HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes of - Backfile• 0
VERBATIM MINUTES PRODUCED BY THE
LAW FIRM OF LAWSON & SILEK, P.L.C.
(A copy was provided to the Planning
Department by Ty Lawson)
I
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
FREDE RICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 2006
Rezoning 03-06 O-N Minerals (Chemstone) submitted by Patton Harris Rust and Associates to
rezone 639 acres from RA Rural Areas District to EM extracted 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 in Shenandoah County and is west of 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.
Mr. Michael Rudd
Thank you Madam Chairman. I am going to take a few moments here to review the status of the
O-N Minerals/Chemstone application. Previously was presented to the Planning Commission at
your April 51h meeting. At that meeting, the Commission tabled it for sixty (60) days. During
that meeting the Staff provided an overview of the application in relationship to the County's
Comprehensive Plan. The Staff also identified potential impacts associated with the rezoning
proposal. There were numerous issues that were unresolved and concerns that were discussed at
this meeting, which are also covered in the Staff Report that you have in front of you this
evening. These included, but are not limited to, the following: the potential impacts associated
with the more intensive use of these properties. It was recognized that the applicant had not
proffered a commitment to the use of the property beyond those that would be made evident by
the broader EM extracted manufacturing [sermon] classification.
The Historic Resources Advisory Board expressed concerns, also in collaboration with the
historic preservation stakeholders groups, regarding view -shed coordination and mitigation, and
cultural resource surveys on the property on which the rezoning is being requested.
Transportation impacts in general were discussed, and, more specifically, at the intersection of
Route #625, Fifth Street, and Route #11 within the town of Middletown. Potential groundwater,
dust, and blasting controls on adjacent properties, along with general environmental concerns,
and the impacts associated with those environmental concerns, were discussed. And, finally, the
rural view -shed was a topic of discussion that we had on April 5th. The goal of the comments
provided previously, in particular, those of the Historic Resources Advisory Board, were to
promote an approach to this [reasonable] application that is mutually beneficial to the applicant,
to the environment, to the adjacent community, to the historic preservation stakeholders, and to
the historic context of the surrounding landscape.
Now, prior to tabling this rezoning application, the Planning Commission also provided
additional comments to the applicant to assist them in the modification of this rezoning request.
Again, the Planning Commission provided a tabling of sixty (60) days at that time. Since the
April 5th Planning Commission meeting, the Staff had not received any materials from the
application in modification of the rezoning request. The concerns and issues that we identified at
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 2
the April 5`' Planning Commission meeting remain unaddressed at this time. Now, what I would
point out is following the mailing of the Planning Commission agenda, Staff did indeed receive a
request to table this application from the applicant's representative, and this request should be
considered by the Planning Commission this evening consistent with the Planning Commission's
Bylaws.
Since the April Planning Commission meeting, Staff has received a significant amount of
correspondence regarding this rezoning application, some of which is included in your agenda;
many more letters and correspondence have been received since the agenda was mailed to the
Planning Commission. Included with that additional correspondence is a revised resolution from
the town of Middletown expressing its concern regarding the rezoning application; a letter from
Mr. [Willy Riskay], a local enviroimlentalist related to Shenandoah University, and most
recently, a letter from the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, which is on your dais here
this evening. This afternoon, the Commonwealth of Virginia's Secretary of Natural Resources,
L. Preston Bryant, requested that the letter that was included in your agenda previously also be
presented to you and that is on your dais again here this evening.
Since the last meeting, Staff and the applicant met with a gentleman by the name of Mr. David
[Banner], Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, to discuss that role that their
department plays in permitting and monitoring of operations such as the Global Chemstone, as a
very productive meeting. Now, as previously noted, the Public Hearing for this application was
not held during the April 5th Planning Commission meeting, that was due to time constraints. As
a result, the Planning Commission should satisfy the Public Hearing requirements at this
evening's meeting. The information offered during the Public Hearing should be a consideration
of both the Planning Commission and the applicant as they continue their evaluation and
enhancement of this rezoning application. Mr. Chuck Maddox of Patton Harris Rust &
Associates is available this evening and will make a brief presentation regarding the request to
table this application. And, immediately following the Public Hearing, as I noted, the Planning
Commission could address the applicant's request to table the rezoning.
Madam Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions that you or the Commission may
have at this time.
[June Wilmot, Madam Chairman] I have only a technical question, Mr. Ruddy. In the letter that
we have received that was dated May 26th ... is that correct that Patton Harris Rust ... and you
made a statement to table it another thirty (30) days, well, in some sense, they asked to postpone
the Public Hearing date for thirty days (30) days, and so, I suspect that what we've agreed to do
is to have the Public Hearing this evening so I am not quite sure what decision we need to make
in that regard.
[Mr. Ruddy] I think it's appropriate to move forward with the Public Hearing because the
Planning Commission was at that point at its previous meeting and tabled the [application] for
sixty (60) days. Consistent with the Bylaws of the Planning Commission, the applicant has the
ability to request the tabling of it one time so, following the Public Hearing, it may be
Frederick County P1amling Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 3
appropriate for the Planning Commission to respect that request that has been made by the
applicant here this evening.
[Madam Chairman] Mr. [George] Kriz.
[Mr. Kriz] Mike, what could be done with this besides extracting manufacturing?
[Mr. Ruddy] What could be done with the property for which the request has been rezoned ...
[Mr. Kriz] Yes.
[Mr. Ruddy] ... under the existing rural -area zoning classification?
[Mr. Kriz] If it was rezoned to EM, what could be done besides mining?
[Mr. Ruddy] A variety of uses, including concrete production, block manufacturing. There is, I
believe, as part of a handout that was part of your agenda that lists a variety of those uses, but
relatively intensive, industrial kinds of manufacturing uses.
[Mr. Kriz] Only industrial?
[Mr. Ruddy] Yes. Specifically tailored to the EM — the extracted manufacturing — mining
concept.
[Mr. Kriz] Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. Yes, the applicant? Why don't you introduce yourself, sir,
to us.
Mr. Joseph Ferrell
Sure thing. Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission, my name is Joseph Ferrell and I
am Vice President -General Manager of O-N Minerals, Inland Division, which includes the
Chemstone operation. This is going to be short and to the point. We have heard at the last
meeting, and through subsequent interactions with the Staff, what people, in general, said about
several issues, and these issues all surround our proposed rezoning. The issues involved include
dust, blasting, view -shed, wells, water conservation, traffic and other possible uses for this land.
You know, we are miners, we address this every day so it's hard for us sometimes to get our
hands around it. We are in the process of developing very detailed answers to each of these
issues. And as we work through that and receive other information, including information we
are going to hear tonight, we request that you table this issue to give us a chance to fully flesh -
out the issues that we have heard, and that we will hear tonight. We fully anticipate listening as
the citizens make their comments, and we will roll that into our efforts to provide a complete and
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 4
comprehensive package to the Planning Commission. We look forward to that tonight and,
unless there are any further questions, I'll sit the rest of my time.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Ferrell? Thank you, sir. [No
questions were asked.]
[Madam Chairman] I'd like to declare the Public Hearing open and call our first speakers and,
again, if you'd come to the podium, and state your name and your magisterial district, and limit
your comments to two minutes, please, that would be just very great. The first speaker is
Suzanne [Chilsan]; the speaker after her would be Elizabeth [McClung].
Ms. Suzanne [Chilsan]
Madam Chairman Wilmot and the members of the Frederick County Plamling Commission, my
name is Suzanne Chilsan and I am speaking on behalf of the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation
located in Middletown, Virginia, which is in the Back Creek District.
In October of 1864, the beauty, serenity, and economy of the Shenandoah Valley were destroyed
by the systematic burning of the Valley farm. While other areas of Virginia recovered and were
rebuilt, the Shenandoah residents struggled for several generations to survive the devastating
affects of Red October. We are now facing a more serious and permanent threat. One from
which the Valley will never recover. The Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation and the Belle
Grove Plantation Organization have been working for decades to preserve a small part of our
Valley's history and have succeeded in acquiring over 600 acres of the Battlefield of
Middletown. In 2002, Congress recognized the historic importance and natural beauty of our
area and created the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park consisting of over
3,000 acres.
The Foundation's Board of Directors and members believe that the request of O-N Minerals to
change the zoning on 639 acres from agricultural to mining use would not only increase the level
of mining and truck traffic on the Valley Pike, but also open the door to other interests of
industry such as concrete and asphalt operations. These activities would negatively impact the
Foundation's property on Cedar Creek, which lies directly down -stream from the quarry. The
Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation urges the Frederick County Planning Commission to
carefully consider this request and deny this application in its present form. This Planning
Commission has the power to be remembered as the saviors or the destructors of the southern
Frederick County area. Thank you.
[Thunderous applause!] [Madam Chairman] Ladies and gentlemen, we've got a lot to cover
tonight; we've had very little time so I'd be grateful if we could restrain our expressions, if you
would. Next is Ms. Elizabeth [McClung] and after Elizabeth, please, Ms. Stephanie Pendleton.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 5
Ms. Elizabeth [McClung]
I'm Elizabeth McClung, the Executive Director of Belle Grove Plantation in the Back Creek
District. I have written statements to give you from the National Trust for Historic Preservation,
which is the landowner of Belle Grove Plantation, and also from Belle Grove Plantation's Board
of Directors.
Belle Grove Plantation's Board of Directors, staff and volunteers are glad to hear that the quarry
is going to take a closer look at their proposal because we cannot support the O-N Minerals'
proposal in its present form. The quarry's current operations, which have direct impact on Belle
Grove, are already problematic in terms of Belle Grove's historic landscape and view -shed —I
have a photograph attached to the letter —and for the public safety of our visitors from around
the world. Without significant written revisions to the proposal and careful oversight by the
Planning Commission, the Chemstone rezoning application and expansion, as it stands, will only
worsen these conditions.
We respectfully urge the Planning Commission to readdress all of the recommendations
submitted by the Historic Resources Advisory Board on January 3, 2006, and to require that
these be met before the application is again considered. Belle Grove Plantation's main concern
include these two: First, view -shed impact —we again encourage the quarry to work with Belle
Grove, the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, and the National Park Service to undertake a
comprehensive view -shed analysis, and to subsequently present a written plan and time -line to
mitigate, remove, screen, and/or plan the existing large waste pile to the northwest of Belle
Grove's property and the existing lime plant visible from both Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek
Foundation property. And also to address visual impact for future expanded mining operations.
Secondly, traffic and public -safety issues are a real concern. Quarry truck traffic through
Middletown and along Route #11 is already a challenge for local vehicle drivers and for our
visitors. Thank you very much for the opportunity and who do I give me written statements to?
