of stones is recommended and only minimal hand dressing should be done to approximate the shape of the historic markers. Resetting Tilted/Displaced Headstones and Footstones Only gravestones that are severely tilted or displaced should be reset since resetting may cause other damage to the stone. Assume that all stones are fragile and have some form of internal cracking or damage. 1. Excavate around the stones very carefully. Steel shovels can easily damage stone. It is best if you excavate frorn the backside of the stone to avoid darnage to the inscription. Always try to keep firin earth on one side, to provide a strong, compacted earth face against which to reset the stone. 2. Stockpile the spoil or use additional "clean" soil. Do not allow soil to rnix with the surrounding grass. Not only does this look unprofessional and inappropriate in a cemetery setting. 3. Once the stone is free of earth, carefully remove it from the ground and lay aside on several 2 x 4's for support. 4. If additional excavation of the hole is desired leave one side compact. Create a firm base for the stone which will evenly distribute its weight. If the base of the stone is relatively flat, set an even layer of brick or tabular stone as a base, then about an inch of sand. 5. Replace the stone in the hole, be sure that enough stone remains below ground to support the upper portion and prevent it from retilting after being reset. For 19t1' century markers (headstones/footstones) about 30 percent of the length of the stone must remain below ground level. 6. Use a builder's level to position the stone level both vertically and horizontally. It is important to realize that a monument is generally considered level when it appears level with respect to the surrounding terrain. 48 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) 7. The markers at the Tabler cemetery have no foundations and can be leveled using small pea gravel or similar material. Add material in shallow fills and ensure that the screenings are tamped down between lifts. 8. Refill the excavation using the original or clean spoil. It may be necessary to use bricks or gravel to hold the stone upright. Gravel may also assist in drainage around the stone, especially in heavy, clay soils. Tamp this material every few inches to ensure that it is well settled. 9. Pill to encourage drainage away from the stone and reset the sod. Replacing Ornamental Plants and GroUndcoyer The restoration of historic cemeteries is not complete without the reintroduction of ornamental plants that would have been utilized during historic times. It is the use of these types of plants that on many occasions signified the use of such areas as burial locations. Ornamentals include trees, shrubs, flowers, and groundcover. 1. The primary ornamental groundcover for historic cemeteries throughout Virginia was Vinca minor (Periwinkle). This is an evergreen groundcover that spreads along the ground in a manner consistent with English Ivy. During the spring, it is flowered with small pink/purple flowers. Vinca sp. should be planted both in between and on top of graves at intervals of about 5 feet. 2. The cemetery area should be reseeded with standard contractors blend grass to avoid erosion. The vinca will take 2-3 seasons to begin to spread, and once it has reached maturity, it will begin to choke out the grass. Eventually, the vinca will replace all the grass in the cemetery. 3. Lawn maintenance should be done with string trimmers and hand tools only with grass being kept from growing around the markers to prevent surface staining. Care should be used during trimming to avoid damage to headstones and inscriptions. 4. Ornamental flowers should also be introduced to the area and be planted along the margins of the cemeteries and/or over each grave. Typical ornamental plants include roses, lilies (e.g. day lilies, lilies of the valley, tiger lilies), gardenia, or prickly yucca. Lilies and roses are preferred in this context. 5. Oaks, Locusts, Sycamore, Ash, Cedars, and Osage Orange trees have been purposefully introduced and have grown to maturity in these cemeteries. If trees are to be transplanted to these cemeteries, care should be taken to place them far enough away from markers, fencing, and other elements that may be damaged or displaced over time from tree growth and root runs. 49 I 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations LCS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) 6. If desired, these types of trees should be planted as border or perimeter species to mark the boundaries/corners of these cemeteries. 7. The Tabler cemetery contains trees that appear to have been planted over several of the graves. Planting of new trees over existing graves is not recommended. Installation of Fencing Iron fencing is typically found on historic cemeteries in Virginia. Iron fencing should be used in conjunction with stone/brick corner columns and be placed approximately 10-15 feet outside any perimeter or boundary trees at either cemetery. 1. The single best protection of ironwork is maintenance and painting. Ironwork Should be repainted.every five to 10 years, or at the first signs of rust. 2. Joints are vulnerable in ironwork. Water will be drawn into these spaces by capillary action and corrosion can be very severe. Another problem area is where cast and wrought iron come into contact since this creates corrosion from electrolytic action. 3. A problem occurs when ironwork is anchored in damp stonework. As the iron rusts it expands to many times its original size, exerting pressure on the stone and ultimately shattering the stone. Often the ironwork was mounted into the stone using molten lead. This combination can cause serious corrosion. Another problem is when Iron is mounted using molted sulfur which causes very rapid corrosion. 4. Hand preparation using a wire brush is good at removing bulk corrosion, but it leaves much corrosion untouched. While cast iron is hard, wrought iron is softer and the surface can be easily roughened. Using abrasives also removes the mill scale, which is iron's natural protective coating. 5. Once cleaned of corrosion it is critical that a rust inhibitor be applied quickly. With one primer coat it is almost impossible to produce a continuous film without pinholes. A second coat is essential and works better than a second topcoat since it is designed to inhibit rust from breaking through the final paint coat. 6. Paint should be an alkyd rather than latex and should be designed for use with the primer. In no case should the paint be applied thickly, this obscures detail and does not appreciably lengthen the lifespan of the paint. Gloss enamels should be avoided. 7. Gates or entrances in fencing at both cemeteries should be from the proper approach aspect. The approach aspect of the Nisewander cemetery is from the west or south. The approach aspect of the Tabler cemetery is from the west. 50 J O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Commemorative markers may be appropriate to place at either cemetery to give basic interpretation for visitors and the interested public. A simple brass (or other appropriate alloy) plate secured into a stone pedestal should be sufficient for this task. Brief text explaining the results of the archaeological and archival work should be presented as a means to interpret and memorialize those interred at these cemeteries. ECS stands ready to assist O-N Minerals (Chemstone) to implement any of the above mentioned restoration recommendations. 51 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations GCS Project No. 21:9244 Gebwary 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) VI. REFERENCES CITED Archives of the I-[andley Library, Winchester, Virginia. n.d. Tabler Cemetery File. n.d. Opequon File Boatner, Mark Mayo 1987 The Civil War Dictionmfy". Rev. edition, Random House, New York, New York. Buck, D. A. 1994 Marriages of Frederick County, Virginia, 1853-1880, Abstracted and Compiled. Published by author, Winchester, VA Delaney -Painter, Nancy and Susan L. McCabe 2004 Index to Burials in Frederick County, Virginia, 2"d ed. Willow Bend Books, Winchester, VA. D. J. Lake and Company 1885 Opequon Magisterial District, Frederick County. Published by author, Philadelphia, PA. Doran, Michael F. 1987 Atlas of County Boundary Changes in Virginia: 1634-1895. Iberian Publishing Co., Athens, Georgia. Frederick County 1753-2008 Deed Record Books (FCDB). On file, Frederick County Court House, Winchester, Virginia. 1782-1808 Survey Book (FCSB). On file, Frederick County Court House, Winchester, Virginia. 1787 Personal Property Tax Records. On file, Frederick County Court House, Winchester, Virginia. l 801-1807 Personal Property Tax Records. On file, Frederick County Court House, Winchester, Virginia. Gordon, C. Langdon 1996 The Old Burying Grounds of Opequon Presbyterian Church: 1736-1938. Published by author, Winchester, VA. Gretag Macbeth Corporation 2000 Munsell Soil Color Charts. Gretag Macbeth, Little Britain Road, New Windsor, New York. W) 0-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations I:CS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Hillier, Richardson 1931 The Hite Family and the Settlement of the West. Thesis, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Huddle, Rev. W. D. and Lulu May Huddle 1982 The history and descendents of John Holtel. C. J. Carrier Co., Harrisonburg, PA. Jackson, Ronald Vern 1978 First Census of the United States, 1790: Records of the State Enumerations 1782 to 1785 Virginia. Accelerated Indexing Systems, Inc. Bountiful, Utah. Kalbian, Maral S. 1999 Frederick County, Virginia: History through A7•chilecture. Winchester -Frederick County Historical Society, Winchester, VA. Kaplan, Barbara Beigun 1993 Land and Heritage in the Virginia Tidewater: A History of King and Queen County. Cadamus Fine Books, Richmond, Virginia. King, George H. S. 1961 The Register of Overivharton Parish: Stafford County, Virginia 1723-1758. Privately published by author, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Kulikoff, Allan 1986 Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake, 1680-1800. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Little, Elbert L. 1980 National Audubon Society Field Guide to Trees (Eastern Region). Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York. Manarin, Louis H., and Clifford Dowdey 1984 The History of Henrico County. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. McLearen, Douglas C. 1989 Phase III Archaeological Investigations of the 522 Bridge Site (44WR329), Warren County, Virginia. Prepared by Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center. Prepared for Virginia Department of Transportation. Moore, Larry E. 1991 A Little History of the Doeg. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 46(2): 77-86. 53 O-N Minerals Cemetery Delineations ECS Project No. 21:9244 February 7, 2008 (Revised March 6, 2008) Nugent, Nell M. 1992 Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants, Volamae 1: 1623-1666. Virginia State Library and Archives, Richmond. O'Dell, Cecil 1995 Pioneers of Old Frederick County, Virginia. Walsworth Publishing Company, Marceline, MO. Official Records 1884 The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Series I, vol. XI, Part 1: Reports. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Poland, Charles Preston, Jr. 1976 From Frontier to Suburbia. Walsworth Publishing Company, Maraline, Missouri. Studebaker, Marvin F. 1959 Free Stone from Aquia. Virginia Cavalcade IX(1):35-41. Titus, James 1991 The Old Dominion at War: Society, Politics, and Warfare in Late Colonial Virginia. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina. Umstattd, Elizabeth Madison Coles 1999 Hite Family Homesteads: Nektar to Shenandoah, Rev. Ed Published by author, Villanova, PA. Vogt, John and T. William Kethley, Jr. 1984 Virginia Historic Marriage Register, Frederick County Marriage, 1738-1850. Iberian Press, Athens, GA. Wayland, John W. 1980 A History of Shenandoah County, Virginia. Baltimore Regional Publishing Company, Baltimore, MD. Whitehorne, Joseph W. A. 1987 The Battle of Cedar Creek. The Wayside Museum of American History and Arts, Strasburg, VA. Wilkins, Jarnes Richard 1980 Pioneers and Patriots: A History of the John Wilkins Family and some Related Families of Virginia: Tuok-Hite- Wall- Winn and others: 1618-1979. Published by author, Winchester, VA. 54 11 11 11 1 1 n APPENDIX I REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS M Tabler Family Cemetery, View East Stripping at the Tabler Family Cemetery, View North Project No. 21:9244 Tabler Family Cemetery, View Northwest Stripping Grave Shafts at the Tabler Family Cemetery Project Name: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Cemetery Delineations/Restoration s = = = i = M M = = = = = Inscribed Headstones at the Tabler Family Cemetery Tabler Family Cemetery After Stripping and Backfilling, View East Project No. 21:9244 Wooden Marker near James and Catharine Tabler Graves Public Notice Erected by O-N Minerals at the Nisewander Family Cemetery, View East Project Name: ()-N Minerals (Chemstone) Cemetery Delineations/Restoration & qm- !4, t lot LI4 M M M M M M M M M ft M M M M ■■i M M s M Stripped Area Lacking Graves at the Nisewander Family Cemetery Exposure of Fieldstone Grave Markers at the Nisewander Family Cemetery Project No. 21:9244 Graves Layout at the Nisewander Family Cemetery Project Name: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Cemetery Delineations/Restoration r M M M M M M M! M� M M M M M M S i Graves Layout at the Nisewander Family Cemetery Project No. 21:9244 Graves Lavout at the Nisewander Familv Cemetery Project Name: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Cemetery Delineations/Restoration ECS MID -ATLANTIC, LLC MAR, 1 9 20Q° 915 Maple Grove Drive, Suite 206 Fredericksburg, VA 22407 Tel: (540) 785-6100 - Fax: (540) 785-3577 r l COUNTY of FREDERICK Board of Supervisors 540/665-5666 540/667-0370 fax Richard C. Shickle - Chairman Bill M. Ewing - Vice Chairman Opequon District Gene E. Fisher Shawnee District The Honorable Frank R. Wolf United State Congress House of Representatives 241 Cannon Building Washington, D.C. 20515-4610 Dear Congressman Wolf: May 12, 2006 Thank you for sharing Ms. Clevenger's concerns with me. Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Stonewall District Gary W. Dove Gainesboro District Barbara E. Van Osten Back Creek District Philip A. Lemieux Red Bud District First and foremost, O-N Mineral Chemstone has a current mining operation that straddles the boundaries of Frederick and Shenandoah counties. The company owns 600 plus acres in Frederick County and has owned same for 51 years (U.S. Steel acquired the property in 1955 and sold same to O-N Minerals Chemstone in 1986). New development in this area of the county has occurred around this company's land and includes the National Park Service Land. Thirdly, the Company is now filing a rezoning petition with the County to now utilize said land that they own. With the aforementioned facts outlined, it is now the County's responsibility to hear the merits of the application, perform its due diligence based upon the facts presented, and render a decision. As you know this is a very public process that will involve both the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. This will not be an easy process, but I can assure you it will be a fair one. Frederick County stands ready to listen to and address all concerns raised by its citizens to the best of its ability. I look forward to the dialogue and if Ms. Clevenger has further questions she may contact our Planning Department at 540-665-5651. RCS/jet Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to respond. Sincerely, Richard C. Shickle Chairman of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 M AY 1 2 2006 CUSTER 1W — — — • — ;'�► a.,-GROVER BATTLE OF Y "M� wE/FAT N xooK . CEDAR CREEKS VA OC-TOBER 19, 1864 � cov� �sO Kidd ,Terry i O'6� \ MFRR� kelp ER a iAb '' 0Q Y towel/ 1 CO al/ Fme ; +Q`q� rays / '''ell Ouster's route from his camps h. _ h,;teo Dev 84 n,. e�ti - �— P �, w n SHERIDAN-=_-eusTER- ARMY OF THE SHENANDOAH 9 �S BaKE1F~/ N'T°er �/ j' Clrgs y F"r,s°n e�' rr Y•� BaNte cox CpO ea�YiRICK s Co ,•C0) Reams . C RICKTs o�,"�� ✓•� • �y 5�. vl CO_R S y6np ,�� • l /�•O 4�r. hre 1`Rsy ys GE` A . f , ` KERSHA ._ �r° 4% o'w Bidwell dletown . \ ` C, Warner Grant �jAsa., •_ Read Smt 0 1/2 / 'uric ILLAN �� � ��,�,Belk rove r • iEMORY r Davis \; tP��s •l \ e / '*IN CORPS c� 4 es "nr� GORDON a`a'+ley y:`` ,l� / SECOND CORPS Stickley 1 i VaRWPike v • •� clk2 CROOK `� d �•.— — ,j VIII CORPS P Lt'ljPnd ��� �• / Inl,nMdiM Z�c Jennings Hite � " .!', CijO� � ■ 7rn-Gnury 3lruct.nc �\ 0 8(iR� �JP+` . �ai•` nor° P� _= irnGniuryPoaOs rod«n R.