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Ms. Pendleton
Ms. Stephanie Pendleton
Excuse my over -eagerness to speak there. Mr. Ruddy and members of the Planning
Commission. The Greater Middletown Business Association would like to make the following
comments concerning this rezoning application. Middletown, with a population of about twelve
hundred, has no industry now with Route 11 Potato Chips moving to New Market, and looks to
its few retail businesses as its sole source of business tax income. These businesses range from
live theatre to restaurants, hotels, motels, antiques 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, Middletown itself
that the community continues to be a desirable destination for people to visit. The rezoning of
our properties immediately west of Middletown would spell economic disaster for our member
businesses. By increasing the number of vehicle trips to thirteen -hundred made per day that
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 6
would equate to nearly one vehicle every minute of the day. The addition to these heavy
commercial vehicles would envelope our community in a constant background -roar of traffic that
with 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. Tourists and Virginia residents alike come to the
Shenandoah Valley to escape the urbanized development and congestion of their cities and enjoy
our clean air and open vistas. Thanks to the last one -hundred 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. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. I'd like to call Mr. Carl [Burnheart] and Ms. Teresa Adams.
Mr. Burnheart first, please.
Mr. Carl Burnheart
Good evening members of the Commission. I am a Middletown resident in the Back Creek
District. I would like to address this Council and ask that you vote against this proposed
[ordinance] rezoning of all the land that borders one side of our small, historic town. I just
moved to Middletown only six months ago from Germantown, Maryland, to escape the large
commercial developments and traffic issues —the very same negative issues as many of the
residents around Middletown move from and are now afraid will be here with this rezoning.
This request will negatively impact not only our lives today, but also the lives of our future
generations including yours. And, now, I find myself not just a fourth -generation resident of
Middletown or the great-grandson of a Frederick County quarryman, but the vice president of the
Greater Middletown Business Association, a member of the garden club, a member of the Belle
Grove and Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, and now a member of the Preserve Frederick.
All the members of these local organizations that I have spoken to have voiced their grave
concerns and that we all must band together to keep this huge request for rezoning and mining
from moving forward.
I have yet to speak to anyone who is pro this rezoning request or state anything positive about it.
The rezoning of so much land all at once for the purpose of mining and extraction of our
precious water will greatly impact the County, as we currently know it. The effects of this
rezoning will be everlasting and will control the direction of our town and any future hope of
small businesses moving here. The large increase alone of the number of commercial trucks on
our small main street can and will decrease the desire to live here by many current and future
residents. I hate to think that I'll be the last of my esteemed family to be a resident of
Middletown and of Frederick County, but if this proposal is passed as it is currently written, I
can guarantee you, I will be. I urge you to listen carefully to the details presented here tonight by
just a few voices of this County and to hear all of the voices, even those who cannot be here
tonight and to think about those in the future who will ask: Who is crazy enough to rezone all of
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 7
this land? I ask you on behalf of myself, my family, and all of my Frederick County neighbors
to please vote "no" on this mining rezoning. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Ms. Teresa Adams. And after Teresa Adams, Larry Hamilton, please.
Ms. Teresa Adams
Good evening. My name is Teresa Adams and I am a resident of Middletown, Back Creek
District, and I have a very brief statement. To me, beyond the logical scientific questions, one of
the things we really need to ask ourselves is what we want to surround ourselves with, not just in
Middletown, but also in Frederick County. Do we want to embrace the enviroiunent—the gift
that has been given to us —or do we want to destroy it and scar it permanently? The mine, itself,
as it exists is an eyesore, it is a pollutant, and to extend that even further would be a disgrace, it
would be a dishonor, and it would be very, very poor judgment on the County's part and on the
residents of the County. I implore you to turn down this rezoning plan. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Mr. Hamilton, then after Mr. Hamilton, perhaps, Wendy
Hamilton.
Mr. Larry Hamilton
Madam Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Larry Hamilton, I am a member of the Back
Creek District, and I am a member of Preserve Frederick. When all this began, I said we didn't
have any answers and we certainly didn't know all the questions, but on April 5Ih with twelve
days' notice, we felt we were prepared. We hit the ground running and haven't stopped. Your
gift of sixty (60) days is appreciated. Tonight, some members of Preserve Frederick will be
telling you why we oppose O-N's rezoning proposal. Two weeks ago a reporter asked us to
name one thing most disconcerting about this request. Not possible. An ugly strip-mining
operation, tangled up with industrial uses and future water storage, will all negatively impact
historic Middletown's community and this County. The County's roadmap—the Comprehensive
Plan —does not provide the compass or direction for addressing massive incompatible land -use
changes such as this. Serious issues of liability on many different levels may come back to haunt
all of us if this is passed. As taxpayers and voters, we bear the burden and pay the consequences
one way or the other.
We believe a dirty industrial corridor like this has the potential to affect every citizen in
Frederick County, the Shenandoah region, all the way to the Chesapeake Bay and beyond. This
is not simply a vote for mining and heavy industrial uses —it's a vote for water. That is wrong.
The Frederick County Sanitation Authority's connection to this industrial land -use application
needs to be completely extracted and thoroughly examined on its own merits in a public forum.
Three of the County's "crown jewels" are at risk here: Cedar Creek, our National Historic Park
in Middletown.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 8
Ms. Wendy Hamilton
Good evening. I'm Wendy Hamilton from Back Creek District and founding member of
Preserve Frederick. The goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect and improve the living
environment in Frederick County. Tearing down forests, devastating groundwater sources,
devaluing farms and homes is a far cry from that. This [degrading] application includes uses that
won't work for our countryside community. O-N quickly points to the silence on the Comp Plan
on EM uses. Silence is no excuse to consider or allow dirty industry in the very place that helps
support some of the County's clean industry and where tourists flock to watch Civil War
reenactments while spending their hard-earned dollars. While the County's Comprehensive Plan
has yet to be finished, the County has known it has needed to address EM zoning and neither
taxpaying voters nor the vacationers should have to pay this kind of price because this work has
not been completed.
When my kids were little and they wanted something they would practically jump through hoops
to get it. I think most of us do. O-N's inaction by not responding with a new application or
addressing proffers as the Commissioners suggested speaks volumes. We wonder if they are
scrambling now because last week Frederick County informed 27,500 homeowners that the
County's third battle over this massive, dirty industry proposal was tied to water. Their financial
gains cannot be given a higher value than homeowners, businesses, and a high -tax generated
clean industry. Congressman Wolf and [garbled] Senators valued this property enough to
provide us with a national treasure. We won't let this country down and we will fight this battle
of Cedar Creek, too. This elegant piece of property deserves respect, stewardship and protection.
O-N has said it is a good neighbor —actions speak louder than words. We have a suggestion that
as a good neighbor, they can prove themselves by deeding all of this land over to the United
States government to be added to the park boundaries as was originally intended. Thank you,
and please deny this application.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Dale [Nichols], please, and after Dale,
Ms. Dale Nichols
Good evening. My name is Dale Nichols and I live in Back Creek District and I am a member of
Preserve Frederick, and my family dates back eight generations in Frederick County. View -shed
mitigation won't work. Just drive past the National Historic Park at Belle Grove and take a look.
Berms addressed in O-N's June 2005 proposed Proffer Statement does not identify a berm's
minimum height; it only states that berms shall be limited to a maximum of thirty feet. We've
been told by Mr. Maddox that we will need at least a 40-foot berm —the height of a four-story
building to try to shield us from the proposed quarry that they want to dig twelve -hundred feet
from our backdoor. Nothing —nothing —will insure our view -shed and shield our homes from
quarry dust, dirt and particle matter. We call our home Sunset Porch because of the magnificent
and breathtaking views and sunsets. It is why we bought this piece of proper ten years ago.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 9
We shouldn't have to worry about looking right down into a quarry pit. When we looked at our
property before purchasing it the land was zoned "RA" as it is today, and multiple quarry
companies have owned this land for over fifty years. Why did they all wait to apply for
rezoning? Again, we say Frederick County knew this property could be mined in the future.
Why did they continue to allow residential development to occur all through this part of the
Valley? We did our homework. Chemstone told us ten years ago before we purchased our
property that this land was to be used as a buffer for the Middletown quarry, and ten years ago
families on Western View Drive were asking the same question and were given the same answer.
Zoning laws in place then and now should be protecting us. If this can happen here, how
confident can the rest of the County's citizens feel? County officials literally hold our quality of
life, our health, our property values, and our children's lives in their hands. The ripple effect of
this decision will be felt for centuries to come. Please listen carefully to all of the issues and
consider the lives of the citizens of beautiful historic Middletown. The Battle of Cedar Creek
changed history on this land and so will your decision. We ask you all to say "no" to this
application. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Ms. Dee [Burgoyne], and then after Ms. Burgoyne, Linda
Shephard, please.
Ms. Dee Burgoyne
Good evening. My name is Dee Burgoyne. I live in the Back Creek District on the old
[Pickerel] place and I am a member of Preserve Frederick. Phase One archeological surveys are
promised to the Historical Resources Advisory Board for Belle Grove and the National Historic
Park to locate, identify, and comprehensively record all historic sites, buildings, structures and
objects on this property if this land were to be rezoned. O-N did not respond to the request for
Phase Two, nor Phase Three surveys if they were warranted. O-N has proffered eight acres of
land to Belle Grove if this application for rezoning is approved. Why does the land have to be
rezoned in order for them to give eight acres to Belle Grove? Couldn't they just do it anyway?
The Valley is rich with history. All of it has relevance to who we are and how we got here. One
needs only to see the reenactment photo with the quarry operations in plain sight to understand
that adding more quarries, asphalt plants or sewage treatment facilities is not going to be a tourist
draw, nor is it going to encourage clean industry to move here.
There is one more thing that has been overlooked that merits talking about. We were all stunned
to hear that at no time in this application was there a whisper of the twelve family members who
are buried in the property north of Chapel Road near the abandoned farmhouse —their home.
The Tabler Cemetery is clearly marked on the 1986 Deed of Sale. This family lived there,
farmed that land, and chose to be buried there over 125 years ago. They likely watched Custer
lead all bf his soldiers from Blue Spring across to the Cedar Creek Battlefield. They were
neighbors of Molly McCloud who built and lived on the farm on Western View Drive that my
husband and I now own and cherish.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you so much. Linda Shephard, please.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 10
Ms. Linda Shephard
Good evening Commissioners. My naive is Linda Shephard and I live at 2432 Laurel Lane in
historic Middletown. I am not a member of Preserve Frederick. I have heard and seen a lot from
Preserve Frederick, as I'm sure you all have heard and seen a lot from Preserve Frederick in the
newspapers they put out themselves. Up until today what was said was there will be thirteen -
hundred and thirty-two trucks additional. Now one of their members said there will be increased
to thirteen -hundred total traffic. There is a significant difference between an increase of thirteen -
hundred and thirty-two and an increase to thirteen -hundred. I hear them talk about how we don't
want this area turned into a dusty industrial corridor. I live on Forest Street, right off of it. The
quarry is in my backyard. The quarry's trains run right down the hill from me. I contend with
the quarry's trucks every day. I don't see a significant difference in an additional, worst -case,
one hundred and thirty-nine trucks from Chemstone ruining Middletown. I don't see my
neighborhood as a dirty industrial corridor; I don't see my property values going down. I moved
here in 2001 and I paid $109,000 for my house, it's now valued by a realtor at between $224,000
and $283,000, and I think that you should consider very carefully whether or not you are going
to refuse the application based on a lot of rumor and innuendo. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Mr. [Jack Coyne], then followed by Mr. Robert Spangler —
excuse me, Mr. John Owens.