— •� � l rj �"►'fldey EARYV i ; NVS dutnonnd 9... 4,q KFRbHAW s' \._ - - ttwc.ne,el.n«d ARMY OF THE VALLEY Bowmen's\* b ��s ® cON.rnau�.no /� nno.t tnlii °f 0P.Wi .Mlnind • �yS .clap `rclxrr.d 6.r 1L; C-1 U`nr •.\ • ` I'... \ PnvmrvG,nr D-1 by St —St". CEBE Land Status 0 ^ 25 0.5 1 1 5 KlbnwWrz 02 ZpK Vol N k"'s u wi 2EDERICK CD I MIIir. Recommendations for Local Planning Significant intensification of uses should be avoided in the undevel- oped core battlefield areas of Cedar Creek, Third Winchester, and Kernstown, except where current Comprehensive Plans call for such an intensification. Undeveloped core battlefield areas currently outside of the Urban Development Area or other development designations should not be designated for urban development in Comprehensive Plans. Rezonings should be avoided in undeveloped core battlefield areas where those rezonings would result in uses not normally found in rural areas. Changes to more intensive uses in and around pristine battlefield core areas should involve the inclusion of the land in a historic overlay zoning district to control the appearance of such uses and to protect viewsheds. Special care should be taken to protect the key battlefield sites iden- tified by this plan and to avoid unnecessary distractions from the historic character of those sites. N Frederick County, there are approximately 12,000 acres of battlefield core areas that retain historic integrity. These core areas include some ��t31f 4 B�ittleficld Study and Cure .areas iai 1,rederiel:.C'opply Incl 1� inct�este� Battlefield Study Area (acres) Core Area (acres) Retaining Integrity (core acres) % Retaining Integrity (core area) Integrity Lost (core acres) % Integrity Lost (core area) Cedar Creek 15,607 6,252 5,601 89.6% 651 10.4% Opequon 11,670 4,914 2,321 47.2% 2,593 52.8% 2nd Winchester 22,274 3,113 1,624 52.2% 1,489 47.8% 2nd Kernstown 5,861 2,203 1,098 49.8% 1,105 50.2% 1st Winchester 4,041 1,393 301 21.6% 1,092 78.4% Ist Kernstown 4,029 1,554 1,097 70.6% 457 29.4% Total 63,482 19,429 12,042 62.0% 7,387 38.0% Source: National Park Service, Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, Se tember, 1992 pristine areas where very significant battlefield events occurred. Cedar Creek After the Confederate defeat at the Third Battle of Winchester on Sep- tember 19 and at Fisher's Hill on September 22, 1864, Jubal Early knew that he must successfully engage General Philip Sheridan. Early knew that he needed to prevent Sheridan from returning detachments of his force to General Grant, who at the time was opposing General Robert E. Lee at Petersburg,. He knew that to accomplish this task, he would have to mount an offensive against Sheridan at Cedar Creek. In October of 1864, General Philip H. Sheridan was called to Wash- ington, leaving General Horatio G. Wright in command of a Union force of 45,000 men. General Jubal A. Early's Confederate force, now 18,000 strong, was monitoring the movements of the Union troops. Early on the morning of the 19th, hidden by fog, the Confederate forces attacked the Union VIII Corps with a terrifying rebel yell. The Union troops were quickly routed, with their southern flank battered by General J. B. Kershaw's Confederate troops coming north from Bowman's Mill. From the west, General G.C. Wharton's Confederate 24 (' I troops swept the Union XIX Corps to the northeast. At the far western end of the battle, General T. L. Rosser's cavalry encountered Custer's unit and drove them to the east. Colonel T. H. Carter's artillery, positioned on Hupp's Hill, bombarded Union positions. Most of the Union army panicked and fled. The only organized resistance the Confederates encountered was the Second Di- vision of the Union VI Corps led by General George W. Getty. The Second Division made three valiant stands: first at the southern end of the ridge at Cemetery Hill, then along Old Furnace Road running west, from where Lord Fairfax Community College is today, and eventually holding a line half a mile north of Old Furnace Road. Confederate victory seemed certain at this point. Fresh from his trip from Wash- in ington the night before, Sheridan rode from Winchester to the bat- tlefield and arrived about 10:30 fIA a.m. He established his com- mand post near the Valley Pike and began to reorganize his INforces. The VI Corps was on the left, adjacent to the Valley Pike with the XIX Corps on the right. Sheridan rode along the reestab- lished battle line as the troops re- sponded with a mighty cheer. ON is During the early afternoon, Early attacked along the Union line. Belle Grove, on the Cedar Creek Battlefield His failure to defeat the Union forces ear- lier in the day proved fatal as his troops were thrown back. At about 4:30 p.m., Sheridan ordered General Getty to lead an attack with the VI Corps. After much desperate fighting, Getty's troops broke the Confederate line. The entire Confederate army fled south back across Cedar Creek to Strasburg and beyond. The Union pursuit continued after dark, ending at Fisher's Hill. The Confederates suffered 2,910 casualties: 320 killed, 1,540 wounded, and 1,050 missing. The Union forces snatched victory from the jaws of defeat that day, but the price was high. The Union suffered 5,665 casualties: 644 killed, 3,430 wounded, and 1,591 missing. Early's defeat at Cedar Creek ended Confederate efforts to invade the north, and Sheridan's string of victories in the Shenandoah Valley 26 No continued. The victory at Cedar Creek, along with the fall of Atlanta, helped reelect President Lincoln. The Cedar Creek battlefield area incorporates a long stretch of land along Route 11 South, from Cedar Creek to the north of Middletown. Focal points of fighting were at Belle Grove, the Heater House, Ceme- tery Hill, Dinges Farm, and the D. J. Miller House. The Cedar Creek Foundation has purchased 158 acres of the battlefield sites including land surrounding and to the immediate north of Belle Grove. This site includes the Heater House. Additional land to the south of Belle Grove has been targeted for possible preservation to protect view - sheds, remaining earthworks, and other significant areas. Other sig- nificant areas include the historic Town of Middletown and areas to the west and north of Middletown. The Mount Carmel Cemetery on Cemetery Hill is a particularly significant. Much of the Cedar Creek core area remains undeveloped, rural and pristine. Scattered single family residential development has occurred. The Chemstone Corporation quarry is located and operated in the Strategies For Cedar Creek Provide funding and other support to the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation in their efforts to acquire, preserve and use battlefield land. Do not rezone land in the Cedar Creek battlefield core area for uses that are not nor- mally found in rural areas. Work closely with the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation to prepare a resource man- agement plan for the Cedar Creek battlefield which describes appropriate preservation treatment for structures, earthworks and other features. Such planning should include a professional evaluation of appropriate stabilization and preservation treatments. Work closely with the Town of Middletown to promote the Town as a center of visitor services and as a vital part of the historic interpretation. Work closely with the Chemstone Corporation to enlist their support and to address ap- pearance issues. Use Cedar Creek as an important demonstration area to show the type of progress that can be made. 27 �i/ � � �P I ..,,.,• 1 .• • Wit% :�. G 0 southwestern portions of the core area. The Town of Middletown is central to the core area and retains significant historic character. Third Winchester / Opequon On September 19, 1864, Union soldiers under the command of Gen- eral Philip H. Sheridan crossed the Opequon Creek along Berryville Pike with the hopes of destroying General Jubal Early's Confederate troops. General Early had sent General John Gordon and General Robert Rodes and their divisions to Martinsburg to launch attacks in Maryland, leaving the Confederate forces in Winchester at less than half strength. General Sheridan planned to have two cavalry divisions strike from �r the north and the VIII Corps from the south. The main attack was to t come from the east, with the VI and XIX Corps, who had to navigate the narrow Berryville Canyon. The Un- ion infantry, with their wagons bogged down in the narrow confines of Berry- ville Canyon, dashed Sheridan's hopes of (� quickly taking Winchester. This kept f� the XIX Corps in the canyon until after- noon. By this time, General Early had discovered the Union plans and had re- called both Gordon and Rodes. The currently pristine areas to the east of the Hackwood House were the scene of intense fighting in the Third Battle of Winchester. At about noon on the 19th, a Union division of four brigades led by Birge, Molineux, Sharpe, and Shunk launched its attack from the First Woods at Third Winchester First Woods, on the Nash, Caleb Heights, Huntsberry, and Regency properties, across the Middle Field, on the Huntsberry and Caleb Heights property, toward the Second Woods, where General Gordon's Confederate troops waited. Confederate artillery north of Redbud Run played havoc with the flanks of the Union attacking line. Birge's brigade reached the Second Woods, on the Hackwood, Caleb Heights, and Regency properties, and came upon General Gordon's main line and were staggered. 29 06/07/2006 14:45 8043672391 DEPT OF HISTORIC RES PAGE 01/04 Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, Virginia 23221 Telephone: (804) 367-2323 Fax: (804) 367-2391 TDD: (804) 367-2386 ww-,,.dhr.-.,irzinio god• FAX TRANSMISSION SKEET TO: DATE: ORGANIZATION: TELEPHONE: FAX: t/r e r (l O FROM: �e 6 C A V PHONE: (804)-367-2323 X/OS--- E-MAIL: Yo �er Cci ✓ e � -cam A r; 4rI 60 Q 1� FAX #: (804) 367-239I ryyrrP7.-, Gl7tJiG� C0M, M- : 0NVVEAL T H o f VIR,QINM Office of the Governor L. Preston Bryant Jecretan' o* Katuntl Rest urces April 26, 2406 Ms, Julie Clevenger 451 W esterovie-v Drive ?4i'ddletov n, VA 22645 Dear GIs. Clevenger: Thank you for writing Governor Kaine regarding the quarries proposed for development in the vicinity of Middletown. Governor Kaine has asked that I respond to you on his behalf. I understand that quarry excavation, and likely subsequent reservoir development, is proposed for several sites within an approximately 639-acre tract in the vicinity of Cedar Creek and Meadow Brook, just north of Middletotivn bi Frederick County. The projects currently, are in planning and rezoning stages and have not yet been coordinated with relevant state agencies, such as the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, which may have regulatory authority over the quarry excavation or water supply aspects of this project. To date, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has not received any pen -nit applications, including air and wetlands, for the proposed quarry expansion by O-1\ Chernstone. DEQ would not have a permit requirement unless the company decides to expand their crusher and conveyance systems, which would require changes to their existing air permit. I have asked the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGlr) to help me identify potential project impacts on the local wildlife and habitats. DGIF is the state wildlife agency- and has jurisdiction over the Commonwealth's terrestrial wildlife. fa'eshwater fish and other aquatic resources, and state or federally endangered or threatened species other than insects. DGIF is a consulting agency under the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and it provides environmental analysis of projects or permit applications coordinated through DEQ, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the Virginia Department of Transportation., the U.S_ Anny Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and other state or federal agencies. DGIF's role in these procedures is to determine likely impacts upon fish and wildlife resources and habitat, and to recommend appropriate measures to avoid, reduce, or compensate for those impacts. Based on early DGIF research, it is my understanding that a variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitats would be affected by the proposed project. A preliminary review of DGIF's wildlife data suggests that wood turtles, a state threatened species, may occur in the project area. r-amck H..:nl Auildinl- 6 1111 East $road Street • Richmond, Virginia 232r9 0 804) 780•0'044 • TTY i30C1 328-11 GIs. Julie Clevenger April 26, 2006 Page 2 You also expressed concern that bald eagles, currently a federally threatened species, may nest on the tract as well. Any information that you can provide to DGIF about eagle nests in this location would be greatly appreciated. DG1F's databases contain historic records of other imperiled bird species from this area, including the state threatened loggerhead shrike,. Bewick's wren, and upland sandpiper. The nearby Meadow. Brook is designated a Class V Coldwater Stream capable of supporting a stockable trout fishery. I have some concerns over potentially adverse impacts of the proposed project on these and other sensitive wildlife resources and habitats on the site. Additional information is needed so that we may further evaluate potential wildlife impacts. Additionally. the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) has been trackinc, the rezoning application for several months. On December 20, 2005: DHR advised the Frederick: County Department of Planning through its History advisory Board that the proposal had the potential to result in significant adverse impacts on archaeological and historic resources located directly- in the parcel in question. Accordingly; DHR recommended that the County require the applicant to conduct an assessment of all archaeological and historic architectural resources within the parcel before taking action on the rezoning application. Based on follow up discussions with the Countv's planning staff it is DHR's understanding that the County is likely to require O-N. Chemstone to undertake .such an assessment. Be advised that if wetlands are affected, such an investigation may be required of O-N Chemstone pursuant to Section 106 of the National Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, as a condition of receiving a federal wetlands permit from the Corps. If the project comes to be defined as a federal undertaking, the Corps would be required to consult with DHR, and DHR would consider in its review and recommendations not only the effect of the project on historic resources located on the development parcel but also the potential visual impacts of the development on nearby historic property such as the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation. Further, the Department of Conservation. and Recreation has identified, in its 2002 Virginia Outdoors Plan, Cedar Creels in Shenandoah and Frederick Counties as a potential component of the State's scenic rivers system. And both DCR and the Virginia Department of Transportation have recently determined that LT.S. Route 11 qualifies for designation as a Scenic By -way. It is my hope that County officials consider these items as they contemplate the quarry and its potential impacts on the region's significant scenic, natural, and cultural resources. Because the authority to regulate local land use is the prerogative of local government in Virginia and the ultimate decision to approve the rezoning application is Frederick County's to make, I strongly encourage you to continue expressing your concerns about this project directly to your local elected officials. I also recommend that you contact 2v1r. Ron Stouffer of the Corps (703-221-696?) for further information on whether the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act may be triggered in this case by a federal permit application as O-N Chemstone's development proposal moves forward. Governor Kaine and I are committed to conserving Virginia's rich natural diversity for all of its citizens. We also recognize that economic development and water supplies are vital to the 0 • Ms. Julie Clevenger April 26, 2006 age � region and that a balanced approach is needed to accommodate economic and environmental needs. My agencies and I are committed to working with you and other interested parties; including the County and the permit applicants; to ensure this balance is achieved, and we look forward to cooperating with you, your local government agencies, and other stakeholders in this regard. Again, I encourage you to contact David 'V hitehurst, Director of DGIF's Wildlife Diversity Division, and talk with him further about the role that the DGEF has in this project and the infonnation that they have about wildlife resources. __%Ir. ' iVhitehurst may be reached at g04-36?