Mr. John Owens
My name is John Owens and I live in Middletown, Back Creek District. My house faces the
quarry on Sixth Street, my fiont yard is looking straight at it, and over the past year I have
noticed the big berms of dirt on the battlefield, I have noticed the dust, and I have noticed the
rumble of trucks has increased. Middletown is one of the true gems of the Valley that is left. It
is slowly being chipped away. All you have to do is to look to the north, to the south. We do not
want to be that; we do not want a big quarry that is going to increase more dust, more dirt, more
pollution and more truck traffic, especially. I beg you to consider this and turn this request
down. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. Mr. Spangler, then after Mr. Spangler, Mr. Broadus, please.
Mr. Robert Spangler
Good evening and thanks for the opportunity to speak. I am Robert Spangler, Back Creek
District. I offer you a tale where truth may be stranger than fiction. Consider that you own a
mining operation and a lot of land around the mine not zoned for mining. Your land surrounds
historic properties and a national park. How can you persuade authorities to rezone your land?
Could an arrangement be made that would support your rezoning application, get rid of possibly
contaminated excess water that drains into your pits, and provide other financial benefits for your
company? Enter the March 2000 contract between FCSA and Chemstone in which the FCSA
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 11
agreed to pay all costs for getting the land rezoned, pay the full construction costs for
replacement of ball fields that may be displaced by mining operations, pay for installing and
maintaining monitoring wells, pay for water loss from nearby wells that can be proved to be
caused by FCSA, pay for pipelines and pumping equipment and permit Chemstone to use the
same, and hold Chemstone harmless from all issues raised by regulators or private citizens. Of
course FCSA supports your application because after the property is exhaustively mined it would
have a water -storage pit that, if it does not leak, would be a source of water with which to
partially serve the Urban Development Area of the County, and Chemstone would not have the
expense of filling the pits and reclaiming the land, leaving instead a permanent eyesore. The
foregoing is subject to approval of the rezoning and to future business decisions of Chemstone
that, if certain conditions occur, permit Chemstone to unilaterally decide that it is not "obligated
to offer any of its land to FCSA." Chemstone alone can decide that it is more profitable to sell or
lease portions of the land. We, obviously, ask you to deny ....
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. Mr. [Guaraties], then after Mr. Goroith, Mr. [Buskay].
Mr. Jim [Guaraties]
My name is Jim Guaraties and I live in Back Creek District. Thank you Madam Chairman and
Members of the Board. I am also a member of the Air Improvement Task Force for Winchester -
Frederick County and I am a certified consulting meteorologist, but tonight I am speaking strictly
as a private citizen. I do not represent the views of any of those organizations.
The eighteen -hundred trucks I think should be a serious concern for how many trucks there are
going to be per day. The focus of the air -quality issues tends to be on ozone, but particulate
matter, particularly the 2.5 micron, which gets right into the lungs and is the most serious
problem in terms of health issues, has to be considered. The diesel trucks that are going to be
used by Chemstone are not required —the current trucks —are not required to meet the new EPA
standards for vehicle omissions because they are "grandfathered," and those trucks will be in
service for a substantial period of time. So that is one factor that needs to be brought to your
attention. I think it is possible to actually go ahead and estimate the amount of pollution, the
PM-2.5 which will be emitted by those trucks, I have not done it, but I think it can be done, and I
recommend strongly that in your considerations for this particular rezoning request that you
actually go ahead and do that, and figure out exactly what will be the load of PM-2.5 that will be
emitted by those trucks and I think you need to develop some sort of strategy of how you
mitigate that. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. Sorry for the mispronunciation of your name. Mr. Buskay,
then after Mr. Buskay, please, Anita Holly.
Mr. Woody Buskay
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 12
Madam Chairman and Members of the Frederick County Planning Commission. My name is
Woody Buskay. I coordinate the Environmental Studies Programs at Shenandoah University. I
live in Winchester. Recently four of my students and I studied water quality and ecological
habitats of Cedar Creek and its surrounding water -shed. Our findings are contained in a report
released by the Potomac Conservancy entitled, "Cedar Creek Revealed."
I have several concerns about the application for the rezoning of the Chemstone property. First,
several state and federal agencies with expertise to identify and evaluate environmental impacts
were not part of the evaluation process. Yet, the Comprehensive Plan for Frederick County says
the County is going to protect the natural environment from damage due to development activity,
and the County is going to identify and protect important natural resources, but the County is
going to avoid development in enviromnentally sensitive areas and prohibit use that damage or
pollute the environment. How can the County meet these goals of its Comprehensive Plan
without involving the appropriate state and federal agencies? Second, the applicant included an
impact analysis that did indeed evaluate some of the potential environmental impacts of the
project, but it is my professional opinion, and you have my letter, that the impact analysis is
inadequate in several respects. As an example, there is a comment that there are no slopes
greater than fifty percent on the property; however, in another portion of the impact analysis the
comment is that the Northern Reserve property is largely unevaluated because of the steep
slopes. While my students and I don't know that property, we know property a short distance
away that is comparable and those properties have some of the most diverse biological
communities and scenic natural features of the region. The future of the natural resources of our
region and our collective future as residents deserve more careful consideration. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. Ms. Holly, then after Ms. Holly, Julie
Ms. Anita Holly
Good evening. My name is Anita Holly. I live in the Back Creek District and I own a business
called "The Wonderful Store," on the first floor —and I live upstairs —at 7841 Main Street,
Middletown. I own my property. It is a historic property already suffering from the vibrations
caused by the trucks. What I'm about to say may be considered extreme that is only because the
situation is extreme. According to the MSN dictionary en carta one definition of rape is the
violent destructive treatment of something, the rape of a beautiful stretch of countryside, or to
rape the land for its resources. To that I would add the rape of a peaceful, healthy lifestyle. I
moved to Middletown from New York City six years ago. I am a Floridian by birth and
childhood. My business is in its fifth year and growing. I run it single-handedly. A large part of
my business comes from visitors from out of town. My success and lifestyle are now in the
headlights of a potential rapist. Evidence presented to you by the speakers before and after me
illustrate that this is a very real and personal threat to my future. I represent a large number of
others who feel exactly the same. Please prevent this rape. It will not be reversible once
committed. I trust you to protect us.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 13
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Ms. [Levenger]. Instead Amy Hartman.
Mr. Amy Hartman
Good evening. My name is Amy Hartman. I live in the Back Creek District and I am a member
of Preserve Frederick. Briefly and to the point Middletown's Comprehensive Plan is concise in
its need and objective. Its Vision Statement, section 2, page 49, of the local economy sums up
Middletown's outlook of the contradictions of this application, "The town continues to build
upon its major economic resource, including Lord Fairfax College, the National Historic Park,
the Wayside Theatre, the small-town character and the pedestrian -friendly environment. The
town and County continue to identify and develop economic opportunities that are unique to
Middletown, including compatible commerce and light industry in order to broaden the local tax
base and avoid becoming a solely bedroom community." To further support Middletown's
stance on historic preservation and fature development in the community, section 3, page 5,
under the Business Goal reads, "The town needs to develop skills and policies that will better
enable it to attract and maintain a desired mix of business establishments and to insure that the
business types, their scale, and their locations are in conformance with the planning policies
described in section 2." Perhaps the most damaging contradictions are section 2, page 72, under
Implementation, Actions and Next Steps, and Longer -Term Actions, "Coordinate with the
County and VDOT to implement traffic -calming elements within and around the town,
especially along Main Street, and, in addition, work with the County, Battlefield representatives,
and local landowners to better define the Battlefield preservation areas." There isn't anything
more contradictory to these four guidelines than a heavy, dirty industrial corporation plopping
itself down in the middle of a rural, historic, national park and battlefield community. Clearly,
incompatibility screams its name loud and strong. Please vote "no" on this mining rezoning.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. May I ask for Mr. Chris Stubbs, then after him, Bill Graham.
Mr. Chris Stubbs
My name is Chris Stubbs. I'm with the National Park Service at Cedar Creek and Belle Grove
National Historical Park. We are adjacent to the Chemstone property. The park includes Belle
Grove Plantation, the Cedar Creek Battlefield, and other important historic and natural resources
in Frederick, Shenandoah and Warren Counties. We submitted a letter in March of this year to
the Frederick County Planning Department and I'd like to briefly summarize the points of the
letter. In particular, we are concerned about the increased truck traffic in Middletown as
depicted by Chemstone's Traffic Impact Analysis modeling. The proposed additional 801 truck
trips per day will detract from the historic character of the area and impose a safety threat to
residents and visitors. 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 is
encouraged to require this conveyor system as a condition of Chemstone's rezoning proposal.
We are also concerned about the impact to the view -shed, the landscape and the historic scene.
Viewed from Route 11, Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield there is a striking visual
impact from modern, large-scale mining operations on these historic properties. We believe that
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 14
Chemstone's rezoning application should fully analyze these impacts and present acceptable
methods for mitigating them. Their application currently does neither. We are also concerned
about air quality and fugitive dust emissions, noise and vibration from blasting, particularly to
Belle Grove Plantation, and groundwater draw -down and possible surface -water impacts from
that draw -down. All of these concerns are outlined in our letter, which I believe is included in
the rezoning package. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Commission tonight.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. Mr. Graham and then Julie Cleventure.
Mr. Bill Graham
Thank you, Madam Chairman, I have a handout for the Board Members. I am Bill Graham a
registered engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia in the Back Creek District. There is no
greater scarring of the outer layer of the earth's crust no any greater impact on foliage, air, and
water quality than that of a quarry. A quarry leaves acres of rocks exposed forever with little or
no chance that water will ever actually approach the edges of the cavity to fill the void or that
foliage will ever be able to grow on the remaining exposed rock surfaces. This is 2006—this is
no longer the 1920s, `40s, or `70s. When portions of O-N Chemstone grew and took root in the
Shenandoah Valley, during many of those years a company named AVTECH was also provided
an operational permit on the Shenandoah River and we know what happened. What was
acceptable to the public or good for the community economy in those past years should no longer
automatically be assumed or granted and must be questioned by the Board about whether
ecologically appropriate. The Internet has considerable information about quarries. One
website, a quarry mining trade magazine devoted over one-third of its monthly articles to such
topics as "Overcoming Community Opposition to Your Operation" or "Affective Approaches
with Local Zoning and Permit Officials." It is obvious the mining industry is increasingly
required to struggle for zoning permits all over the United States and the world. O-N Chemstone
can sell their land —it's really worth quite a bit if they don't ruin it with a quarry, or they can
remove the minerals they seek underground, excavating sub-terrainally, if they tell you what that
means, leaving the land surface undisturbed.
At the last meeting there was a closing comment at the end about someone on the Board that this
is going to happen. Why is that? Based on what? On what basis are you, the Board, willing to
totally ignore the wishes of the landowners and residents —your constituents —and the health and
ecological problems. Please vote "no" on the request.
[Madam Chairman] [Applause] Please hold your enthusiasm. Julie, and after Julie, Mary
Bauser, please.
Ms. Julie Cleventure
Frederick County P1amling Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 15
Good evening. My name is Julie Cleventure. I live in the Back Creek District and I am a
founding member of Preserve Frederick. I am here tonight to discuss the County's
Comprehensive Plan. The gaping hole in the Comprehensive Plan is a complete lack of direction
in terms of the mining operations in this County. Under issues of Business and Industrial
Concerns, section 6-11, it states that policies are needed concerning how to deal with new
requests for large mining operations. This one line will sum up the very basic conflict of this
entire proposal. Without guidelines for the mining how are you, as our public officials, expected
to make judgments that are fair and knowledgeable on a proposal that is vast and as vague as this
one is.
Mining has been occurring in this County for over one -hundred years. It is mystifying why no
guidelines have been set forth until now when it's been brought to your attention. One thing is
crystal clear though before a proposal of this size is considered: very cautious guidelines need to
be in writing for all parties —the County, the developers, the citizens and the business industry.
Under the Comp Plan, section 6-11, it states "necessary facilities in infrastructure improvements
need to be provided for planned business and industrial uses," and also, "uses in these areas
should be carefully planned to avoid conflicts and to insure that adequate roads and facilities are
provided," and I also think there is a reference to the I-81 interchanges being designated areas for
industrial growth and commercial growth.
Historic Middletown is not equipped or structured to hand this intense, heavy, dirty industry
baggage that is going to come with an expansion with several new quarries, and all the other uses
that are going to go along with it. Historic buildings, community businesses, and all of these are
signatures that make us Middletown. Every aspect of this proposal spells conflict for our town.
Its old rich history and architecture are not conducive to industrial infrastructure changes.
Another contradictory point of this application versus the County's Comp Plan states business
and industrial uses need to be separated from residential uses. These are completely
incompatible zonings, thank you, and I hope you will refuse it.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Mary Bauser and Terry Lorria.
Ms. Mary Bauser
Good evening Commissioners. My name is Mary Bauser and I live in the Back Creek District in
a cabin built by my husband's grandfather near the historic mills where Meadow Brook meets
Cedar Creek. Frederick County's Comprehensive Plan, Land Use section 6-1 states in the
beginning that our "County is divided into definitive rural and urban areas." Sufficient land
needs to be included in the Urban Development Area. In addition, providing sufficient land in
the UDA should decrease development pressures in the rural areas. This sufficient land refers to
the land in the east side of Frederick County, not the west. To further support the west's
agricultural background the Plan further explains, "As land is developed in the eastern portion of
the Urban Development Area the stream valleys are being preserved as environmental open
space. This approach contributes to the protection of flood plains and water quality and provides
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 16
a continuous system of green space. This approach should be continued." In passing a rezoning
of rural areas to extracted manufacturing in Middletown for quarries, a water plant and other
such uses like concrete and asphalt plants, is in direct violation of yet another important area of
our Comprehensive Plan. It develops an area that should have been designated a preserve of
environmental open space and should remain such. Finally, section 6-7 states, "Intrusion of
either non-residential or residential uses of different types can have significant negative impact
on existing residential areas." Appropriate separation between uses is needed. This guideline is
reinforced in section 6-12 stating, "Different types of business and industrial uses need to be
properly separated from each other and from residential uses." Obviously, this statement needs
no explanation. Please vote "no."
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. After Ms. Lorria is Fred Potter, please.
Ms. Terry Lorria
Good evening. My name is Terry Lorria and I live in the Back Creek District and I am a
member of Preserve Frederick. Further studies of Frederick County's Comp Plan, section 6-8,
states, "Development in locations which have steep slopes, flood plains, or other unique
environmental features can have negative impact on the physical environment." Development
should be carried out in a manner that protects these features. Looking around historic
Middletown, it is apparent there are more unique environmental features here than anywhere else
in our County. I would assert the Comprehensive Plan may, in fact, be pinpointing
Middletown's rolling hills, slopes and geography in this 6-8 section.
The transportation section 6-14 of the Comp Plan states, "Managing traffic in such a way as to
minimize backups and congestion is a primary goal of the quarry's plans." Over thirteen -
hundred dump -truck trips is in no way helping to minimize congestion within the main corridor
to our quaint, one -light town. I also want to add that a few years ago my family and I moved
here from Atlanta to escape the congestion and noise and now we are wondering if we have to
move yet again. Please vote "no" on this resolution.
[Madam Chairman] Mr. Potter, and after Mr. Potter, Ms. Pat [Gochenour], please.
Mr. Fred Potter
Hello, my name is Fred Potter and I live in the Back Creek District and I am a member of
Preserve Frederick. Extracted mining and zoning has several allowances that should be
highlighted. These uses are an open invitation to everything from concrete plants to fast-food
restaurants to production factories. Our County and town have more to offer than just this.
What we have is special and could be even more desirable if planned properly. We are well
aware of the vast allowances that Virginia State EM zoning offers, but the O-N proffer suggests
no restrictions on the EM zoning for Middletown. This is unreasonable and unfair to citizens.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 17
In contrast, the Route 50-East corridor consists of 3,000 acres. It is the largest land -use plan in
development and has great potential for commercial growth, but it is an industrial corridor for
tractor trailers and big industry. These roads are equipped for heavy traffic and over -sized
vehicles. According to sections 618 and 619 of the Comprehensive Plan, the heaviest traffic to
this corridor is fourteen -hundred and six vehicles traveling the segment between Routes 522 and
655. These figures represent the same amount of traffic slated to occur on our scenic Route 11
by -way if this rezoning is passed. Our non -industrial town will be bombarded in both land -use
and road -use respects. Our little town is simply not set out to be an industrial zone.
Also, the rural area study was never completed, but a great deal of citizen input went into this
project and should be referred to in regards to this rezoning. There are three expectations and
goals to this study that are strong points to consider. First, recognition that growth and change
are inevitable; second, the desire to manage growth and change to insure perpetuation of rural
character; and, three, desire to manage growth and change to mitigate immediate impacts on the
community. In closing, under the latest portion of the Comprehensive Plan, section 615 states,
"Conflicts occur when incompatible uses for zoning districts are adjacent to one another."
Please note, this statement stands on its own and we request that you vote "no" on the mining
rezoning. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Ms. Gochenour, and after Ms. Gochenour, Tara [Schossdeck], please.
Ms. Patsy Gochenour
Good evening. My name is Patsy Gochenour. I live in the Red Bud District. I have some good
news and some bad news. The good news is that God's earth will survive, but the bad news is
mankind will become extinct. And the sad part of it is that this two -legged creature will take
many four -legged and winged creatures with him into extinction, but the good news is that this is
not morbid; it's factual. I think you get the picture of what happens when humans continue to
pollute the air they breathe and the water they drink; however, there is always the possibility to
correct this situation. The bad news: it is my understanding that not only are we a fragile nation
and world, but also within our all-American community we are running out of drinking water
and clean air. The good news: the entire community can be and needs to become educated on
what it means to build a community on cars, and how to protect the water supply and how to
clean its air. The bad news: for at least the past twenty years, decision -makers in our
community have not availed themselves of the opportunities to become educated in this area.
The good news is that decision -makers like yourselves can become partners with the Shenandoah
Basin Project, and attend retreats like the one this Friday, June 91h, at [Berkeley] Springs entitled,
"Save the Shenandoah Valley's Water, Air, Land and Heritage," so tonight you have the
opportunity to continue to spread the good news and hope to our community by voting "no" to
this mining rezoning, and yes, to the future of Frederick County. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Ms. Schossdeck, and then after Ms. Schossdeck, David [Nichols], please
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 18
Ms. Tara Schossdeck
Madam Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Tara Schossdeck. I live in the
Chimney Hills community of Middletown, which is in the Back Creek District. I am a
regulatory attorney and a mother of three small children. Chimney Hills is a new community of
approximately forty homes in varying stages of completion. About twenty homes have been
closed already, and there are a lot more homes in this area that are currently being built. This is a
significant number of homes with families whose quality of life will be destroyed if this zoning
application is approved.
Before we bought our house, we researched the properties in the surrounding areas so we knew
what kind of property we were buying. We found that it was a historic, one -light town —not a
mining community. While we found that several companies owned properties in the area, they
were zoned "rural agricultural" which was consistent with where we wanted to live. We relied
on the zoning information when we bought our property and had a reasonable expectation that
the uses of these properties would not significantly change, at least not in this drastic way. How
can Frederick County justify rezoning this property for mining and heavy industrial uses when
it's wholly inconsistent with the current residential use. My husband and I moved our family to
Middletown to get away from the congestion and pollution of the city. We wanted to raise our
children in a clean and safe place. We thought Frederick County was it. Were we wrong? Will
other people be wrong? As stated by other people at this meeting, Chemstone's application is
inadequate and should not be approved. My property is located just over a mile from
Chemstone's property, but Chemstone's application doesn't address the impact its operations
will have on my house, my well, and my family because it's not adjacent to Chemstone's
property. How will Chemstone protect my family and the safety of my well and my children's
quality of life? The Planning Commission's primary responsibility is to protect its constituency.
My family and my children are your constituency and the future of the County. Are you going to
"step up to bat" and protect them? Please vote "no" on Chemstone's rezoning application.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Mr. David Nichols, and Dr. [Ranna Laughlin], please
Mr. David Nichols
My name is David Nichols from the Back Creek District and my family has lived next to the
Chemstone property since 1955 and, for the most part, Chemstone has been a good neighbor.
Mr. Stinson, the General Manager of Chemstone, has repeatedly stated that Chemstone wants to
be a good neighbor, but after reading this application, I don't see how this would be possible.
The rezoning of 639 acres from rural agriculture to extracted mining is entirely too much. Our
property sits at the corner of Chapel and Hites Roads. If this application is approved, we could
have any number of industrial uses in our backyard. These include water and sewage treatment
plants, electric generating plants, pre -stress concrete plants, asphalt plants, and many other uses.
I'm also concerned about the amount of water that will be pumped from this property. Mr.
Chuck Maddox, who is a consultant for both Chemstone and the Frederick County Sanitation
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 19
Authority, stated at the April meeting that there would be 10 million gallons of water per day
pumped from this property. This cannot be good for neighboring wells and springs. This also
brings up the question of liability and who will pay for potential damages. It is important to
remember we are not dealing with a small, local company—O-N Minerals is in the business of
making money. I don't think it is right for this company to expand its operation by 639 acres
when there is no clear advantage to the citizens of Frederick County. The citizens look to you —
the Planning Commission, as well as the Board of Supervisors —to put the best interests of the
people before the financial well-being of O-N Minerals. I ask that you vote "no" on this
rezoning. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. Dr. [Ram1a Laughlin], and after Dr. Laughlin, Bob Luse,
please.