-4335 or via e-mail at David. Whitel urst�Rdgyif.virginia.Erov. Thank you for taking time to let Governor Kaine know about your concerns. We appreciate your interest in the natural resources of Virginia. Sincerely, L. Preston Bryant, Jr. LPBJr;'cbd �ttAT OF ly • NATIONAL nited States Department of the Interior PARK U SERVICE o NATIONAL PARK SERVICE _ Cedar Creek and Belle Grove A1orc13, 1849 National Historical Park 'I, `j In reply refer to: 77I 8 '/2 Main St., P.O. Box 700 Middletown, Virginia 22645 27 March 2006 Mr. Eric Lawrence, Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent St., 2nd Floor Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Lawrence: We are writing to transmit our comments regarding the O-N Minerals Chemstone Property Rezoning Request. The Chemstone property is adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park (NHP). O-N Minerals Chemstone provided us with a copy of their rezoning request and we in turn asked the National Park Service's Geologic Resources Division to prepare an analysis of the proposal. The Geologic Resources Division, based in Lakewood, Colorado, provides national leadership and specialized assistance for managing geologic resources and protecting park resources from the adverse effects of mineral development in and adjacent to national parks. The Division is staffed with geologists, minerals specialists, mining and petroleum engineers, policy and regulatory analysts, and natural resource specialists. They, in addition, consulted with an agency hydrologist to provide input on the potential impacts on water quantity. The attached memorandum references a photograph of Cedar Creek Battlefield taken in October 2005 during the annual reenactment of the Battle of Cedar Creek. A copy of the photograph is attached for your information. Please feel free to call me with any questions or concerns about the attached information. I may be reached at my office at (540) 868-9176. Sincerely, Signed, DLJacox Diann Jacox Superintendent Attachments: 1. Memorandum from Geological Resources Division, National Park Service. 2. Photograph taken during 2005 Reenactment of the Battle of Cedar Creek. Cc: Spencer Stinson, O-N Minerals Chemstone Kris Tierney, Assistant County Administrator Michael Ruddy, Frederick County Deputy Planning Director TAKE PRIDE"&J=.,} 1NAM ERICA -=;�— National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior SuperintendentDiann Jacox ` ' �> Cedar Creek & Belle Grove National Historical Park Post Office Box 700 Middletown VA 22645 540 868-9176 phone 540 869-4527 fax diann-jacox®nps.gov Unit* States Department Of t OF Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Geologic Resources Division P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225 TRANSMITTED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL - NO HARDCOPY TO FOLLOW L2360 March 24, 2006 Memorandum To: Diann Jacox Superintendent, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park From: Carol McCoy Chief, Planning, Evaluation & Permits Branch Geologic Resources Division National Park Service Subject: O-N Minerals Chemstone Property Rezoning Request In response to your request, the Geologic Resources Division (GRD) has reviewed several documents associated with O-N Minerals Chemstone's request to rezone 691 acres adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. Specifically, my staff reviewed Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement (June 2005), Chemstone's Rezoning Application Materials (Dec. 2005), Commonwealth of Virginia mining and mineral regulations, and Frederick County rezoning regulations and guidance. We believe that the rezoning documents submitted by O-N Minerals Chemstone do not adequately address Frederick County requirements or the impacts on the surrounding area, including the park. With this in mind, we offer the following comments for your consideration. General Comments The proposed rezoning and subsequent expansion of the limestone quarry on the O-N Minerals Chemstone Property (Chemstone) adjacent to Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park may adversely impact park lands and resources. These resources include the "nationally significant Civil War landscape and antebellum plantation" and the "[t]he panoramic views of the mountains, natural areas, and waterways ... an inspiring setting of great natural beauty" (see 16 U.S.C. § 410iii-1). Unfortunately, we believe that Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement and Rezoning Application Materials do not fully address the likely impacts of the rezoning/expansion of the quarry on these valuable and unique resources. t�AM E CA� As you know, Congreerected the National Park Service (NPOW "encourage conservation of the historic and natural resources within and in proximity of [Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical] Park by land owners, local governments, organizations, and businesses." In accordance with this mandate and NPS policies, we recommend that you work closely with Frederick County and the Commonwealth of Virginia in the rezoning and quarry expansion processes in order to avoid, mitigate, and resolve potential resource conflicts. Specific Comments Based on our review, Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement does not include several topics required by Frederick County. These topics include "the use of surrounding land and potential economic, physical, visual, nuisance, and other impacts on surrounding properties" (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(1)), "the anticipated increase in potential population resulting from the rezoning" (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(4)), "the projected additional demand for ... public facilities" (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(5)), and a full discussion of the impacts on historic structures and sites (Code of Frederick County § 165-12(C)(8)). Chemstone's Impact Analysis Statement and Rezoning Application Materials also inadequately address the following topics: Air qualitypacts from fugitive dust and equipment emissions — Chemstone's rezoning application documents do not include any analysis of possible air quality impacts. Dust generated from mining operations, crushers, conveyors, vehicles, or windblown dust from the large disturbed area is not mentioned nor is possible mitigation of dust -related issues addressed. These documents should also quantify emissions from mining equipment and haul trucks, including the proposed increase in haul trucks and any other mobile or point source. Increased Haul Truck Traffic — Chemstone's Traffic Impact Analysis modeling (March 2005) suggests that the mine expansion could result in an increase of 801 truck trips per day, for a total of 1,308 truck trips in Middletown, a town of 1,200 residents. This proposed increase may detract from the quality of life and be a threat to public safety. Increased truck traffic may also negatively impact those traveling to Frederick County to visit Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park and/or other area attractions. Chemstone has suggested that it could construct a conveyor system that would decrease the amount of truck traffic required by the mine expansion. Frederick County should be encouraged to require this conveyor system as a condition of Chemstone's rezoning proposal in order to avoid the impacts of increased truck traffic in Middletown and in Cedar Creek and Belle Grove NHP. Noise and vibration — Sources of noise and vibration are also not quantified in Chemstone's rezoning application documents. Noise generated by mining operations, crushers, conveyors, and haul trucks is likely to be significant and will not be confined to the existing or rezoned property. Blasting which may take place in quarry operations will not only generate noise impacts, but also carries with it potential vibration issues which pose a threat to adjacent structures. It is important to note that Belle Grove Plantation House, built in 1797, is a Historic Landmark and is included on the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, CAM MR CA we suggest that Frede*County require that Chemstone submodetailed noise and vibration study as part of its rezoning application to address impacts and mitigation measures for sensitive adjacent resources such as those found in Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. Night li hting — Chemstone's rezoning application documents did not specify if quarry operations are conducted 24 hours per day. However, if operational or security lighting is used at the quarry site, impacts to the night sky and the historical scene may occur. Dust or other particulate matter generated at the site will exacerbate night lighting impacts to surrounding properties. PropeEty values and historical scene — Chemstone's rezoning application documents fail to address the existing and expanded project's impact on adjacent property values and the historic scene for which this area is well known. The "historic impact assessment" contained in the December 2005 Rezoning Application Materials document states that "[w]e cannot, and have not, and do not want to save all land where history `happened."' Such a sweeping statement fails to analyze the impacts of Chemstone's quarry operations on the historic and natural resources of Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Parka A photograph obtained by GRD of the October 2005 historic battle reenactment at the park clearly shows the Chemstone quarry in the background, dramatically illustrating the striking impact of modern, large scale mining operations on historic properties. We believe that the "historic impact assessment" in Chemstone's rezoning application documents should fully analyze these impacts and present acceptable methods for mitigating them. Ground and surface waters -- The section of the Rezoning Application Materials pertaining to groundwater impacts does briefly mention the subject of aquifer drawdown due to possible interception of groundwater from quarry operations, but fails to address possible surface impacts associated with aquifer drawdown other than sinkhole formation. This document also does not discuss possible impacts on water rights or groundwater quality. Further, the text of the Rezoning Application Materials implies that only the 30 wells and septic systems within 1500 feet of the Chemstone property would be affected by aquifer drawdown. However, Plate 4 of this same document indicates that a 10 foot aquifer drawdown could occur at least 9,600 feet from the potential quarry areas. For all of these reasons, we believe that the groundwater analysis as it relates to off site impacts is extremely inadequate. Possible impacts due to the disposal of the anticipated large amount of intercepted groundwater into surface waterways should also be analyzed in detail. Proffer Statement — Based on my staff s interpretation of Virginia's mining and mineral regulations, most of the conditions included in Chemstone's proffer statement would likely be required by the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy as part of the mine expansion permit or by existing agreement. With the exception of the 8-acre "historic reserve," we do not interpret the proffer statement as providing additional protection for the area's historic resources. The Geologic Resources Division appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions or if we can be of any further assistance, please contact either Kerry Moss or Julia Brunner of my staff at 303-969-2634 or 303-969-2012, respectively. TAKE PRIDE - IN . f AmEfUCA 7,; 0 Photo taken by National Park Service on 15 October 2005 at the Battle of Cedar Creek Reenactment" digital camera, telephoto lens MENANDOAH I I I UNIVENTY • Mr. Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 re. Rezoning Application #03-06, O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Dear Mr. Ruddy: • APR 2 5 2006 April 22, 2006 I attended the Frederick County Planning Commission's public hearing on April 5 regarding rezoning application #03-06 (O-N Minerals, Chemstone). In response to the request you made at the end of the meeting, I am submitting questions and comments about the application for consideration by the planning staff, the applicant, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. These remarks are based upon my familiarity with Cedar Creek and its surrounding watershed that comes, in large part, from an ecological assessment that I conducted with four undergraduates in Shenandoah University's Environmental Studies Program in 2004. Our studies focused on evaluating water quality and on identifying ecological communities and habitats throughout the watershed in Frederick, Warren and Shenandoah Counties. We conducted these investigations in collaboration with the Potomac Conservancy, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Virginia Natural Heritage Program. Our findings are contained in Cedar Creek Revealed: A Study of the Ecological and Historic Context of Cedar Creek, a report released by the Potomac Conservancy this past December. I have provided copies of this report to you, to Mr. Chuck Maddox (Patton Harris Rust & Associates) and to Mr. Karl Everett (Environmental Health and Safety Manager, O-N Minerals). I understand that the Potomac Conservancy has provided copies to members of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. Additional copies are available from the Conservancy's Winchester office, 19 West Cork St., 667-3606. My interest in the area has continued since our 2004 project. Under my supervision, another group of Shenandoah undergraduates will begin a second round of studies in Cedar Creek and its watershed next month. The comments that follow are my personal questions and recommendations only; as such, they do not constitute an official position of Shenandoah University. 1460 University Drive, Winchester, VA 22601-5195 1 www.su.edu • • 1. Review evaluations. In regard to the review evaluations listed on pp. 2-3 of the planning staff report dated March 20, 2006, I am surprised that the VA Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF), the Virginia Natural Heritage Program, and the Army Corps of Engineers were not invited to review the Chemstone rezoning request. The project has potential impacts on water quality, wetlands, floodplains and terrestrial habitats. uestion: Why weren't any of these agencies part of the review and evaluation process for a 600-plus-acre rezoning application? Recommendation: Staff members in these agencies possess the expertise to identify and evaluate those environmental impacts and then advise the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors accordingly. These agencies need to be consulted in regard to a project of this magnitude. 2. Environmental protection goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The rezoning application and the report by the Frederick County planning staff makes several references to the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Among the elements of the Plan directly referenced are those pertaining to agriculture (Comprehensive Plan, p. 6-55), mining operations (p.p. 6-9-11- 72), rural businesses (p. 6-60), water supply (pp. 5-3-4), historic resources (pp. 2-11-13) and transportation (pp. 7-1). Other relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan are not addressed. These are provisions (pp. 5-8-9) that pertain to environmental quality. They include the following three goals: • Protect the natural environment from damage due to development activity. • Provide for development according to the capacity of the natural environment to carry that development. • Identify and protect important natural resources. Among the implementation methods and proposed actions listed in the Comprehensive Plan (pp. 5-8-9, 10-9) to achieve these goals are: • Avoid development in identified environmentally sensitive areas. • Prohibit uses that damage or pollute the environment. • Continue to require that information on carrying capacity be included with development proposals and use that information to evaluate the impacts of the proposals. uestion: Why are these goals and implementation methods not specifically addressed in the staff report and rezoning application? Recommendation: Protecting environmental quality is an essential component of the Plan's primary goal, "to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County" (p. 1-1). It is also a worthwhile end for its own sake. Rezoning applications and staff reviews need to include greater attention to these commendable goals when, as in this case, the impacts are potentially substantial. 