Dr. Ranna Laughlin
My name is Dr. Ranna Laughlin and I live in the Back Creek District, and I've lived in Frederick
County for eight years. I am a member of Preserve Frederick. Members of the Commission, I
am a miner's daughter. I have no issue with mines. I lived in mining communities as a child and
as a teenager, and I come from Australia, which is famous worldwide for its significant mining
industry. My father worked for and headed -up operations for five mining corporations. Two
common themes were that they were or are located in remote, water -deprived areas in Australia's
famous Outback, nowhere near existing towns. Where towns and mines do co -exist, these are
towns that grow up around the mines to service the mines —not the other way around.
Granting this rezoning will allow a mine to swallow up a historic town that already exists for
multiple other reasons than the mine. The change in its historic character, as well as the
character of the land surrounding the town, would be irreversible. Irreversible. My father grew
up in an agricultural family in beautiful countryside raising sheep and horses. The land was his
first love. Miner, though he was, he would never have participated in an operation that would
pillage and scar such pristine fertile, historic, and hallowed land as this rezoning would permit.
It is hallowed land being part of the Mississippi and Native American heritage region and the
final resting place of fallen Confederate and Northern soldiers alike. My father respected such
things. He also would never have supported the potential damage to an environmentally
sensitive, clean waterway like Cedar Creek. These water issues will have implications all the
way to the Chesapeake Bay due to pressure on Cedar Creek, which is part of the Chesapeake
[catchment] area. And our backyard is actually the backyard for millions of people. My father
also would not have supported the approach to water harvest and usage evidenced by the contract
between O-N and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. I am astonished that the lease with
O-N cedes water rights to the Sanitation Authority in return for the princely sum of one -dollar.
Preserve our "liquid gold" of Cedar Creek and our underground water —please vote "no." Thank
you.
[Madam Chairman] Mr. Bob Luse, then Mr. Rob Mangus after Mr. Luse.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 20
Mr. Bob Luse
Good evening. My name is Bob Luse and I live in Middletown and am retired after more than
thirty-four years as a professional geologist. Approximately the first half of my career was spent
with the U.S. Geological Survey, and the second half was with environmental engineering firms,
or as an independent consultant. I have managed large investigations of contaminated
groundwater movement in karst-streams in both Missouri and North Carolina.
I generally support the mining industry, but because of the present usage of the surrounding land
I think that rezoning is inadvisable in this case. Here are my reasons: Extension of limestone
mining west and north of Middletown could bring consequences detrimental to the health and
well-being of people living on farms and in residences in proximity to the operation. But in
addition to causing occasional "fly -rock," blasting will open existing rock fractures or develop
new fractures that could cause nearby wells to dry up or drain -fields to malfunction. In this karst
terrain, ground [substance] and collapse can be enhanced not only by blasting, but also by
groundwater withdrawals in conjunction with mining and mineral processing. Fluctuating
groundwater tables can further accelerate karst development. Also, fracturing induced by
blasting can release residual clays from sinkholes and voids thereby fouling water wells. The
operations of crushing, grinding, [cal -siting] and loading facilities near the mining area bring the
potential for large accumulations of dust and hazardous metals offsite.
Some of these negative consequences could be avoided or mitigated with an enforced, very
conservative mining plan incorporating large buffer zones; however, we have seen no such plans.
Even with such plans there will always be an element of risk because of uncertainty in the
locations of subsurface connections in a karst area. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. After Mr. Mangus, Ms. [Jean Locke].
Mr. Rob Mangus
Madam Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission. My name is Rob Mangus and I
live in the Back Creek District and I am a new business owner in Middletown and I am a
member of Preserve Frederick.
This massive industrial land -use rezoning application is being paid for by the Frederick County
Sanitation Authority according to its March 2, 2000, Lease Agreement with Global Stone /
Chemstone Corporation. FCSA is charged with providing water services with Frederick County
and is a private, non-profit company that works with limited oversight from County officials.
Frederick County's Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission have made strides in
planning for growth. They have demonstrated they are looking out for the best interests of this
County. Their dedication to "smart -planning" is evident through their initiatives, including UDA
and rural area study, and we believe they do everything they can to see that the growth is
managed so future generations can continue to work from a solid infrastructure that's being put
in place now.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 21
Water and sewers are key to growth. Mr. Shickle stated in 2005 that he would prefer to see a
regional approach to water and go to the river; however, the FCSA has focused its efforts on
groundwater extraction and karst holding pits or reservoirs. Karst holding pits present the very
real possibility of water contamination and have been proven to be unreliable for safety reasons.
The FCSA is paying for this rezoning so it can get access to the pits and groundwater on the
property. This is a method of supplying water that has proven not to live up to expectations.
What O-N gets is a massive rezoning that would otherwise not be approved on its own merits.
What the County gets is a water source that is not dependable. Do we need to destroy our
historic and natural resources of 639 acres? Please vote "no" on the mining rezoning. Thank
you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, Mr. Mangus. Next Mr. Shane [Laughlin] and after him Mr.
Paul [Cleventure], please.
Mr. Shane Laughlin
Commissioners. My name is Shane Laughlin and I live in the Back Creek District. I am a
member of Preserve Frederick. You each have a copy of the FCSA Lease Agreement with
Chemstone. It outlines the transfer of water rights from the Middletown and Clearbrook and
Strasburg quarries to the FCSA. Ten -thousand customers, including residences, businesses, and
major industries supplied by the FCSA should not be forced to bear the burden of costs
associated with the application. There are costs associated with expansion in any business;
however, the customers of this quasi -public utility should not be forced to finance a quarry
rezoning application.
Section 6 of the Lease Agreement outlines how FCSA will be responsible for compensating
neighboring property owners for loss of wells, but who would prove what made the wells go, and
who would be responsible for determining that and when and how? Section 7 outlines the
Authority's responsibility for the cost of relocating baseball fields in Clearbrook so that O-N can
expand mining operations onto land where our Little Leaguers play ball. Section 8 describes
how the Authority is paying for the cost of rezoning, including consultant and filing fees,
attorneys' fees, and court costs. How can they justify these costs given the amount of water the
current quarry sites are yielding? O-N does not own the property, but now mine in Middletown.
The land is owned by [Jenn-star]. FCSA agreed to lease water rights with Middletown,
Clearbrook and Strasburg. [Jenn-star] is not a party of the contract. This agreement raises too
many "red flags" and in this type of partnership we should rely on the successful future growth.
The UDA is being built on the assumption that the groundwater from the Middletown quarry site
will be available to yield 10 million gallons per day. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to secure a
more dependable water supply from the river -board that our Supervisors' chairman suggests?
Please, vote "no" on the mining rezoning.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. Mr. Paul [Cleventure], and after Mr. [Cleventure], will be
Mr. Dave Kollar.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 22
Mr. Paul Cleventure
My name is Paul Cleventure. I live in the Back Creek District. I am a founding member of
Preserve Frederick. I have a Master's Degree in Mechanical [Engineering]. I showed up at the
April hearing fighting a limestone quarry. Instead, Mr. Maddox told us that if the quarry
rezoning was approved we would have an additional 10-million gallons of water suddenly every
day. That got me digging to find out what significance water would have in our fight.
In August 28, 2001, a letter to Mr. Shickle from Mr. Jones of the FCSA—there is a diagram
here —stating the plan of the Stephens City six -million gallons, the Clearbrook four -million
gallons, and the Middletown 10-million gallons —that was in '01. Everybody knew; however,
FCSA's response from the SAIL, which is its science group, to the Commonwealth of Virginia
in May of 2005 (you all have these packets) states there are only 7.2-million gallons, and two of
that are from Winchester. Six and four are ten; they only have five. Engineers of the Authority
stated the potential yield from the Middletown and Strasburg quarries has not been determined.
Their scientists have already said this in your document. The FCSA has made promises it may
not be able to keep. Early on they projected the quarries near Clearbrook would make the
County self-sufficient until 2020. Today, we have a pump from the FSCA pumping —the pump
located on Route 11 near Kernstown—pumping water from the city to supplement its dried-up
quarries. The UDA now has ten -thousand homes with ten -thousand more coming. Based on the
Virginia Commonwealth and the County's figures, and the average residences per home, we
need 5.2-million gallons per day just for that.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you so much. After Mr. Kollar could we have Ms. Heather Richards,
please.
Mr. Dave Kollar
Thank you Madam Chairwoman and Council Members. My name is David Kollar. I am the
president of DK Industrials Services and my business is in the Gainesboro District and I live in
the City of Winchester. I come before you tonight to ask that you approve the zoning application
that has been presented by the applicant only after the applicant and Staff and other select
qualified organizations and individuals sit down and actually work in a cooperative and
investigative manner to make something that can work, and it's my absolute conviction that
these operations of a rural community and a park and a functioning, expanding quarry can co-
exist. They can collaborate and they can thrive all in the same environment. I say that because
I've seen it in the States of Vermont, Texas and I've seen it in other areas throughout the East
Coast of the United States. There are examples it can be modeled after.
This is a difficult decision for you folks and, certainly, the public passion is going to go ahead
and compel some of you to vote in the negative, but I truly believe that once all of the facts and
all of the different components that could be brought to bear on the logic and reason as to why
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 23
this expansion should be approved, I think that you in good conscience can vote in favor of the
rezoning of this property in the Middletown area. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thanlc you, sir. Heather Richards, and then following Ms. Richards could
we have Betsy Hickman, please.
Ms. Heather Richards
Good evening. My name is Heather Richards and I'm here as the director of Headwaters
Conservation for the Potomac Conservancy. I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the
application of O-N Minerals to rezone their property along Cedar Creek to extracted
manufacturing. Potomac Conservancy is a non-profit, river -conservation organization dedicated
to protecting the health, beauty, and enjoyment of the Potomac River and its tributaries. In 2003,
we identified Cedar Creek and its water -shed as an area of particular importance in the
Shenandoah Valley due to its landscape of relatively undisturbed farms and forests. At the end
of 2005, we released a report, which I believe you've all received at this point, published in
conjunction with Shenandoah University detailing the ecological and historic context of the
Cedar Creek water -shed. The students' research, along with research conducted by the Division
of Natural Heritage and the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, some of that was
conducted on properties adjacent to the properties being discussed here tonight. That research
showed that there are several rare plant communities in existence in this area, in particular, rare
limestone cliff habitats, which support a variety of unique plant species and mature hardwood
forests still exist along Cedar Creek in this area. Given the geology, an aspect of the property
proposed for rezoning, it is entirely possible that similar ecosystems and rare communities exist
on the Chemstone property. The uniqueness and special ecological character of the property
proposed for rezoning should be thoroughly examined before any determination is made on this
issue.
In addition to our concerns about the sensitive ecosystems present in the area, we are also
concerned about the impact a larger, more intensive quarry operation or other uses permitted
under the extracted manufacturing district could have on water quality and aquatic life in Cedar
Creek. Significant efforts should be made to preserve or restore forested bumpers along Watson
Run, Middle Marsh Brook, and Cedar Creek. Any influx of water running off this site could
choke off the diverse aquatic life in Cedar Creek. Cedar Creek is widely regarded by state
agencies, by citizen -monitoring groups, and by independent researchers as one of the cleanest
streams in the Shenandoah Valley. We urge you to vote "no" on this application.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Ms. Betsy Hickman, next please, followed by Debbie Miller.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 24
Ms. Betsy Hickman
I'm Betsy Hickman. I live in the Back District and I am a member of Preserve Frederick. Four
years ago I had the good fortune to move into a beautiful house on Main Street in Middletown.
While taking a stroll around town, I began thinking about all the things I've learned about O-N's
quarry expansion in the last eight weeks. As a matter of fact, all of Middletown is talking and
thinking about it. As I walked I began to look round me and realized that if this expansion goes
through there will be a lot of things that change. I have seen a beautiful bride on her way to her
wedding stepping out of a horse-drawn carriage in front of the Wayside Inn. I have heard the
wonderful sounds of music and enjoyed the mouth-watering smells drifting out of the Irish Isle.
Many times I have stopped to look to see what wonderful things Anita has to offer. Then there
are the mornings when the aroma of Route 11 Potato Chips fills the air. I have taken family and
friends to plays at Wayside Theatre. Middletown is a wonderful, quaint town and my family
loves it there. If this expansion goes through I don't think we will be able to enjoy any of these
things anymore —not if they are gone, why would they stay? What bride wants her wedding
reception drowned out by the noise of constant trucks? Who will come to a mining town to see a
play? Who will want to shop along Main Street with all of the dust, noise and pollution? Who
will be able to smell the fish -and -chips with the smell of diesel exhaust drifting through the air,
and how can my children safely cross Main Street to play with their friends?
As I looked at our town, I saw the future: businesses and families packed up and gone because
of the industrial zone at our doorstep. I saw a deserted Main Street —the only thing coming
down it was a never-ending line of trucks bringing with them an ill wind, one that you can
almost smell today. Members of the Frederick County Planning Commission, I urge you to
preserve what we have here in Middletown today. Don't be the ones who open the door on that
bleak future that I saw while on my walk. I ask that you deny this rezoning application. Thank
you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Ms. Debbie Miller, and Mr. Hal [Stalkub].
Ms. Debbie Miller
Hello, my name is Debbie Miller and I live in the Back Creek District and I am a member of
Preserve Frederick. Tonight I am here to tell the story on behalf of Kimberly Cunningham who
is unable to be here this evening because of job demands. Kimberly is a resident of Shenandoah
County. She has a history with O-N and Global Chemstone that dates back eight years in May.
Kimberly's complaints to Global and O-N started about one month after she moved into her
home. To date, eight years later, when she has filed complaints her complaints go unresolved
and unaddressed.
[Madam Chairman] Ma'am, may I ask you to address the application. This is not about people
or companies so I would be appreciative if you would address the application. I'm not quite sure
where you're headed with it. Let's go down to the noise then.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 25
[Miller] Okay. Kimberly has called and made her complaints about blasting to Judy [Weimer]
and a man she believes is Bill [Highman]. She's been told "we'll check into this and call you
back," and they don't. Here is a list of occurrences at her home as a result of O-N's quarry in
Strasburg and very likely what we could experience. As seismograph is placed in her yard on a
daily basis, depending on the direction of blasting for the day. She said she has observed
measurements up to 9.1. Pictures are knocked off walls, shelves fall, and she has had to anchor
wall -hangings and decor so that the blasting doesn't shake them loose. Claims to the company
for large cracks that have developed in her house foundation have been rejected. The company
states that they are due to normal settling. Heavy truck traffic and the associated jack -[braking]
creates disturbances as they travel past her home into all hours of the night waking her children.
Frequent rock and gravel falling from recently loaded trucks create driving hazards. Dust and
ash continually fall in her house and car. Windows and doors much be kept closed even on the
nicest of days. A newly washed car becomes filthy within a day. Windshield wipers cannot be
used to clear off dust that settles on windshields.
[Madam Chairman] Mr. Hal [Stalkub] and then if you will Jim Peters.
Mr. Hal Stalkub
Good evening. My name is Hal Stalkub and I live in the Back Creek District. I am a member of
Preserve Frederick. What could be more incompatible with a residential area than a limestone
quarry? O-N claims to be a good neighbor, but common sense tells me that good neighbors
don't show up in the neighborhood with explosives. [Audience laughs.] Living next to a good
neighbor one can feel fairly certain their children and pets can play in the yard without worrying
about blasting mishaps. On April 25t" of this year one of these mishaps occurred. A blast in a
limestone quarry in neighboring Clarke County sent rocks the size of baseballs and basketballs
flying right past where I drive to work every morning. One fifty -pound rock was sent 1,760 feet
into the property of a nearby resident. Another rock set in flight by the blast hit a vehicle parked
five feet from a residence, causing an estimated $10,000 damage to the vehicle. O-N has
explained how their blasts are regulated and its blasting contractor is highly qualified —I don't
doubt that, but they are governed by the same regulations as the Clarke County quarry, including
Murphy's Law. Accidents do happen and people do make mistakes, but accidents that occur at a
blasting site beside a residential area put lives at risk. In the Clarke County incident, a fifty -
pound rock was sent one-third of a mile into a residential area. In the May 4"' article in The
Clarke Times -Courier residents are quoted as saying they thought they were under attack as the
whistling rocks whizzed by and sounded like in -coming missiles. O-N stated in its application
that they intend to mine within five -hundred feet of residential properties —actually 100 if they
could be permitted to do so. This shows blatant disregard for the safety of our neighbors. If it's
all the same to you, I'll take the neighbors I already have: barking dogs and crying children I can
deal with. Please vote "no" on the rezoning. Thank you for your time.
[Madam Chairman] Mr. Peters, followed by Mr. Richard [Dine].
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 26
Mr. Jim Peters
Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My
name is Jim Peters and I actually live across Cedar Creek from the Back Creek area in
Shenandoah County. I am here to speak as a geologist, a [hybrid] geologist, with you tonight,
and one of your previous mentioned that your decision should not be based on emotion; it should
be based on hard evidence and I would like to agree with that. I think there is plenty of scientific
evidence to indicate that there is at least a great deal of uncertainly about the effects that the
mining, due to extraction, will have on the local groundwater system.
The U.S. Geological Survey recently completed a five -county study that I'm sure you must be
aware of because Frederick County funded part of that study having to do with the groundwater
system and a karst enviromment. Among the conclusions of that study is one that has already
been mentioned here tonight and I would like to underscore it. It is that in a karst environment
the prediction of the effects of withdrawals on the groundwater system are highly unpredictable,
and very difficult to evaluate. An accurate evaluation of the effects of groundwater withdrawal
needed for extraction of mining on the water supplies of nearby domestic wells is unlikely until
mining and water withdrawals actually begin. This may be too late to correct adverse affects
because of the uncertainly involved. I ask that the application be denied in order to protect the
drinking water of the current and future citizens of this area. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. Mr. Richard [Dine], please, and following Mr. Dine, could
we have Eric Steer.
Mr. Richard Dine
Good evening. I'm Richard Dine and I own property in the Back Creek District. I share a
boundary of forty-six hundred feet with the Chemstone property that is proposed for rezoning.
I've owned the land since about 1978 and I had hoped to build a retirement home on the property
and sell five -acre lots to other prospective homeowners so I can get money to build my home,
but the impacts of a quarry next door, groundwater, dust and all that you have heard before will
render this unsuitable for residence. It will be devastating to the value of my property and I urge
you to vote "no" on the rezoning. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. Mr. Eric Steele, following by Keith [McNealy].
Mr. Eric Steer
Hello, my name is Eric Steer. I live in the Gainesboro District. I am a former physical therapist
and I am completing my fourth year of medical studies to become a doctor from George
Washington AUC. I today want to talk to you about waterborne pollutants in our region. My
documentation, passion aside, stems from the CDC and state -sponsored health authorities. There
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 27
is a large write-up in front of each of you regarding some of the topics I'm going to go into much
greater detail than what I can speak of now.
These water tests were done directly on water found in local wells from 1995 until this April
2006 by Stephenson & Beck. The tests reveal occasional high levels of severely heavily toxic
elements. Four of them I'm going to speak on specifically right now are nitrate, cadmium, iron
and lead. Of these, cadmium was found at times to be 41-percent above the maximum levels. It
can cause direct kidney damage resulting in secondary hypertension, osteoporosis, and in animal
studies it has found liver and neural damage. In nitrates, it was found at 83- to 166-percent that
can change iron in red blood cells disallowing oxygen delivery. Iron was found at 133-percent
above the maximum. This targets the liver, heart and kidneys causing damage and failure, and,
lead, slightly below 3,333-percent above the maximum. This is released in coal burning or
mining. Excessive exposure leads to megaloblastic anemia, birth defects, bone defects, and
learning problems. Mining would undoubtedly create fractures and widening already existing
fractures in karst. By fracturing earth we introduce alternate routes that will bypass the natural
filtration systems that are already in place by our own natural systems. This will also drain our
natural aquifers, our water reservoirs, and our local wells. These levels themselves are [garbled]
aquifers of today. Please vote "no." Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. We have Keith McNealy, the after Mr. McNealy, Sharon
Santmyers, please
Mr. Keith McNealy
Good evening Board. My name is Keith McNealy. I live in the Back Creek District and I am a
member of Preserve Frederick. I am cardio-thoracic intensive care unit nurse at Winchester
Medical Center. Airborne pollutants and fine particulate matter generated by limestone mining
operations, extraction, and refining of limestone products will affect the health of Frederick
County residents. This massive mining proposal puts all residents of the old town area directly
in harms way. Because of the westerly prevailing winds, residents of Middletown, students of
Lord Fairfax Community College, and Middletown Elementary School will be directly exposed
to far greater emissions from blasting, extraction, and refining of minerals.
Too many residents in the County already suffer from asthma from environmental triggers linked
to this or other chronic obstructive lung diseases, including emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
These disease processes affect primarily children and the elderly. Asthma affects one in four
children and causes shortness of breath, wheezing, tightness in the chest, coughing, and
increased mucus production. When was the last time you had to remember to take a breath?