2 3. Impact analysis. The rezoning application provides an Impact Analysis Statement by Global Stone Chemstone Corporation dated February 2006. This document draws from the Potential Impact Analysis prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in August 2002 and included as Appendix A. Such analyses should enable the planning staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to determine how well a proposed rezoning or development enables the County to meet the three goals related to environmental protection that appear in the Comprehensive Plan (pp. 5-8-9). In fact, the Impact Analysis Statement (p. 4) states that the, "scope of the SAIC study is extensive, and is comparable to that of an environmental assessment (ES) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)." In my opinion, the Impact Analysis Statement and the appended SAIC study — while informative in many respects — are inadequate in others: a. Lack of limitations on the scope of operations. I agree with the planning staff s reservations (rezoning report, pp. 6-7) about the maximum scope of operations that could take place if the proposed rezoning is approved. Recommendations: First, I recommend that maps accompanying the rezoning application should designate specific areas that will not be disturbed, including not only historic sites but also stream beds, riparian zones, flood plains, steep slopes and distinctive ecological communities. Second, the applicant should be required to guarantee conditions that assure that the impacts resulting from the rezoning (if approved) will be limited to and consistent with those discussed in the SAIC Impact Statement and the additional impacts identified through further analyses I recommend in Item 1 above, and in Items 3b and 3c below). b. Inadequate analysis of steep slopes, forests and other ecological features on the Northern Reserves. The SAIC's Potential Impact Analysis, Section 3.1-Affected Environment (Forests) states: The Northern Reserves property is difficult to access due to lack of roads, steep slopes and heavy vegetation. The site contains a larger Oak -Hickory Forest community ... [and this] site offers a larger and more contiguous forest than the Oak -Hickory Forest on the Middle Marsh property, and likely offers better biotic habitat for the variety of species described above. There are areas of dense Eastern red cedar of the upland portions of this site as well as Eastern red cedar pasture. [emphasis added] However, Global Stone's Impact Analysis Statement (p. 4) states that no steep slopes greater than 50% are present. Although I have not conducted actual slope measurements, a May 2005 kayak trip I made down Cedar Creek past the Northern Reserves, plus my examination of the topographic map and aerial photography, indicates that steep slopes are indeed present on the property. The limestone bluffs and cliffs that rise steeply from Cedar Creek's edge to the uplands above are one of the scenic, although little-known, gems of the Shenandoah Valley. Their ecological characteristics are also noteworthy. Our 2004 investigations at Cedar Creek Battlefield sites approximately a mile from the Northern Reserves showed that the limestone -based slopes and the adjacent forested uplands represent some of the watershed's most diverse ecological communities. Distinctive bluff vegetation includes arborvitae trees (Thuja occidentalis) and the globally imperiled shrub Canby's mountain lover (Paxistima canbyi). The deciduous forests above contain an impressive variety of plant species (over 100 in a single 400 square -meter plot, for instance) including five not previously recorded in Frederick County. Recommendation: It is probable that the scenic and ecological characteristics of the Northern Reserves are similar to the areas Shenandoah University investigated in 2004. The Northern Reserves and Middle Marsh properties need to be more thoroughly evaluated, and their environmental features identified. Such areas represent distinctive elements of Frederick County's natural heritage. They are likely to be compromised by the development that would follow the proposed rezoning. These scenic and ecological features need to be afforded the same protection that is proposed for historic resources and for environmental features already identified in the rezoning application. (The latter are discussed on pp. 4-5 of Global Stone Chemstone Corporation's Impact Analysis Statement.) c. Inadequate Analysis of Potential Impacts on Surface Water. The SAIC's Potential Impact Analysis, Section 4-Streams (p. 6) states that an estimated 793 of 10,984 linear feet of stream channel in the Middle Marsh property (i.e., Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook) could be impacted by quarrying and associated operations such as stockpiles, berms, spoil piles and buildings. A table in the Impact Analysis Statement by Global Stone Chemstone Corporation (p. 4) indicates that 0 of 8,921 linear feet of streams in the Northern Reserves (i.e., Cedar Creek) could be affected. The Impact Analysis Statement further states (pp. 4-5): Areas for excavation, processing and storage will be located and managed to protect identified environmental features from deleterious impact. ... Moreover, in any case where disturbance is proposed, appropriate mitigation strategies will be employed pursuant to the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Office and all applicable state and federal regulations. ... Encroachment within riparian areas will be limited [as per the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance] ... which will likely result in a lesser impact on stream areas than projected in the SAIC study. Despite increasing development in the watershed, studies by Shenandoah University and by the Friends of the Shenandoah River show that Cedar Creek's water quality is among the best in the Shenandoah Valley. It is appropriate that the applicant's analyses for the Chemstone rezoning are designed to include the impacts not only of the quarrying itself but also of the associated buildings, roads, stockpiles and so forth. I also appreciate the fact that the applicant intends to limit encroachment in riparian areas. I found it difficult, however, to interpret the small (letter size) aerial photographs I examined that depicted the areas of potential impacts to the two sites. This limited my ability to evaluate discussions provided by the applicant and the planning staff. If the Chemstone rezoning is approved, my concerns are that the eventual impacts on surface water quality and stream habitats could be much greater than those identified in the rezoning application if actual excavation and associated operations extend beyond the areas "projected" 4 and "estimated" by the applicant. If the steep cliffs above Cedar Creek, for instance, are disturbed, the riparian zone and Cedar Creek could be severely compromised. If mitigation and erosion -sedimentation control measures along Watson Run and Middle Marsh Brook are inadequate, these streams could be compromised as well. Questions: What government agencies (local, federal, state) will monitor the construction, operation and reclamation of the quarrying operations on these two sites? How often will on -site inspection and environmental monitoring occur? Recommendations: First, if the applicant will not limit industrial operations to the type and extent described in the application (see p. 6 of the planning staff s rezoning report, and Item 3a above), then the applicant should evaluate the maximum potential impacts on water quality and other characteristics that could occur after the rezoning, if approved. Second, the applicant should guarantee conditions that assure that the impacts resulting from the rezoning will be limited to and consistent with those discussed in the application. Without these evaluations and guarantees, it does not appear possible to assure that streams and other features on and adjacent to the site will be adequately protected. 4. Impacts on the viewshed of Cedar Creek. Impacts on the viewshed from historic sites and the surrounding community are discussed in several parts of the application materials including the planning staff s rezoning report (pp. 6, 10) and the applicant's proffer statement (p. 2). However, impacts on the viewshed of Cedar Creek itself are not addressed. Cedar Creek's beauty and recreation potential, while they may be under -appreciated, have not gone unnoticed. For instance, Ed Grove's whitewater canoeing guidebook Classic Virginia Rivers (Eddy Out Press, 1992) describes Cedar Creek as, "perhaps the best trip for shepherded novices in the state," and states that an adjacent stream section is "a positively delightful trip for all who love nature". Fishing occurs at many places along the creek. Recommendation: Cedar Creek's beauty and recreation potential should not be compromised. In considering the Chemstone rezoning application, the potential impacts on the viewshed from Cedar Creek should be given the same attention as other viewsheds, as should provisions to avoid damaging the creek's aesthetic and recreational qualities. 5. Mitigating impacts on groundwater — In its proffer statement, O-N Minerals Chemstone Company (Section 5.2, p. 3) agrees to, "remediate any adverse impacts to wells located on surrounding properties caused by mining operations...." uestion: Although I teach environmental science courses, I am not a professional hydrologist. Nevertheless, I am curious about the burden of proof in the event that adjacent wells appear to be affected. Wells run dry for reasons other than adjacent quarrying operations. How will it be determined that impacts to wells are caused by mining operations? 5 Thank you for considering these observations, questions and recommendations. Please contact me if you would like further information. Sin erely, Woodward S. Bousque Professor of Environmental Studies and Biology Coordinator, Environmental Studies Program cc: Mr. Karl Everett, O-N Minerals Chemstone Operation Mr. Chuck Maddox, Patton Harris Rust & Associates Ms. Heather Richards, Potomac Conservancy Ms. June Wilmot, Frederick County Planning Commission G'l TOWN OF MIDDLETOWN, VIRGINIA RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSED O-W MINERALS REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL TO EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING LAND USES. **************************************************************** WHEREAS, O-N Minerals (Chemstone) has filed an application in Frederick County to rezone 639 arreh from rural agricultural (RA) to extractive manufacturing (EM) uses on a site immediately west of the historic Town of Middletown, designated as the official Gateway to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical park; and WHEREAS, the Chemstone quarry site is adjacent to the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, recently named one of the ten most endangered Civil War battlefields in America, and clearly within the viewshed of historic Middletown; and WHEREAS, increased limestone mining at the Chemstone site will have significant negative environmental impacts on the greater Middletown area, notably increased air pollution emissions, pollution of groundwater supplies, and erosion of the historic and rural setting of the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park; and WHEREAS increased limestone mining is projected to create significant negative traffic and noise impacts, with up to 1,400 industrial vehicles traveling through the designated historic districtof Middletown each day, which amounts to nearly one truck per minute, 24-hours a day, seven days a week, and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning would permit other related heavy industries to locate on the site, such as cement or asphalt plant as has occurred on the Chemstone quarry site at Clearbrook in northern Frederick County, where two cement plants have opened n the past 18 months, i thadding to air pollution from small particulates; and WHEREAS, the 2005 Middletown Comprehensive Plan calls for retaining the community's character by more fully developing Main Street "with more shopping and eating establishments" and for "major t retaining Route 11 as a maJor arterial roadway" that is also "a historic, pedestrian -friendly Main Street", and WHEREAS the 2005 Middletown Comprehensive Plan seek�s to build ' ' economic resources Lord Fairfax Community upon the town' s major B Belle Grove Na�ional Historical Park, College, Cedar Creek and e e the Wayside Theater, the small-town character and the pedestrian - friendly environment; and WHEREAS, the 2005 Middletown Comprehensive Plan calls for the town and county to identify and develop economic opportunities that are unique to historic Middletown, including compatible commerce and light industry, in order to broaden the local tax base; and • • RESOLUTION — PAGE TWO WHEREAS, th., proposed rezoning o heavy industrial uses close to traffic, noise and dust impacts with the Town of Middletown' s community goals, f 639 _acres from agricultural to torn will generate air-, water, that are clearly not compatible economic development and other NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mayor- and Common Council for the Town of Mi.ddleto=, Virginia, that we hereby call on the Frederick county Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to deny in its current form the application for rezoning of the tO—N Minerals (Chemstone) site. Adopted this Sth day of May, 2006 c= EQT Patr icia. J. M it As, MC Clerk Martha H Ingram Council Member Marshall J. BrOwn Council Member John A. Copeland Council Member, Gene T. nicks Mayor•. Gerald D. Sinclair, Jr. Council Members Donald E. Breeden council. Member Mary L. Shull Council Member • • NI AY 2 2 2006 GM"BA 0 "From mountain top to mountain top..." April 5, 2006 Mr. Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Dear Mr. Ruddy and Members of the Planning Commission, The Greater Middletown Business Association would like to make the following comments concerning the Rezoning Application #03-06 for O-N Minerals (Chemstone). Middletown, population 1200, has no industry, with the exception of Rt. 11 Potato Chips, and looks to its few retail businesses as its sole source of business tax income. These businesses range from live theater, to restaurants, hotels/motels, antique shops and gas station/convenience stores. They derive the majority of their income from visitors to Middletown rather than the residents themselves. With that in mind, it is critical to their livelihood, and ultimately to Middletown itself, that the community continues to be a desirable destination for people to visit. The rezoning of RA properties immediately west of Middletown would spell economic disaster for our member businesses. By increasing the number of vehicle trips to 1308 per day, that would equate to nearly one vehicle, every minute of the day. The addition of these heavy, commercial vehicles will envelop our community in a constant background roar of traffic that, with just the current number of trucks, is already intrusive. With the increased noise pollution comes the added air pollution from this commercial traffic that even now deposits a gray layer of fine limestone particles and diesel soot on most exterior surfaces. Immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of Middletown lies our nation's newest national park, the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park, established in 2002. Tourists and Virginia residents alike come to the Shenandoah Valley to escape the urbanized development and congestion of their cities and to enjoy our clean air and open vistas. Thanks to the last 100 years of dedicated conservationists, politicians, and landowners, we today enjoy one of the most incredible historical and natural resources within the eastern United States. With that in mind, we ask that you deny this application. June Lingwood-Brown President The Greater Middletown Business Association P.O. Box 252 TAirlrllpfnA— tlirainia 77id5 April 5, 2006 Frederick County Planning Commission 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Dear Members of the Commission, In the 20 March 2006 Staff Report for the Planning Commission, the VDOT evaluation only addresses transportation impacts on an uninhabited 1 /4 mile stretch of rural Route 757. But, there is a far, far greater impact. According to data provided by Chemstone in their June 2005 Impact Analysis Statement, the expanded strip mining at their Middletown facility will generate a total of 1305 vehicle