These children do so on a daily basis. We will be harming more children and our elderly if this
application is allowed. The American Lung Association of Virginia reports that Northern
Virginia received an "F" for levels of particulate pollution and ozone. Particulate matter
breathed in causes irritation and inflammation of lungs. Long-term exposure destroys and scars
lung tissue. Sulphur dioxide and nitric oxide seed clouds over which deadly acid rain is
produced. And carbon monoxide is a major contributor to the Green House Affect and deadly
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 28
[garbled] toxins. Emissions are measured in tons per year and the leading contributor is already
O-N, dwarfing emission from other industries in the County. Valley Air Now minutes from
March 2006 state PM levels have been stagnant and projected levels will go up ten -percent by
2018. Too much now? Why add so much more? These emissions and pollutants plague our
Valley and cause the haze and smog we see and breathe daily, and contribute to the increases in
respiratory cases in the County. For the sake of our health, I urge to deny this request. Thank
you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Ms. Santmyers, then Rebecca [Stalkub].
Ms. Sharon Santmyers
Good evening. My name is Sharon Santmyers and I am a new resident to the Back Creek
District and am a member of Preserve Frederick. My family chose to live in a county where the
rural life and its public schools were treasured. As a public school educator I understand how
this application could affect our school systems. Surface mining releases toxic chemicals into
the air and groundwater. According to the EPA over one-half of all toxic chemicals reported are
known or suspected neurological or developmental toxins. These toxins greatly interfere with
children's growth and learning. The neurological development of unborn children is at risk
when their pregnant mothers are exposed to the air and groundwater toxins. These effects
translate in learning disabilities, dyslexia, mental retardation, pervasive developmental disorders,
also known as autism, and behavior disorders. Children who live near the mine sites are at a
greater risk for these neurological impairments. The public schools that are left to deal with this
issue have been mandated by federal special education laws, such s [IDEA.]
As a special -education teacher, my concerns about this mining application, and its additional
possible uses concerning the County's public schools, are legitimate. The National Academy of
Sciences estimates three -percent of all neurological and developmental defects of children in this
nation are caused by exposure to known toxic substances. Three -hundred -sixty thousand
children who struggle daily to keep up academically with their peers have difficulty meeting the
reading, writing, and mathematics proficiency skills at the grade level curriculum demands.
Many cannot remain focused on a task. The frustration that these students experience becomes
the catalyst for other negative social factors, such as dropping out of school, a decreased
probability of obtaining a skill for employment, and an increased need to seek public assistance.
Don't we want to provide the safest and best environment for our children to grow up in? I ask
that you deny this application. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Ms. [Stalkub], and after Ms. Stalkub, Laurie Hunter, please.
Ms. Rebecca Stalkub
Hi, my name is Rebecca Stalkub and I live in the Back Creek District and I am a member of
Preserve Frederick. Increased truck traffic, which may go from five -hundred -six vehicles trips
per day to thirteen -hundred will have severe consequences for our community. The U.S.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 29
Environmental Protection Agency believes diesel exhaust is one of the greatest public health
risks of all air pollutants. Diesel combustion releases fine particles and gasses into the air
commonly called soot. These particles are typically smaller than the 2.5 microns or 1/30`" the
width of strand of hair. Diesel soot is a part of fine particulate matter, 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 then it's able to enter the blood stream. Diesel soot can accumulate in
lungs over time, obstructing oxygen transfer to blood, and causing many health problems.
Scientific studies indicate fine particles are linked directly to asthma, bronchitis, acute and
chronic respiratory systems such as shortness of breath and painful breathing, cancer and
premature death. Diesel exhaust worsens systems of asthma.
Children have immune and respiratory systems that are still developing and breathe up to fifty -
percent more air per pound of body weight than adults do. Breathing in soot from diesel exhaust
causes acute and chronic respiratory problems like asthma and is the leading serious chronic
illness among children and the leading cause of school absenteeism. Elderly and people with
weakened immune systems, respiratory and cardio-pulmonary diseases are also more susceptible
to harm. Those with harder lung diseases are more likely to die when exposed to soot. Scientists
and health experts have been unable to identify a safe level of exposure to diesel exhaust. The
Health Assessment document prepared by the EPA and corroborated by the International Agency
for Research on Cancer, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the World
Health Organization states that inhaled diesel exhaust likely causes cancer in humans. Please
deny this application. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Ms. Laurie Hunter, and I have two [Barrington] listed, Kevin or
Liz. [Kevin] Okay. Kevin.
Ms. Laurie Hunter
Good evening. My name is Laurie Hunter and I live in the Back Creek District and am a
member of Preserve Frederick. It goes without saying that mines and quarries are very
dangerous places. They are far too dangerous to be within a couple feet from our homes where
our children play, where we garden and where we cookout everyday. There are over fourteen
children who live in the Western View Subdivision and that's not including our four -legged
children either —our horses and our dogs. Many of the homes on Western View Drive border the
Middle Marsh property just north of Chapel Road, and they are homes built two -hundred feet
from the property O-N is requesting being mined —two -hundred feet. We are just steps away
from our yard and we are into Chemstone's mining property that they would like to mine there.
We already know that rocks can fly from mining operations up to two -thousand feet —we are
only just feet from the mining operation as they would have it. Global Chemstone's James River
plant in Bettencourt County, Virginia, also experienced a terrible tragedy. In 1996, a young
teenager who was fishing on the James River died as a result of electrical faults resulting from
improper installation of a water pump cable that ran into the river and electrocuted him, and the
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 30
company owned Global Chemstone was found at fault, and they were given a citation and [six]
order from MHSA on October 12, 1996.
We haven't heard word about the berm height for our area, but my concern is how hard would it
be for a young child to climb a berm and/or over a fence. Don't put out children in harm's way.
Please vote "no."
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Mr. Kevin Barrington, followed by Joe Hickman, please.
Mr. Kevin Barrington
Good evening. My name is Kevin Barrington. I live in the Back Creek District and I am a
member of Preserve Frederick. Road traffic safety is something that everyone should be
concerned about —driver inattention, dangerous drivers, weather conditions —all contribute to
increased traffic crashes. As this County grows in population with new businesses, more
vehicles of all sizes are put onto our roadways. I am employed as a police officer in the
Commonwealth of Virginia for sixteen years and public safety is my life.
Let me tell you why I am worried. As local residents, we see quarry materials being transported
all over our back roads, often to avoid the weight scales on Valley Pike and Route 81. Vehicles
that are seventy-five feet long and weighing up to 80,000 pounds are often seen exceeding the
posted speed limits and barreling down these back country roads. This is not innuendo as
previously stated by a proponent of O-N. These roads are unsafe, have unsafe shoulders, tight
curves and are hilly. Traveling these roads are my wife with our small children, teenagers with
new licenses, elderly people with slower reaction times, and precious cargo in school buses
stopping to pick up and deliver. There are farmers on tractors, bicyclists, horseback riders, etc.
We all expect our families to arrive home safely after they drive in the morning and afternoon.
As a law enforcement officer I can tell you from personal experience that sometimes they don't.
There is little defense when an 80,000-pound truck hits something at a high rate of speed.
Someone is either hurt or killed. It happened in other places, it will happen here. There is no
amount of money that can pay you for the price of a human life. Tripling the amount of heavy
industrial traffic trips in our local community and countryside is a recipe for disaster. The odds
are increased that someone will be hurt or worse —killed. According to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, in the year 2000, the last known data available, traffic crashes cost this nation
over $230 billion —that's "billion" dollars —every single year. As a law enforcement officer I
am sworn to protect the public and [garbled] is a very bad idea. Please help keep our families
and citizens of Frederick County safe. Please vote "no" to this application.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Mr. Hickman, and following Mr. Hickman, is Regine [Rigald],
I hope I pronounced that correctly.
Frederick County Plamling Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 32
Middletown Town Council member Mark Brown pointed out the eagle flying above the heads of
the Review Board. We are currently working with officials at DGIF on the nest location. These
birds are on the endangered species list and are covered under the Bald Eagle Protection Act.
There is also a Class Five cold -water stream, which supports a stockable trout fishery, and
according to Will Orndorf of the Virginia Department of Conservation it is a highly desirable
wildlife resource and should be treated as delicately as a threatened specie. There are too many
critical environmental reasons to allow this rezoning. Please vote "no."
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Dr. Hagen, and after Dr. Hagen, Bill Hunter.
Dr. Charlie Hagen
Thank you. My name is Charlie Hagen. I am a resident of Frederick County in the Back Creek
District. I am president of the Shenandoah Audubon Society and I have personally surveyed the
project area and the surrounding woodlands. This area of Cedar Creek has water so clear that
you can see the fish from the top of the limestone bluffs that rise from the creek side. It's a
relatively unblemished habitat for a large and diverse group of wildlife species, including neo-
tropical migrants, various species of water birds and waterfowl, Wood Warblers, and an
occasional Osprey and other birds that at one time were common in the Shenandoah Valley, but,
of course, nowadays much less so. As already stated, the Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries has identified specific habitat effects which may threaten endangered species such as
those woodland turtles, rare and elusive birds such as Loggerhead Shrikes, certain species of
Sandpipers, and the American Bald Eagles, which have been sighted in the area.
We know that wildlife habitat loss is often not noticed until it is gone forever and can't be
retrieved. At issue is not whether the Shenandoah Valley will be developed, but how it will
develop, whether our material desire to extract from the Valley will ultimately lessen the quality
of life we came here to seek in the first place. This proposal is a flawed plan that places too
much stress on a beautiful natural area already impacted by the extracted industry and I urge you
to vote "no" on the proposal.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. Mr. Bill Hunter, and after him, Steve [Debrueller].
Mr. Bill Hunter
Madam Chairperson and Members of the Planning Board, thank you for hearing us tonight. My
name is Bill Hunter. I'm a proud resident of the Back Creek District —another transplant, but a
proud resident. I am also a member of Preserve Frederick. Someone recently told me they
thought this massive strip-mining increase project might benefit the economy of Middletown and
Frederick County. I just can't see how. It's dirty; it's a low tax, low job industry, relatively.
Surely, it can't be as beneficial for the area as enticing other high-tech industries into the area. I
really think we should discuss the negative impacts on tourism and businesses. Our new national
park, businesses like the Wayside Theatre, the Wayside Inn, Anita's "Wonderful Store," and the
Irish Isle —they are the ones that will pay dearly.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 31
Mr. Joe Hickman
Hi, my name is Joe Hickman and I live in the Back Creek District. I am a member of Preserve
Frederick. VDOT's response to O-N's proposal only addresses that it appears there will be little
measurable impact to Route 727 or [McCue] Road —that is the access road to the Middletown
plant, which is not traveled by town residents. VDOT's only comment about the truck traffic
that will travel through historic Middletown was that they had reviewed it. Route 11 has just
been designated as a scenic byway. As a state road, Route 11 may very well stand up to the
heavy truck traffic for a period of time, but then what? Minute after minute, day after day, 50-
80,000-pound trucks, rumbling over them, will eventually degrade the surface of Main Street and
all of the roads they travel on and they will need to be repaired. Those repairs come at
taxpayers' expense. Everywhere we turn, the roads are covered with limestone dust and gravel.
Sections of Main Street turn white from the packed lime dust. The noise from [fake] -braking and
as trucks gear -up when pulling onto Main Street from a standing stop is already constant night
and day.