trips per day or nearly one per minute, 24 hours a day, six days a week, directly into the historic district of Middletown. Most of these trips will be made by 75 feet long, 80,000 pound, 450 horsepower diesel trucks. This continuous heavy duty industrial traffic will: • Increase the potential for damage to historic structures and viewscapes • Decrease the quality of life for our rural and town residents by harming the air quality and increasing noise pollution • Permanently harm any attempts by Middletown to generate income through tourism in southern Frederick County and adversely affect current businesses • Increase the potential for death or injury in our nation's newest national park and Middletown's residential areas A conveyor belt system to minimize traffic between the Strasburg & Middletown operations is referenced in the application. But, on 18 October, during a tour by Mr. Spencer C. Stinson, General Manager of O-N Minerals Chemstone Operation. Mr. Stinson admitted that this was in a conceptual stage only with no plans for implementation in the near future. What Chemstone does plan is to subject southern Frederick County to over 1300 times the level of pollution of normal, clean air. The Environmental Protection Agency has stated the type of heavy-duty vehicles transiting Middletown account for one- third of nitrogen oxides emissions and one -quarter of particulate matter emissions from mobile sources, and is likely to be carcinogenic to ' -. humans. Studies show a 26% increase in mortality in people living in soot -polluted communities and that 70 percent of the total cancer risk was due to diesel particulate exposure. Other problems include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, aggravation of existing asthma, acute respiratory symptoms, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function. The average truck produces 40 decibels of noise as it passes on the highway. But, in the confined historic district of Middletown, it has a totally different impact. Shifting through 12 forward gears as they accelerate from a standing stop at 5`h and Main Street, these vehicles are producing upwards of 90 decibels. What's the impact? According to Washington Hospital Center's Hearing and Speech Center, hearing loss for anyone continuously subjected to sounds of 80 decibels or higher. Even with walls packed with R19 insulation and modern doubled -paned windows, my wife and I cannot enjoy uninterrupted sleep — we're often roused throughout the night by this heavy industrial traffic. Other Middletown residents already complain of sleep loss at the current level of trips. The National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine reports that this lack of sleep increases the risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and heart attacks. 11 In rural southern Frederick County, overloaded limestone trucks are already using narrow, back roads to avoid the scales on Route 11 and I-81. This dangerous activity can only increase with the increased strip mining. Of interest, Chemstone has identified an additional crushing facility to be built on Chapel Road which was not part of the VDOT study. This will generate 100's of more trips directly into historic Middletown. I strongly urge you to recommend disapproval of this application. Sincerely, arshall J Town Co cil Town of Middletown 0 a MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 RE: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) RZ#03-06 Proffer Statement Revision Received April 18, 2008 DATE: April 18, 2008 Please find attached for your information a revised copy of the Proffer Statement for the O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Rezoning Application. This latest version of the Proffer Statement that was submitted by the Applicant arrived today, April 18, 2008. The Board's Agenda was compiled earlier in the week and distributed earlier today. Although this submission was not done in a timely fashion, we thought it important to provide you with this information; even though it is currently incomplete as it has not been signed and notarized by the Applicant, and does not contain a valid revision date. Staff has been in contact with Mr. Bob Mitchell who, along with staff, will provide an additional review of this information prior to your 04/23/08 meeting. It is extremely important to recognize that this latest Proffer Statement was not in your agenda, has not been reviewed by Staff, has not been reviewed by the County's Attorney, and has not been made available to the general public for their review prior to the Public Hearing at this time. The Staff report in your agenda is based upon the Proffer Statement that is in your agenda, not this latest submission. As noted previously, the revised proffer statement has not been executed, signed, and notarized by the Applicant at this time. Further, it does not contain a valid revision date. The Applicant has also provided a marked up version of the Proffer Statement which depicts the changes made to the Proffer Statement since the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial. Please note that this mark up does not identify which changes have been made to the Statement since the March 18, 2008 version. Please contact me if you have any questions. MTR/bad Attachments 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 2QQ8 LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C. APR 18 120 EXETER DRIVE, SUITE 200 POST OFFICE Box 2740 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 TELEPHONE: (540) 665-0050 FACSIMILE: (540) 722-4051 April 18, 2008 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street, 2H� Floor Winchester, VA 22601 TIIOMAS MOORE LAWSON • TLAWSON(a1,LSPLC.COM Re: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company Our File No. 462.006 REZ #03-06 VIA HAND -DELIVERY Dear Mike: As requested enclosed please find forty (40) clean revised proffer statements and forty (40) red -line proffer statements which reflect all of the changes to the proffers in the current revised state that have been made subsequent to the proffer statement which was presented to the Planning Commission. Please note that in paragraph 2 we have attached and incorporated the drawings which had previously been submitted and representations of the Generalized Development Plan. I believe you have already received approximately forty (40) copies of those in color for distribution to the Board Members. With all of this I believe you should have a complete package of all documentation. If after you have reviewed this you believe otherwise please contact me immediately so that we may provide you with all other information you believe is required. Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. 'l'ML:jk Enclosure cc: O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company FRONT ROYAL ADDRESS: POST OFFICE Box 602, FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630, TELEPHONE: (540) 635-9415, FACS151ILE: (540) 635-9421, E-MAIL: SILEKJ@LYNXCONNECT.COM FAIRFAX ADDRESS: 10805 MAIN STREET, SUITE 200, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030, TELEPHONE: (703) 352-2615, FACSnfILE: (703) 3524190, E-MAIL: THOMASO.LA\VSON rQQ VERIZON.NET 0 a Benefits of Middletown Mining Rezoning Alternative nfederate MorrungPositions ' Vw /Federal Morning Positions ne where Federals Regrouped - —N e *- /"'0: artherst Confederate Advance A/Custel's Flank Attack ederal Wth Corps Trenches �11�'.•� �,r7 '4 l'- /I I � //'•— / /! _ ,f - / "may - - Federal Camps;- q Edinburg Limestone > r ) of ' .F;•, i r- i 0 Lincolnshire Limestone New Market Llrre stone I - tir I yJ c.D.r treat .ne _ J , _ Ntllmsl nhtDntel O Mt (vJ ,% it ' x6//I • _ Fmdarkt C—tr, Virgin-• 1 .,, -`e(y +�� l �,' •-��,. - `�' Metale R.eouras is , � . , %�•,' 1---- . U ` ~ y s,' +C.'r't� a ww.w.rr•n., n,. / NFB I80].... A... V. DZbI N YIn•,.1 P....... a... Yp. U90876 1w •Y.n 12 � 6ArDeef an..rnP••� . Significant Mining Rights Retained: O-N Minerals facilities in Frederick County represent just 10 percent of the company's known limestone reserves. Combined with existing operations, limestone on Parcel 90 A 23 (southern portion of map) would support mining operations for at least 30 years. Historic Resources Preserved: The historic resources associated with the Battle of Cedar Creek are concentrated on Parcel 83 A 109 (northern portion of map). Historic resources on the southern parcel are already impacted visually by the existing limestone mining operation. Natural Resources Protected: Properly designed buffers on the southern parcel can greatly reduce, mitigate or eliminate the impacts on Cedar Creek and rare plant and animal species upland. Traffic, Dust, Noise Addressed: County staff recommendations would greatly reduce, mitigate or eliminate these impacts. WpFeM.re H w ® Bt (B..irroa.. R.-I D.oE D.hC) � MS R11- l Support Dl.hrd7 R E Z # 03 - 06 N �,�•�, � B2 (Buanesa, D.runl DRhgR � Rt (R.agentul, pMrIMC DammunNy DatrRt) •• A,w•wn.. . B3(Buage.a,1--tTr.n.—D—) ♦ RS(R.agehh.IR.d.ahoh.IDommuhityDwh Y) ON Minerals (Chemstone ) ReN C.nbram. EM (Egndrva MamRadurmp path) Q RA (Rural Naaa D—) .,, N • HE (Mqh., EEuotgh patrld) O RPIR--i P.rtmmaza Da ) ( 83 - A -109, 90 - A - 23 ) Or•�.e• ^r *I• Mt (Irquatrul, LqM D—) O my Moor. M2 (Iiqu.lrl.1. —1.1 DI.—) a �l D 75 1 500 3. D00 MH1 (-1. Home Gammon" D.—) Feel , CEBE Land Status •-a�w acwrcv 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Klloma0ors 022006 CEBE Land Status 0 025 0.5 1 1.5 2 h�unwwr_ 027006 1 O-N MINERALS • 0 CHEMSTONE OPERATION 1696 ORANDA ROAD PO BOX 71 O- N r I N 6 w A L S STRASBURG, VA 22657 TEL 540-465.5161 FAX 540-465-5150 www.ogleboynorton.com August 15, 2006 Gary A. and Priscilla L. Lofton 711 Buffalo Marsh Rd Middletown, VA 22645 Dear Neighbor: There have been a lot of concerns about the Middletown Quarry's planned rezoning. We received a lot of comments at the public hearing, and we intend to answer every one of them with new proffers. As a nearby neighbor of the quarry, these new proffers will give you specific legal rights, such as an unconditional guarantee of your well water. I'd like to invite you to meet with us in the Senseney Room at The Wayside Inn to discuss these guarantees and answer your questions about our plans. We will be holding three of these meetings during the last two weeks of August. You are free to attend whichever meeting is most convenient for you. Whether you are a new neighbor or have lived next to the quarry for years, you will want to attend one of these meetings. Among the new proffers we will present include limits on truck traffic, well and water guarantees, and blasting guarantees. We also intend to proffer out uses within the E-M zoning that are not connected with the current quarry operation, such as cement kilns or asphalt plants. You will also have a chance to ask questions about the use of the quarry by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, sightlines from various properties, and the phasing of quarry operations. I'd like to reassure everyone that the pace of quarry operations will not change at Middletown. We are merely following the same limestone vein that we have followed for the past 50 years, with the same people, at the same pace. A lot has been written about limestone lately. For those of you who are not familiar with it, it is a very safe and environmentally friendly material, and the vein at Middletown is one of the purest in the country. We've scheduled three dates in the Senseney Room at The Wayside Inn: Wednesday, August 23, Monday, August 28, and Wednesday, August 30. Attend whichever meeting is convenient, or come to all three. The meetings will start at 6 p.m. with snacks, dessert and coffee. We'll have a short presentation at 6:30, followed by a question and answer session. We'll be there as long as you need us. If you have any questions, please call us at (540) 465-6807. I look forward to seeing you at The Wayside Inn. Sincerely, (21 Spencer C. Stinson General Manager O-N Minerals Chemstone Operation • �re6er�e �re�ercclG August 31, 2007 Mr. John Riley Frederick County Administrator 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Riley, P.O. Box 562 Middletown, VA 22645 preservefrederick@yahoo.com www.preservefrederick.org I want to thank you, Mr. Ruddy and Mr. Lawrence for meeting with Anne and me today regarding the #03-06 O-N Minerals (Chemstone) application. We appreciate you reviewing our proposal and offering input on how to proceed. We have sent a certified/registered letter this afternoon to the CEO, CFO and Senior Vice President of Operations of Olgebay Norton in Cleveland. We requested that we receive a response.by September 17a'. We are also sending copies of the letter and proposal to you, the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Ruddy, Mr. Lawrence and the Preserve Frederick Board of Directors. We will call you as soon as we get a response from Olgebay Norton. If you have any questions regarding this proposal or anything else, please feel free to contact me at 540-869-5024 or you can email me at wihmadd84 a,aol.coin. Sincerely, Wendy Hamilton CC. Eric Lawrence, Frederick County Director of Planning Michael Ruddy, Frederick County Deputy Planning Director Preserve Frederick promotes compatible development that strengtheru our communities, protects our historic and natural resources, and preserves the rural character of Frederick County, Virginia l__J 0 /,:-a . ; - - September 4, 2007 Chairman Richard Shickle 292 Greenspring Road Winchester, VA 22603 Dear Chairman Shickle, P.O. Box 562 Middletown, VA 22645 preservef rederick@yahoo.com www.preservefrederick.org In an effort to bring resolution to O-N Minerals' (Chemstone) rezoning request #03-06, Preserve Frederick has taken the initiative to come up with an alternative plan to the application submitted to Planning in 2006. Preserve Frederick has studied the application to rezone 639 rural agricultural acres to extractive manufacturing in Middletown and developed a plan that would allow mining to continue while protecting valuable and sensitive environmental, historical and economic assets of historic Middletown, Cedar Creek and Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park. We presented this proposal to the Preserve Frederick Board of Directors, National Park Service, Potomac Conservancy, Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, Greater Middletown Business Association, Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation and the core group of dedicated volunteers who have been working with Preserve Frederick since late March 2006. All of these partners have given us their "blessing" to move forward with this alternative solution. On Friday, August 31, 2007, we met with County Administrator John Riley, Planning Director Eric Lawrence and Planning Deputy Michael Ruddy to present our plan. They encouraged us to forward this information to Oglebay Norton's corporate office. Enclosed you will find Preserve Frederick's letter to Michael Minkel, Senior Vice -President of Operations for Oglebay Norton, an outline of reasonable alternatives to O-N Minerals' (Chemstone) application, a map of the alternative Middletown mining rezoning, an evaluation of the benefits of the alternative plan, and the 2006 HRAB letter to O-N Minerals from Candace Perkins, Frederick County Planner. We requested a response to our letter by September 17, 2007. It has been 15 months since the Planning Commission recommended a denial of the O-N Minerals' (Chemstone) application. Residents and business owners in Middletown and southernFrederick County are interested in a resolution on this issue. We hope that you will review these documents and support the citizens and key stakeholders who have worked so diligently on this issue. Very truly yours, Wendy Hamilton President Preserve Fnedvzck promotes compatible development that strengthens our communities, protects our historic and natural resources, and preserves the rural character of Fredo*k County, Virginia, • Pl-esel-ve, irre,r� August 31, 2007 Mr. Michael J. Minkel Senior Vice President, Operations Oglebay Norton Company 1001 Lakeside Avenue, 15'' Floor Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Minkel, P.O. Box 562 Middletown, VA 22645 preservefrederick@yahoo.com www.preservefrederick.org I am writing on behalf of concerned citizens in southern Frederick County, Virginia, regarding your company's (O-N Minerals — Chemstone) pending application for a rezoning of 639 acres near Middletown from agricultural to extractive manufacturing uses. The rezoning was denied on June 7, 2006 by the Frederick County Planning Commission and is pending before the County Board of Supervisors. More than 14 months ago, company officials agreed to amend the application to address concerns raised by the planners and residents about the scope and scale of the rezoning and the potential impacts of greatly expanded mining and other industrial uses at that location. To encourage resolution of the rezoning issue, Preserve Frederick, a non-profit local citizens group, offers the attached alternative plan for your consideration. This alternative rezoning plan was designed to accomplish four goals: • Significant mining rights are retained. • Historic resources are preserved. • Natural resources are protected. • Traffic, dust and noise problems are addressed. Our local elected officials and county staff have encouraged Preserve Frederick to send you this alternative plan. It was well -received by all of the major stakeholders affected by the rezoning, including adjacent landowners, battlefield preservation groups and the National Park Service, and the Greater Middletown Business Association. We believe it balances the needs of your company with those of the community. For this reason, we are unlikely to be able to gain local support for any major changes to the attached alternative rezoning plan. We ask that you please review this alternative plan and the attached letter of county recommendations dated January 3, 2006 from planner Candice E. Perkins and respond to Preserve Frederick by September 17, 2007. P%reeve Frederick promotes compatible development that strengthens our communities, protects our historic and natural mrourcer, and preserves the rural character of Fredeiirk County, Virginia. Specifically, please let us know 1) If your company is willing to amend the rezoning application to reflect the terms in this alternative plan or 2) If your company finds the alternative plan an unacceptable option for the property. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to working with you and your company to end the long delay in resolving the Middletown mining rezoning. Sincerely, Wendy Hamilton President CC. Michael D. Lundin, President and Chief Executive Officer, Oglebay Norton Julie A. Boland, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer, Oglebay Norton Frederick County Board of Supervisors John Riley, Frederick County Administrator Eric Lawrence, Frederick County Director of Planning Michael Ruddy, Frederick County Deputy Planning Director Preserve Frederick Board of Directors Alternative: Middletown Mining Rezoning Alternative to the O-N Minerals rezoning application for 639 acres near Middletown: rezone only Parcel 90-A-23 from agriculture to extractive manufacturing, subject to following restrictions: • Restrict limestone mining to "Disturbance Area" marked on map above. • Extinguish all other land uses permitted in the extractive manufacturing zoning category. • Preserve buffers on Cedar Creek and adjoining landowners, with no soil or other disturbance within the buffer. • Implement a soil erosion control plan on dirt mounds created by mining. • Adopt the recommendations for control of traffic, dust, noise and visual impacts contained in the Frederick County Planning Department review of the O-N Minerals rezoning application. • Withdraw application to rezone Parcel 83-A-109. • Benefits of iddletown Mining Rezoning Alternative Significant Mining Rights Retained: O-N Minerals facilities in Frederick County represent just 10 percent of the company's known limestone reserves. Combined with existing operations, limestone on Parcel 90 A 23 (southern portion of map) would support mining operations for at least 30 years. Historic Resources Preserved: The historic resources associated with the Battle of Cedar Creek are concentrated on Parcel 83 A 109 (northern portion of map). Historic resources on the southern parcel are already impacted visually by the existing limestone mining operation. Natural Resources Protected: Properly designed buffers on the southern parcel can greatly reduce, mitigate or eliminate the impacts on Cedar Creek and rare plant and animal species upland. Traffic, Dust, Noise Addressed: County staff recommendations would greatly reduce, mitigate or eliminate these impacts. Alternatives to O-N Minerals A ELIMINATE FROM APPLICATION • All of Parcel # 83-A-109 • All other uses in Extractive Manufacturing Zoning ADDITIONS TO REZONED PARCEL #90-A-23 • Large buffers on Cedar Creek and neighbors • No disturbance in buffers • Soil erosion plan in mining area • A biological study on an environmentally sensitive area • All requested proffers in 1-03-06 Historic Resources Advisory Board letter written by Candace Perkins to O-N. (See letter) Patton Harris & Associates Engineers Sulveyols Plann-rs. landscape Architects. 0 I May 26, 2006 Mr. Uric Lawrence Director of Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: O-N Minerals Chemstone Rezoning Application Dear Mr. Lawrence: At their April 5, 2006 meeting, the Frederick County Planning Commission voted to table the rezoning application for O-N Minerals Chemstone for a period of 60 days. While the application, in its current form, is consistent with the requirements of Frederick County in order to proceed with the rezoning process, we would CORPORATE: respectfully ask to postpone the public hearing date for an additional 30 days in Chantilly order to provide additional information that will aid both the Frederick County VIRGINIA OFFICES: Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in the decision making process. Bridgewater Chantilly Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Charlottesville Fredericksburg Leesburg Newport News Sincerely, Virginia Beach Winchester Patton Harris Rust & Associates Woodbridge LABORATORIES: Chantilly -< Fredericksburg Patrick R. Sowers MARYLAND OFFICES: Baltimore PRS Columbia Frederick cc: Spencer Stinson Germantown Hollywood PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: Allentown WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE: Martinsburg T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 117 East Piccadilly Street P:\Planning\Re.ZoningAppk'cationAlwdenck County\ Global -Middletox)A13os05oneLater 052606.doc Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 (r • E COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC MEETING May 15, 2008 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #03-06 FOR O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public meeting being held on Wednesday, May 28, 2008, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #03-06 of O-N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west of I-Iites Road (Route 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The properties are in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 83-A-109 and 90-A-23. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify t t the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on ha S-- f 0 � from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 83 - A- -109- 0-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY PO BOX 71 STRASBURG VA. 22657-0071 Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 84 -6- - 10- MCNEELY KEITH A & LINDA A 443 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2074 84 -6- - 9- SANTMYERS JAMES A SANTMYERS SHARON D 411 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2074 84 -6- - 8- POTTER FRED & SHIRLEY 379 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2073 84 -6- - 7- MILLER STEVEN M & DEBORAH M 357 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2073 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK /J I, Lz a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do Aereby certify that Mi , ael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Planning/ and /Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated /� has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my 84 - 6- . 6- HOPKINS DONALD J & DONNA W 325 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2073 B4 - 6- - 5- HAMILTON LAWRENCE E & WENDY J 277 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2072 84 -6- - 4- RAPAJEANNE & SELLARDS SHELLIE L 241 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2072 84 -6- - 3- BARRINGTON KEVIN D & ELIZABETH M 205 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2072 84 - 4- - 7- RENNER RUTH H 7036 VALLEY PIKE MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.1710 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Planning Department State end County aforesaid. Given under my hand this �l"�/� day of My commission expires on - A-6 �)- BEVERLY H. DELLINGER NOTARY ID # 331878 NOTARY PUBLIC COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION KXPIRES JULY 31, 2011 [*" 00 L , AMW I -'- -.- - - - I I /d, �'z !/- /ice � W, i I �-Z' NOTARY P LIC U Vr 84 - A- - 12- DYE RICHARD A. & JANET S., 11310 VALE RD OAKTON VA. 22'124.1301 84 - A- - 17- H&ELC 1832 CHAPEL RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.1810 84 - A- - 17-A HOEMMEN WILLIAM J HOEMMEN MELYNDA A 1875 HITES RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2083 91 - A- - 7- RENNER EDITH M. 152 VETERANS RD MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645-1816 84 - A- - 16- GARRETT FARMS LLC CIO MARY C GARRETT 508 VETERANS RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.1822 91 - A- - 7-A RICKMAN TIMOTHY D. & LISA M. RR 1 BOX 695 SWORDS CREEK VA 24649.9744 83 - A- - 107- BOYER CARLTON R 156 N EBERLY ST STRASBURG VA 22657.2629 83 - A- - 108- BOYER DENNIS F. 165 DROVER LN MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2038 83 - A- - 106- BOWMAN THOMAS A BOWMAN DORA A 1115 CHAPEL RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645 83 - A- - 103-B TERRELL JOANNE HICKEY 190 NEWELL DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2088 90 - A- - 20- GARRETT FARMS LLC CIO MARY C GARRETT 508 VETERANS RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.1822 Chris Boies, Director of Planning & Zoning Shenandoah County 600 N. Main St., Ste. 107 Woodstock, VA 22664 90 - 30- W EL PA.rRICIA A 470 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645.1932 90 - A- - 29- MEADOW MILLS UNION CHAPEL RR 1 BOX 446 EDINBURG VA. 22824.9801 90 - A- - 29-A KENNEY JOSEPH L & FRANCES 516 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.1934 90 - A- - 28- LEKAS THOMAS G II & CORNELIA E 536 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645.1934 90 - A- - 27- HODSON ALBERT H. 536 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645.1934 90 - A- - 33- NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERV 1785 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON DC 20036.2117 90 - A- - 26- BRUMBACK MALCOLM & MILDRED G. CIO BRUMBACK MALCOLM 420 BELLE GROVE RD MIDDLETOWN VIRGINIA 22645.1924 90 - A- - 25. BOWSER BARRY LEE PO BOX 221 MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645.0221 90 - A. - 24. MIDDLETOWN HUNT CLUB INC. PO BOX 121 MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645.0121 90 - A- - 32. NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC 748 JACKSON PL NW WASHINGTON D.C. 20006.4912 84.6.-2• HUNTER WILLIAM & LAURIE 151 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2077 84 -6- - 1. WANANT SOMPANDH WANANT WANIDA 4834 GAINSBOROUGH DR FAIRFAX VA 22032.2312 M COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING April 9, 2008 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #03-06 FOR O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, April 23, 2008, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 903-06 of O-N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west of Hites Road (Route 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The properties are in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 83-A-109 and 90-A-23. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 This is to certify thatj th(e/ attached correspondence was mailed to the following on 'ING� from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 84 -6• - 6- 83 - A- - 109- HOPKINS DONALD J & DONNA W 0-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY 325 WESTERNVIEW DR PO BOX 71 MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2073 STRASBURG VA. 22657.0071 84 -6- - 5- HAMILTON LAWRENCE E & WENDY J Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 84 -6- - 10- MCNEELY KEITH A & LINDA A 443 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645-2074 84 -6- - 9- SANTMYERS JAMES A SANTMYERS SHARON D 411 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2074 84 -6- - 8- POTTER FRED & SHIRLEY 379 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2073 84 -6- - 7- MILLER STEVEN M & DEBORAH M 357 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2073 277 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2072 84 -6- - 4- RAPA JEANNE & SELLARDS SHELLIE L 241 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2072 84 -6- - 3- BARRINGTON KEVIN D & ELIZABETH M 205 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2072 Planning tor Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy P g Director Frederick County Planning Department STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK la Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do h y certify t at Mich 1 T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Planni g an Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated O , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. r/ Given under my hand this day of Li/11) My commission expires on�+/4 31,ao ff Chris Boies, Director of Planning & Zoning Shenandoah County 600 N. Main St., Ste. 107 Woodstock, VA 22664 BEVERLYH. DELLINGER NOTARY 0 # 331878 NOTARY PUBLIC COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 31, 2011 NOTAR PUBLIC f? OF 84 - 4- • 7- RENNER RUTH H 7036 VALLEY PIKE MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.1710 84 - A- - 12- DYE RICHARD A. & JANET S. 11310 VALE RD OAKTON VA. 22124-1301 84 - A- - 17- H&ELC 1832 CHAPEL RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.1810 84 - A- - 17-A HOEMMEN WILLIAM J HOEMMEN MELYNDA A 1875 HITES RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2083 91 - A- - 7- RENNER EDITH M. 152 VETERANS RD MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645.1816 84 - A- - 16- GARRETT FARMS LLC CIO MARY C GARRETT 508VETERANS RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22.645.1822 91 - A- - 7-A RICKMAN TIMOTHY D. & LISA M. RR 1 BOX 695 SWORDS CREEK VA 24649.9744 83 - A- - 107- BOYER CARLTON R 156 N EBERLY ST STRASBURG VA 22657.2629 83 - A- - 108- BOYER DENNIS F. 165 DROVER LN MIDDLETOWN VA 22645-2038 83 - A- - 106- BOWMAN THOMAS A BOWMAN DORA A 1115 CHAPEL RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645 21645.2088 22645.1822 90 A• • 30- � iZEL PATRICIA A 4; � EADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645.1932 90 • A- - 29- MEADOW MILLS UNION CHAPEL RR 1 BOX 446 EDINBURG VA. 22824.9801 90 - A- • 29-A KENNEY JOSEPH L &PRANCES 516 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.1934 90 - A- - 28- LEKAS THOMAS G II & CORNEI.IA E 536 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645.1934 90 - A- - 21- HODSON ALBERT H. 536 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645.1934 90 • A- • 33- NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERV 1785 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON DC 20036.2117 90 - A- - 26- BRUMBACK MALCOLM & MILDRED G. C/0 BRUMBACK MALCOLM 420 BELLE GROVE RD MIDDLETOWN VIRGINIA 22645.1924 90 - A- - 25- BOWSER BARRY LEE PO BOX 221 MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645.0221 90 - A- - 2.4- MIDDLETOWN HUNT CLUB INC. PO BOX 121 MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645.0121 90 - A. • 32• NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC 748 JACKSON PL NW WASHINGTON D.C. 20006.4912 84 •6• • 2• HUNTER WILLIAM & LAURIE 151 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2017 84 •6- • I. WANANT SOMPANDH WANANT WANIDA 4834 GAINSBOROUGH DR FAIRFAX VA 22032.2312 • • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING May 26, 2006 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #03-06 FOR O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) This notification is to clarify that the Frederick County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, June 7, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #03-06 of O-N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west of Hites Road (Route 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The properties are in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 83-A-109 and 90-A-23. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • 0 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 83 - A- - 109- 0-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY PO BOX 71 STRASBURG, VA. 22657-0071 Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC Attn: Charles Maddox 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 84 -6- - 10. MCNEELY, KEITH A & LINDA A 443 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645-2074 84 -6- - 9- SANTMYERS, JAMES A SANTMYERS, SHARON D 411 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2074 84 -6- - 8- POTTER, FRED & SHIRLEY 379 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2073 84 -6- - 7- MILLER, STEVEN M & DEBORAH M 357 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645-2073 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK 84 -6- - 6- HOPKINS, DONALD J & DONNA W 325 WESTERNVIEW OR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2073 84 -6- - 5- HAMILTON, LAWRENCE E & WENDY J 277 WESTERNVIEW OR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2072 84 -6- - 4- RAPA,JEANNE & SELLARDS, SHELLIE L 241 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2072 84 -6- - 3- BARRINGTON, KEVIN D & ELIZABETH M 205 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2072 84 - A- - 7- NICHOLS, GARY S & DALE A 1405 HANDLEY AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22601.3746 J Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning D' ,ctor Frederick County Planning Departme It I, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do dreby certify that Mi ael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Planni ig nd Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated /;/t)/, , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my Stat and ounty aforesaid. Given under my hand this day of o2 00 My commission expires on� NOTARY P LIC 84 - A- - 12- DYE, RICHARD A. & JANET 11310 VALE RD OAKTON, VA. 22124-1301 84 - A- - 17- H&E, LC 1832 CHAPEL RD MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.1810 84 - A- - 17-A NICHOLS, JENNIFER L 1875 HITES RD MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2083 91 -A- - 7- RENNER, EDITH M. 152 VETERANS RD MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645.1816 84 - A- - 16- GARRETT FARMS, LLC CIO MARY C GARRETT 508 VETERANS RD MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.1822 91 - A- - 7-A RICKMAN, TIMOTHY D. & LISA M. RR 1 BOX 695 SWORDS CREEK, VA 24649.9744 83 - A- - 107- BOYER, CARLTON R 156 N EBERLY ST STRASBURG, VA 22657-2629 83 - A- - 108- BOYER, DENNIS F. 165 DROVER LN MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2038 83 - A- - 106- DORMAN, DEBORAH R 9345 RIVER VIEW RD BROOMES ISLAND, MD 20615.3048 83 - A- - 103-B ROCK BUILDERS, INC PO BOX 1146 BERRYVILLE, VA 22611.8146 90 - A- - 30- MCDONALD, RICHARD A. 470 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645.1932 90 - A- - 29- MEADOW MILLS UNION CHAPEL RR 1 BOX 446 EDINBURG, VA. 22824-9801 �A- - 29-A 4EY, JOSEPH L & FRANCES 516 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645-1934 90 - A- - 28- LEKAS, THOMAS G II & CORNELIA E 536 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645.1934 90 - A- - 27. HODSON, ALBERT H. 536 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645.1934 90 - A- - 33- NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERV 1785 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20036.2117 90 - A- - 26. BRUMBACK, MALCOLM & MILDRED G. CIO BRUMBACK, MALCOLM 420 BELLE GROVE RD MIDDLETOWN, VIRGINIA 22645-1924 90 - A- - 25. BOWSER, BARRY LEE PO BOX 221 MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645.0221 90 - A- - 24. MIDDLETOWN HUNT CLUB, INC. PO BOX 121 MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645.0121 90 - A- - 32. NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC 748 JACKSON PL NW WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-4912 84 - 6- - 2. HUNTER, WILLIAM & LAURIE 151 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2077 84 - 6. - I- LANTZ, RON L & ROSANNA D 115 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645-2077 Chris Boies, Director of Planning & Zoning Shenandoah County 600 N. Main St., Ste. 107 Woodstock, VA 22664 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX:540/665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING May 24, 2006 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #03-06 FOR O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, June 7, 2006, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #03-06 of O-N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west of Hites Road (Route 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The properties are in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 83-A-109 and 90-A-23. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 83 - A- - 109- 0-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY PO BOX 71 STRASBURG, VA. 22657.0071 Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC Attn: Charles Maddox 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 84 -6- - 10- MCNEELY, KEITH A & LINDA A 443 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2074 84 -6- - 9- SANTMYERS, JAMES A SANTMYERS, SHARON D 411 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645-2074 84 -6- - 8- POTTER, FRED & SHIRLEY 379 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2073 84 -6- - 7- MILLER, STEVEN M & DEBORAH M 84 -6- - 6- HOPKINS, DONALD J & DONNA W 325 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2073 84 -6- - 5- HAMILTON, LAWRENCE E & WENDY J 277 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2072 84 -6- - 4. RAPA,JEANNE & SELLARDS, SHELLIE L 241 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2D77 84 -6- - 3- BARRINGTON, KEVIN D & ELIZABETH M 205 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2072 84 - A- - 7- NICHOLS, GARY S & DALE A 1405 HANDLEY AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22601.3746 357 WESTERNVIEW DR Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2073 Frederick County Planning Department STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certi fy that Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this day of My commission expires on NOTARY PUBLIC 84 - A- - 12- DYE, RICHARD A. & JANET S.0 11310 VALE RD OAKTON, VA. 22124.1301 84 - A- - 17- H&E, LC 1832 CHAPEL RD MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.1810 84 - A- - 17-A NICHOLS, JENNIFER L 1875 HITES RD MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645-2083 91 - A- - 7. RENNER, EDITH M, 152 VETERANS RD MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645-1816 84 - A- - 16- GARRETT FARMS, LLC CIO MARY C GARRETT 508 VETERANS RD MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.1822 91 - A- - 7-A RICKMAN, TIMOTHY D. & LISA M. RR 1 BOX 695 SWORDS CREEK, VA 24649.9744 B3 - A- - 107- BOYER, CARLTON R 156 N EBERLY ST STRASBURG, VA 22657.2629 83 - A- - 108- BOYER, DENNIS F. 165 DROVER LN MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2038 B3 - A- - 106- DORMAN, DEBORAH R 9345 RIVER VIEW RD BROOMES ISLAND, MD 20615.3048 83 - A- - 103-B ROCK BUILDERS, INC PO BOX 1146 BERRYVILLE, VA 22611-8146 90 - A- - 30- MCDONALD, RICHARD A. 470 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645.1932 90 - A- - 29- MEADOW MILLS UNION CHAPEL RR 1 BOX 446 EDINBURG, VA. 22824.9801 W9 A- - 29-A ul JOSEPH L & FRANCES 516 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.1934 90 - A- - 28- LEKAS, THOMAS G II & CORNELIA E 536 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645.1934 90 - A- - 27- HODSON, ALBERT H. 536 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645.1934 90 - A- - 33- NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERV 1785 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20036-2117 90 - A- - 26- BRUMBACK, MALCOLM & MILDRED G. CIO BRUMBACK, MALCOLM 420 BELLE GROVE RD MIDDLETOWN, VIRGINIA 22645.1924 90 - A- - 25- BOWSER, BARRY LEE PO BOX 221 MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645.0221 90 - A- - 24- MIDDLETOWN HUNT CLUB, INC. PO BOX 121 MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645.0121 90 - A- - 32- NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC 748 JACKSON PL NW WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-4912 84 - 6- - 2- HUNTER, WILLIAM & LAURIE 151 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2077 84 -6- - 1- LANTZ, RON L & ROSANNA D 115 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2077 Chris Boies, Director of Planning & Zoning Shenandoah County 600 N. Main St., Ste. 107 Woodstock, VA 22664 0 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX:540/665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING March 22, 2006 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RP: REZONING APPLICATION #03-06 FOR O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, April 5, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #03-06 of O-N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west of Hites Road (Route 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The properties are in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 83-A-109 and 90-A-23. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director ►I�[-10i11 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on Z from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, irgini s4 s s 83 - A- - 109- 0-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY PO BOX 71 STRASBURG, VA. 22657.0071 Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC Attn: Charles Maddox 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 84 -6- - 10- MCNEELY, KEITH A & LINDA A 443 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645-2074 84 -6- - 9- SANTMYERS, JAMES A SANTMYERS, SHARON D 411 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2074 84 -6- - 8- POTTER, FRED & SHIRLEY 379 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645-2073 84 -6- - 7- MILLER, STEVEN M & DEBORAH M 357 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645-2073 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK - HOPKINS, DONALD J & DONNA W 325 WESTERNVIEW OR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2073 84 -6- - 5- HAMILTON, LAWRENCE E & WENDY J 277 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2072 84 -6- - 4- RAPA,JEANNE & SELLARDS, SHELLIE L 241 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2072 84 -6- - 3- BARRINGTON, KEVIN D & ELIZABETH M 205 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645-2072 84 - A- - 7- NICHOLS, GARY S & DALE A 1405 HANDLEY AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22601-3746 Lam(%-77 f LGe-G�6- Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Planning Department I y =je&g,� 4' / , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do &reby certify that NWchael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Pl:m • g nd Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this jL.Gk day of c-PL�C I My connnission expires on 11a, �Q NOTARY BLIC 0U15k 84 - A- - 12- DYE, RICHARD A. & JANET S. qp 11310 VALE RD OAKTON, VA. 22124.1301 84 - A- - 17- H&E, LC 1832 CHAPEL RD MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645-1810 84 - A- - 17-A NICHOLS, JENNIFER L 1875 HITES RD MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2083 91 -A- - 7- RENNER, EDITH M. 152VETERANS RD MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645.1816 84 - A- - 16- GARRETT FARMS, LLC C/O MARY C GARRETT 508VETERANS RD MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.1822 91 - A- - 7-A RICKMAN, TIMOTHY D. & LISA M. RR 1 BOX 695 SWORDS CREEK, VA 24649.9744 83 - A- - 107- BOYER, CARLTON R 156 N EBERLY ST STRASBURG, VA 22657.2629 83 - A- - 108- BOYER, DENNIS F. 165 DROVER LN MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2038 83 - A- - 106- DORMAN, DEBORAH R 9345 RIVER VIEW RD BROOMES ISLAND, MD 20615.3048 83 - A- - 103-B ROCK BUILDERS, INC PO BOX 1146 BERRYVILLE, VA 22611-8146 90 - A- - 30- MCDONALD, RICHARD A. 470 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645.1932 90 - A- - 29- MEADOW MILLS UNION CHAPEL RR 1 BOX 446 EDINBURG, VA. 22824.9801 90 - 29-A K*, JOSEPH L & FRANCES 516 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.1934 90 - A- - 28- LEKAS, THOMAS G II & CORNELIA E 536 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645.1934 90 - A. - 27- HODSON, ALBERT H. 536 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645-1934 90 - A. - 33- NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERV 1185 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20036.2117 90 - A- - 26. BRUMBACK, MALCOLM & MILDRED G. C/O BRUMBACK, MALCOLM 420 BELLE GROVE RD MIDDLETOWN, VIRGINIA 22645.1924 90 - A- - 25. BOWSER, BARRY LEE PO BOX 221 MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645-0221 90 - A- - 24. MIDDLETOWN HUNT CLUB, INC. PO BOX 121 MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645.0121 90 - A- - 32- NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC 748 JACKSON PL NW WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006.4912 84 - 6- - 2- HUNTER, WILLIAM & LAURIE 151 WESTERNVIEW OR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2077 84 -6- - 1- LANTZ, RON L & ROSANNA D 115 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.2077 Chi -is Boies, Director of Planning & Zoning Shenandoah County 600 N. Main St., Ste. 107 Woodstock, VA 22664 Easy Peel labels A, Use Avery @ TEMPLATE 5161© Feed Raper 83 - A- - 109- 0 0-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY PO BOX 71 STRASBURG VA. 22657-0071 90 - A- - 23- 0-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY PO BOX 71 STRASBURG VA. 22657-0071 84 -6- - 10- MCNEELY KEITH A & LINDA A 443 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2074 84 -6- - 9- SANTMYERS JAMES A SANTMYERS SHARON D 411 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645-2074 84 -6- - 8- POTTER FRED & SHIRLEY 379 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2073 84 -6- - 7- MILLER STEVEN M & DEBORAH M 357 WESTERNVIEW OR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2073 84 -6- - 6- HOPKINS DONALD J & DONNA W 325 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645-2073 84 -6- - 5- HAMILTON LAWRENCE E & WENDY J 277 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2072 84 -6- - 4- RAPA JEANNE & SELLARDS SHELLIE L 241 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2072 84 -6- - 3- BARRINGTON KEVIN D & ELIZABETH M 205 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645-2072 see Instruction Sheat for Easy Peel Feature 83 - A- - 109- 0-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY PO BOX 71 STRASBURG VA. 22657.0071 90 - A- - 23- 0-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) COMPANY PO BOX 71 STRASBURG VA. 22657-0071 84 -6- - 10- MCNEELY KEITH A & LINDA A 443 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645-2074 84 -6- - 9- SANTMYERS JAMES A SANTMYERS SHARON D 411 WESTERNVIEW OR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2074 84 -6- - 8- POTTER FRED & SHIRLEY 379 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2073 84 -6- - 7- MILLER STEVEN M & DEBORAH M 357 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2073 84 -6- - 6- HOPKINS DONALD J & DONNA W 325 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2073 84 -6- - 5- HAMILTON LAWRENCE E & WENDY J 277 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645-2072 84 -6- - 4- RAPA JEANNE & SELLARDS SHELLIE L 241 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2072 84 -6- - 3- BARRINGTON KEVIN D & ELIZABETH M 205 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2072 tilquottos faeiles A peler afl Litillser le rlabarit AVERY0 5.1610 Sens de c hargement ConsulfiM la •feuille vvvuvv.avery.eom d'instruction 'I-800-GO-AVEIIY Easy Peel Labels ^n Use Avery" TEIVIPLATE 51610 teed Paper 84 - A- - 7- 0 NICHOLS GARY S & DALE A 216 MARSH BROOK LN MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.20 84 - A- - 12- DYE RICHARD A. & JANET S. 11310 VALE RD OAKTON VA. 22124.1301 C L LJ9 See Instruction Sheet -for Easy Feel Feature 84 - A- - 7- NICHOLS GARY S & DALE A 216 MARSH BROOK LN MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2085 84 - A- - 12- DYE RICHARD A. & JANET S. 11310 VALE RD OAKTON VA. 22124.1301 84 - A- - 17- 84 - A- - 17- H&ELC H&ELC 1832 CHAPEL RD 1832 CHAPEL RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.1810 MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.1810 91 -A- - 7- 91 - A- - 7- RENNER EDITH M. RENNER EDITH M. 152 VETERANS RD 152 VETERANS RD MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645-1816 MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645-1816 84 - A- - 16- 84 - A- - 16- GARRETT FARMS LLC GARRETT FARMS LLC CIO MARY C GARRETT CIO MARY C GARRETT 508 VETERANS RD 508 VETERANS RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.1822 MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.1822 91 - A- - 7-A 91 - A- - 7-A RICKMAN TIMOTHY D. & LISA M. RICKMAN TIMOTHY D. & LISA M. RR 1 BOX 695 RR 1 BOX 695 SWORDS CREEK VA 24649.9744 SWORDS CREEK VA 24649.9744 83 - A- - 107- 83 - A- - 107- BOYER CARLTON R BOYER CARLTON R 156 N EBERLY ST 156 N EBERLY ST STRASBURG VA 22657.2629 STRASBURG VA 22657.2629 83 - A- - 108- 83 - A- - 108- BOYER DENNIS F. BOYER DENNIS F. 165 DROVER LN 165 DROVER LN MIDDLETOWN VA 22645-2038 MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2038 83 - A- - 106- 83 - A- - 106- BOWMAN THOMAS A BOWMAN THOMAS A BOWMAN DORA A BOWMAN DORA A 1115 CHAPEL RD 1115 CHAPEL RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645 MIDDLETOWN VA 22645 83 - A- - 103-B 83 - A- - 103-B TERRELL JOANNE HICKEY TERRELL JOANNE HICKEY 190 NEWELL OR 190 NEWELL DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645-2088 MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2088 Nquetxmes faciies A peler 611 Utilisez le gabarit AVER110 51610') Sens de diargement Consultez is reuille d'instrudion vvvwv.avery.eorn 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel Labels Use Averyn TEMPLArl 51610 90 - A- - 30- WHETZEL PATRICIA A 470 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN VA. A\ Feed 0'aper 22645-1932 90 - A- - 29- MEADOW MILLS UNION CHAPEL RR 1 BOX 446 EDINBURG VA. 22824.9801 90 - A- - 29-A KENNEY JOSEPH L & FRANCES 516 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645-1934 90 - A- - 28- LEKAS THOMAS G II & CORNELIA E 536 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645-1934 90 - A- - 27- HODSON ALBERT H. 536 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645.1934 90 - A- - 33- NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERV 1785 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON DC 20036.2117 ''' ':i'��➢ see Instruction Sheet ®�_k,�����Dy161� for Easy Peel Feature 90 WA. - 30 WHETZEL PATRICIA A 470 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645.1932 90 - A- - 26- BRUMBACK MALCOLM & MILDRED G. CIO BRUMBACK MALCOLM 420 BELLE GROVE RD MIDDLETOWN VIRGINIA 22645.1924 90 - A- - 25- BOWSER BARRY LEE PO BOX 221 MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645.0221 90 - A- - 24- MIDDLETOWN HUNT CLUB INC. PO BOX 121 MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645-0121 90 - A- - 32- NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC 748 JACKSON PL NW WASHINGTON D.C. 20006.4912 90 - A- - 29- MEADOW MILLS UNION CHAPEL RR 1 BOX 446 EDINBURG VA. 22824.9801 90 - A- - 29-A KENNEY JOSEPH L & FRANCES 516 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645-1934 90 - A- - 28- LEKAS THOMAS G II & CORNELIA E 536 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645.1934 90 - A- - 27- HODSON ALBERT H. 536 MEADOW MILLS RD MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645-1934 90 - A- - 33- NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERV 1785 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON DC 20036.2117 90 - A- - 26- BRUMBACK MALCOLM & MILDRED G. CIO BRUMBACK MALCOLM 420 BELLE GROVE RD MIDDLETOWN VIRGINIA 22645-1924 90 - A- - 25- BOWSER BARRY LEE PO BOX 221 MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645.0221 90 - A- - 24- MIDDLETOWN HUNT CLUB INC. PO BOX 121 MIDDLETOWN VA. 22645.0121 90 - A- - 32- NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC 748 JACKSON PL NW WASHINGTON D.C. 20006.4912 Etiyuel.tes faciles A peter e Utilisez le Uabarit AVERY® 51610 Sens de charcgement a:onsultez la feuille W"I.avery.c©m d'instructian 1-800-GO-AVERY ,kU3AV-0E)-008-L �n.,,.5u1,p ulo:)-AAOAWAAMM ,,,o, nalk el zwplsu0:) 84 -6- - 2- HUNTER WILLIAM & LAURIE 151 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645-2077 84 -6- - 1- WANANT SOMPANDH WANANT WANIDA 4834 GAINSBOROUGH DR FAIRFAX VA 22032.2312 84 - A- - 17-A HOEMMEN WILLIAM J HOEMMEN MELYNDA A 1875 HITES RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645-2083 �uau�aC a}� suaS I.3I.5 oAjI3A1�` a.l.�eq��i of zaslll}n .�ala� � szHan� sa1l.�tthll.� 84 -6- - 2- HUNTER WILLIAM & LAURIE 151 WESTERNVIEW DR MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2077 84 -6- - 1- WANANT SOMPANDH WANANT WANIDA 4834 GAINSBOROUGH DR FAIRFAX VA 22032.2312 84 - A- - 17-A HOEMMEN WILLIAM J HOEMMEN MELYNDA A 1875 HITES RD MIDDLETOWN VA 22645.2083 P`,A].S 7� ADJOINERS Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning rOORBARA-DATA PROCESSING FROM: BEV - PI ning Dept.,_ Please print sets of labels by, Zo wo THANKS! Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2"d floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name Address Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: Keith A. & Linda A. McNeely 443 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-10 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Mark A. & Karen Griffith 411 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-9 srr• Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Fred& Shirley Potter 379 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-8 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Steven M. & Deborah M. Miller 357 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-7 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Donald J. & Donna W. Hopkins 325 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-6 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Lawrence E. & Wendy J. Hamilton 277 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-5 Middletown, VA 22645 Name:-------- --Jeanne- Rapa & Shellie L.-Sellards -- 241 Westemview Dr ------------- Property#: 84-6-4 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Kevin D. & Elizabeth M. Barrington 205 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-3 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Gary S. & Dale A. Nichols 1405 Handley Ave Property#: 84-A-7 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Richard A. & Janet S. Dye 11310 Vale Rd Property#: 84-A-12 Oakton, VA 22124 Name: H & E, LC 1832 Chapel Rd Property#: 84-A-17 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Jennifer L. Nichols 1875 Hites Rd Property#: 84-A-17A Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Edith M. Renner 152 Veterans Rd Pro ert #: 91-A-7 Middletown, VA 22645 5 U "10 E C ] Name: Garrett Farms, LLC 508 Veterans Rd Property#: 84-A-16 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Timothy D. & Lisa M. Rickman Rt 1, Box 695 Property#: 91-A-7A Swords Creek, VA 24649 Name: Carlton R. Boyer 156 N Eberly St Property#: 83-A-107 Strasburg, VA 22657 Name: Carlton R. Boyer 156 N Eberly St -Property#: 83-A-108B Strasburg, VA 22657 Name: Dennis F. Boyer 165 Drover Ln Property #: 83-A-1081K Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Deborah R. Dorman 9345 River View Rd Property #: 83-A-106 Broomes Island, MD 20615 Name: Rock Builders, Inc P.O. Box 1146 Property#: 83-A-103B Berryville, VA 22611 Name: Garrett Farms, LLC 508 Veterans Rd Property#: 90-A-20 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Richard A. McDonald 470 Meadow Mills Rd Property #: 90-A-30 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Meadow Mills Union Chapel RR 1 Box 446 Property#: 90-A-29 Edinburg, VA 22824 Name: Joseph L. & Frances Kenny 516 Meadow Mills Rd Property#: 90-A-29A Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Thomas G. II & Cornelia E. Lekas 536 Meadow Mills Rd Property#: 90-A-28 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Albert H. Hodson 536 Meadow Mills Rd Property #: 90-A-27 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Ave NW Property#: 90-A-33 Washington, DC 20036 Name: Malcom & Mildred G. Brumback 420 Belle Grove Rd Property#: 90-A-26 Middletown, VA 22645 Name:--- - -Barry- L.. Bowser - - - ---.--P.O.-Box221----------------._.. Pro ert #: 90-A-25 1 Middletown, VA 22645 �S HcNA--,\jao,+q cOI.tNTy qO ` A - M- MticC"UwML, N W-4 CtoI,4 ga•A'3Z NT HP 6 02 6� � TO:*ARA-DATA PROCESSING FROM:BEV - Planning Dept. i� tom-✓ Please pr'nt 4- sets of labels°--b� ADJOINERS 6 V ANKSI---�,) Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2"d Hoof- of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name Address Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: Keith A. & Linda A. McNeely 443 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-10 L,"'o Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Mark A. & Karen Griffith kry 411 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-9 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Fred & Shirley Potter 379 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-8 u—- Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Steven M. & Deborah M. Miller 357 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-7 L�-°'' Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Donald J. & Donna W. Hopkins 325 Westernview Dr Property #: 84-6-6 L-- Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Lawrence E. & Wendy J. Hamilton 277 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-5 `" Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Jeanne Rapa & Shellie L. Sellards 241 Westernview Dr - Property#: 84-6-4 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Kevin D. & Elizabeth M. Barrington 205 Westernview Dr Property#: 84-6-3 "IX Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Gary S. & Dale A. Nichols 1405 Handley Ave Property#: 84-A-7 \--" Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Richard A. & Janet S. Dye 11310 Vale Rd Property#: 84-A-12 Oakton, VA 22124 Name: H & E, LC 1832 Chapel Rd Property #: 84-A-17 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Jennifer L. Nichols 1875 Hites Rd Property #: 84-A-17A Z Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Edith M. Renner 152 Veterans Rd Property #: 91-A-7 / Middletown, VA 22645 5 C- Name: Garrett Farms, LLC 508 Veterans Rd Property#: 84-A-16 / Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Timothy D. & Lisa M. Rickman Rt 1, Box 695 Property#: 91-A-7A Swords Creek, VA 24649 Name: Carlton R. Boyer 156 N Eberly St Property#: 83-A-107 ` Strasburg, VA 22657 Name: Carlton R. Boyer 156 N Eberly St Property#: 83-A-108B Strasburg, VA 22657 Name: Dennis F. Boyer 165 Drover Ln Property#: 83-A-1081( t Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Deborah R. Dorman 9345 River View Rd Property#: 83-A-106 ,/ Broomes Island, MD 20615 Name: Rock Builders, Inc P.O. Box 1146 Property#: 83-A-10313 Berryville, VA 22611 Name: Garrett Farms, LLC 508 Veterans Rd Property#: 90-A-20 Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Richard A. McDonald 470 Meadow Mills Rd Property#: 90-A-30 eA Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Meadow Mills Union Chapel RR 1 Box 446 Property #: 90-A-29 / Edinburg, VA 22824 Name: Joseph L. & Frances Kenny 516 Meadow Mills Rd Property#: 90-A-29A / Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Thomas G. IL& Cornelia E. Lekas 536 Meadow Mills Rd Property#: 90-A-28 /? Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Albert H. Hodson 536 Meadow Mills Rd Property #: 90-A-27 / Middletown, VA 22645 Name: National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Ave NW Property#: 90-A-33 / Washington, DC 20036 Name: Malcom & Mildred G. Brumback 420 Belle Grove Rd Property#: 90-A-26 / Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Barry L. Bowser P.O. Box 221 Property#: 90-A-25 d Middletown, VA 22645 4 � 5 HGruA-r,)Dc)-A-q Go LAtiT r qo -A -322 N T M P gy � 6 - 2- H"'Pte 31 0 REQUESTING AGENT: EPTi . OF GEOGRAPHIC INFO ATION SYSTEMS FREDERICK COUNTY, -IRGMIA 11 GIS, MAPPING, GRAPHICS WORKREQUEST DATE RECEIVED: J REQUESTED COMPLETION DATE: Department, Agency, or Company:_ Mailing and/or Billing Address: Telephone: E-nnfl Address: ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT: FAX: 1J DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: (Write additional infonnation oonbac -o ��r5cjuf--�) ------- i ,SIN. A v°S 07V DI(aITAL: SIZES: COLOR: PAPER FAX: BLACK/WT=: . NUMBER OF COPIES: STAFF MEMBER COMPLETION DATE: MATERIALS - DATE OF PICK-UPIDELIVERY: AMOUNT DUE: AMOUNT BILLED: ETHOD OF PAYMENT: 1 HOURS REQUIRED: AMOUNT PAID: CHECK NO.# Frederick County GIS, 107 North Kent Street, 'Winchester, VA 22601, (540)665-5651) Document Approval Form PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IF THIS DOCUMENT MEETS YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE INITIAL AND PROVIDE THE DATE AND TIME OF YOUR APPROVAL. IF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT MEET YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS AS TO WHA T YO U WO ULD LIKE TO HA VE COMPLETED. INITIALS DATE & TIME Candice Bernie Mark Susan Eric Mike Kevin John COMMENTS: Received by Clerical Staff (Date & Time): zdi3: REZONING l PUBLIC HEARING Board Room d Frederick County yn Administration Building a 665- 5651 fifi s ] 1 f � ,�? 4 '�� +� � r h. it i • i -� 1' ' Y1• t t. t• r ) \\ % �L >,R�` .tM.�¢�t �,Il ±�s .?; i� •.�i{ad Y;tA., .T.l'� ;s ��;.%�, � f ♦ d �t�a: r" 46. �� �� '' '' }...d ,'t 5,1 t� 1 +1 �`f . .��i 1 '4] d ��,ii i��. ', . iS {�:'ii• ��. t A yk `.'�� dT'� ��, � y.. 8. oil I M . ,I �dt ` �1a\ PT.. 4 ,�A � !. j r d 4 •s, .';4 �'�': y. 4Yi '• :n ,r.., ,;T �.� � `d.: sA F '�' d �,' '�r.i s r E - .� � . � �kq} 9 •7,� !6 .f, • I.4S ��{t.�' y,�. .,` ,`. 'it ',r�- to !p i i a • 1 'd�kjti�, :i .� � '�,1��' .,'iT' �'.st�1 { *'!�, �,'�1 i'f,' r./41 � rA`r�:ar"r�e,�'�i d�,, � e t"� ! d{,�Pr tt'..• i,d�Y yf' t4✓.�.e� ti • r i d Y Y'o ! )) t 1 a'�' g q41 „ y` ''� .`�','��. �'° t' r d ir3ti s � ."a` ,� "'- " .l'f 'p �,g4r q'.. .�� ' d� Pt"r' ��. *:,„rr iar•- ' I"�''i'ti''. y.+i ' i,� f �,�,k•' �. .�' �; 1l: • d�' t % :.�' �.,t -af (. ',r ' �;+�, sl ,-.i, � -i1 A- +.. 1a �`"�']s i�'#•�j k 1 -i .rr, #' j•,...� ..•. #, `%t o'. a. a •a1 'k w; Y �•. da'`,r. �jr: ,, ,;aitG � `'�'•. ,��Pr. ,��gh +dl"`.�`�. rjl+i .d � S R'k.�4 •„ � i `r l'a `•� s - ' ! h "_3, 3y� �k'. > 4 s, •d ri"i - �"' ,-„s"" - • r x F:. d +� '�., � I: • .. �, a f � '> , r++, .:y S ' � a .aL. �'� ' ! � �. � ��:-.+e,N :�^ �� Y�teJ .� _ 'n r. t ., .. P � 'dv1Y � , l f� �`�'^.y. t d f. • w S ',0 lo "MAIN 4-p-21 41 REZONING PUBLIC HEARING 44 oc�. 130-rd R.., Frederick county Adm sn.%tr;vlion Building 665-56 51 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning & Development • 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 �ETIM P s:M 7-c 90 A 29 MEADOW MlL, S'-UNIOWV HAP EL ? '' ���'P;iverah, RR 1 BOIG`'4° r �ove�'Sser a�n RefMAY 3 2006 Uc. G'anP. C `-TVn r i r of FR1iJDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) REZONING APPLICATION 903-06 FOR O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, June 7, 2006, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following Rezoning 903-06 of O-N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west of Hites Road (Route 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The properties are in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 83-A-109 and 90-A-23. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 MAY 2 0 20M 90 - A- - 29- MEADOW MILLS UNION CHAPEL RR I BOX 446 EDINBURG VA. 22824-9801 016H26501120 00.420 C 05,14!2008 Mailed From 22601 US POSTAGE 0 1232 CE 1 00 051.19100 RaTuRN To smNoER NOT DCLIVERADLE AS ADDRESSED UNAMLE TO FORWARD 9 SC: '22601socs907 3C).j 7 - C)5;:).i ID -- 14 -- 30 .......... COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC MEETING May 15, 2008 TO: THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS) RE: REZONING APPLICATION 903-06 FOR O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public meeting being held on Wednesday, May 28, 2008, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 403-06 of O-N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west of Hites Road (Route 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The properties are in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 83-A-109 and 90-A-23. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, /Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Plaiming Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 k >'o nd °r �Jth a 4vncve,- . rtogddr Cn es: �! S t Dry., C 90 - A. MEA MIL UNION L R OX 4 INBUR A -9801 • i-�[�it:. 'A`V-�+i+l}'J -7- }••� I/1�!'ll�l�Il�Ii��111111�l1'!1l If 11111 " 11t�11�1!l i'1 i!/7�1'1� • 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING March 22, 2006 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION 403-06 FOR O-N MINERALS (CHEMSTONE) On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, April 5, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #03-06 of O-N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. The Middle Marsh property is located east of Belle View Lane (Route 758), west of Hites Road (Route 625) and on both sides of Chapel Road (Route 627). The Northern Reserve is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Route 624). The properties are in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 83-A-109 and 90-A-23. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000