The Middletown Town Council has serious concerns about the truck traffic through our quaint
historic town. Their May 8, 2006, resolution highlights citizens' concerns about this proposal
and includes this statement about traffic, "Whereas, increased limestone mining is projected to
create negative traffic and noise impacts with up to fourteen -hundred industrial vehicles traveling
through the town of Middletown each day," which amounts to nearly one truck per minute, 24-
hours a day, seven days a week. All those truck trips in town referenced in this application are
only for the trucks carrying limestone materials. The application is silent on heavy industrial
truck trips for all other proposed uses. Rolling caravans of heavy industrial trucks are not
compatible with our rural historic community for many reasons —air, noise, dust. Resident
safety is another issue, which must be seriously considered. The costs to the community are
what taxpayers will bear. Please deny this application. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. Ms. Rigald, and then Dr. Charles Hagen.
Ms. Re ine Rigald
Hi, my name is Regine Rigald. I am a resident of Back Creek District, and a member of Preserve
Frederick. Governor Tim Kaine and Secretary of Natural Resources, L. Preston Bryant,
responded to Middletown's concerns regarding O-N's application. A three -page letter was
written addressing the environment, wildlife and historical impacts to our community and the
region as a result of this application's approval. In summary of this letter, these were the
pertinent points that should be highlighted. The Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries has identified terrestrial and aquatic habitants that will be affected and are within this
proposed project's area. Wood turtles are a state -threatened species and several state -threatened
species of birds, including Loggerhead Shrikes, Buick's Wren, and Upland Sandpipers. The
elusive American Bald Eagle has been sighted and noted for the past four years by many
different citizens. These sightings were within the proximity of Belle Grove and Meadow Mills
Lane, including a [nest location] that the HRAB Review has written in December of 2005.
Frederick County Plaiuiing Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 33
Tourism is Virginia's second largest industry representing a $15.3 billion investment in our
economy, employing more than 280,000 people. Nearly ten -percent of the state's tourism dollars
change hands in the Shenandoah Valley. In 2003, Winchester and Frederick County alone
generated an excess of $72 million in tourism -related taxable sales. I assume most of that is
from retail sales from people who visit the area and buy from our merchants. The Cedar Creek
Battlefield remains one of the few where reenactors can carry out the order of battle on the
ground that their ancestors fought and died on. It is the ground where the future of this nation
was determined. Surely, all of Virginia is battlefield land, but our Congress thought the land in
question was significant enough to make it a national historic park. The reenactors of First Bull
Run were recently drawn to it, enough to make this the first year that they held their event on our
local treasure —the Cedar Creek Battlefield. We don't want to keep them from coming back —
more lost tourism dollars. I'll make this short. Please vote "no." Thank you very much.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Mr. Steve [Debrueller] then after him, please, Mr. Clarence
[Steer]. Ah, no Steve Debrueller? Mr. Clarence Steer are you here? Come up, please, sir. After
Mr. Steer, Mr. Steve [Beale].
Mr. Clarence Steer
Good evening. My name is Clarence Steer and I am a resident of the Gainesboro District.
Mining is an important industry, but it has its place, and Middletown is not the same place that it
was fifty-two years ago. There have been a lot of changes, and that was when 693 [sic] acres
were sold to Chemstone. The town now has a national historic park; it has a thriving national
heritage of historic importance, and, of course, a rapidly growing number of developments —
people living in the area. Now had these mining companies made known their intentions when
they bought this property, then many of the people who have come to Middletown and have set
up shop, set up homes, built their lives there, wouldn't be faced with what they are faced with
today. The companies just did not make their intentions known. But now the "cat is out of the
bag." People know what they are faced with and this is why so many people are coming tonight
to tell you to vote "no" on this application.
We are not talking about the residences around Belle Grove and Western View Drive alone. It is
all of Middletown. It's going to take in all of this dust and all of this noise and all of this
pollution so no one is going to be exempt so don't feel there is going to be a shortage of that.
But during the last five decades, the companies that have owned this land had no problem with
paying the taxes for rural agricultural land, leasing it to farmers, but now the application is before
you, and I ask you to vote "no" on it. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. Steve Beale, please, then Mr. Kirk [Burgoyne].
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 34
Mr. Steve Beale
[My name is Steve Beale and I live in Frederick] County, and I am a member of Preserve
Frederick. Tonight we are going to shift gears here. I'd like to a few minutes to give you a
financial summary of O-N Minerals. The company declared bankruptcy just as recently as 2004
and has emerged from bankruptcy in the last two years. Their combined operating loss for 2004
and '05 is approximately $38 million. They continue to operate under the burden of a serious
debt load that severely restricts their operation and is a constant threat to bring down their
business. In April of '06, less than two months ago, O-N filed a Form 15 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission. They announced their intention to de -register its common
and preferred stock and suspend their reporting obligations under the SEC rules. This is a very
serious move and most public companies would obviously resist making such a move. By this
filing with the SEC, O-N is not obligated to voluntarily comply with reporting requirements in
the future. This means many of the details concerning this company will no longer be available
to the public and can be kept private. While O-N has every right to make this change, it raises
significant questions about the intent of the company to share operating results, business
transactions, and other relationship such as we've heard tonight that may significantly affect the
financial future of the company in our community. I ask again that you vote "no" for this
application. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Mr. Kirk Burgoyne, and after him, please, Mr. Gary Nichols.
Mr. Kirk Burgoyne
Good evening. My name is Kirk Burgoyne and I live in the Back Creek District and I am a
member of Preserve Frederick. I would like to continue to expound on some of the items that
my predecessor had just went on about. Quoting from the IOK filed by with the SEC by O-N in
March of this year, at December 31, 2005, the company was a co-defendant in cases alleging
asbestos -induced illnesses involving claims of about forty -seven -thousand claimants. The
document goes on with respect to silica. The company was a co-defendant in cases involving
about 15,219 claimants. In the same document, the company makes the following statement,
"Management cannot predict whether or not the company's available insurance will be adequate
to cover any and all asbestos claims that arise in the future or that the company will have the
ability to otherwise successfully defend or resolve such cases. If there are no developments that
reduce the impact of asbestos litigation or its costs, the company's available insurance may be
insufficient to cover all future claims and there could be materially adverse impacts on the
company as a result of operational liquidity and financial condition."
Over the years O-N has historically operated large shipping vessels that sailed the Great Lakes.
As of yesterday, the company announced the sale of six more of these vessels and plans to sell
the remaining three. It is obvious the company continues to be forced to sell important assets to
generate cash to pay debt obligations to survive. Considering their financial difficulties and
bankruptcy in 2004, one might think compensation for senior management would have decreased
or at least stayed the same, but the IOK revealed that earnings for the CEO went up from
Frederick County Plamling Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 35
$446,000 in 2003 to in excess of $1.4 million for 2005. Earnings for other top executives of the
company showed similar increases. During that period of time, these increases are puzzling,
especially considering that some creditors were not being paid during the time of bankruptcy or
were not being paid in a timely manner. On May 12, 2006, O-N announced an agreement with
Wolverine Power Cooperative of Cadillac, Michigan. They gave Wolverine an option to
purchase 440 acres of the property previously mined by O-N and [garbled] City, Michigan, and
they are looking at using that for coal power generation. Thank you very much, and please vote
no.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you very much. Mr. Nichols, and then after Mr. Nichols, Steve
Miller, please.
Mr. Gary Nichols
Good evening. My name is Gary Nichols and I live in the Back Creek District and I am a
member of Preserve Frederick. I was born in Frederick County and I'm proud to say that I've
lived in this area most of my life. Even if O-N has the desire to be a good neighbor, we are
concerned they may not have the resources that would allow them to operate safely and to
properly protect their neighbors. What if someone is injured or property is damaged from its
normal operations? Would anyone ever be able to collect for this liability? If O-N offers a
number of attractive proffers in order to convince the County to pass this rezoning request, will
they even be able to carry out those proffers in the future? What if they fail to perform their
promised proffers what recourse will the citizens have? Who will enforce these promises? Will
we be forced to take O-N to court if it fails to perform? They already have over 60,000 claims
against them. Would our claim be number 60,001?
The company has had to sell off assets recently in order to survive. This has included some of
their operations as well as their shipping vessels. Isn't it possible they plan to sell this land to
heavy industrial users and they are simply trying to maximize on the value of their property by
having it all zoned for extracted manufacturing? Isn't it ironic that one of the shipping vessels
that was just sold was the "S.S. Middletown." [Audience laughter.] Does this company have
any thoughts of building a coal-fired power plant in historic Middletown? EM zoning could
allow it. If this rezoning is approved, can you imagine turning over 639 acres of historic and
scenic land that is zoned for heavy industrial use to a company that is desperate financially. Do
you believe they would protect it or destroy it? Approving this rezoning request for this
company could lead to disastrous results for Frederick County and its citizens. We ask for denial
[of this application].
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Mr. Steve Miller.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 36
Mr. Steve Miller
Good evening. My name is Steve Miller. I live in the Back Creek District and I am a member of
Preserve Frederick.
[Background commotion as a member of the audience is in the process of being ejected from the
hearing by police.]
[Madam Chairman] Sir, I would like very much for you to respect the remainder of the audience
who have participated beautifully, and if you could sit down, sir ... [ejectee interrupts many
times] ... then you will be asked to leave. Excuse me, we are trying to listen to Mr. Miller.
[Keep these people away from me]. Gentleman, I think this is enough. [This is not going to look
good on your tape.] [Laughter] I'm sorry, I'm sorry to all of you.
[Mr. Miller continues] At the April 5t" hearing the following questions and concerns were
voiced by Commissioners regarding the inadequacies of the O-N Minerals' application:
monitoring of water quality and quantity of citizens' wells and water systems; change of
maximum of a thirty-foot berm allowance to an average of thirty-foot berms; denote the height
for the minimum of the height of the berms. O-N Minerals Chemstone has changed hands
several times. Who will be the next owner? Are future owners tied to existing proffers and
unclearly related to this application? Agreements should be attached to proffers and be clearly
stated and understandable to all parties involved. Who mediates remediation? Please state the
method of administration of seismographs where shockwaves travel. Resolved groundwater and
seismograph issues. Houses get air -shock; seismograph monitors ground -shock. The proffer is
very broad and basic. We would like to see site limitations, topographical map with berms need
specific answers. The Commission would like to get DMME involved to clarify issues. Would
there be an escrow fund or bond fund for well owners? They should not have to hire a lawyer
and go to great personal expense if wells go dry. There has been no problem with the draw -
down at Clearbrook, but with FCSA drilling on Middletown property a different problem is
posed. Expansion of the mine is necessary and we would like the plan showing berms, details,
phasing programs, increasing buffer zones, etc. There has been no response, answers, or
outreach since the onset of this application by O-N Minerals. Please vote "no" for this mining
rezoning application. Thank you for your time.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, Mr. Miller. May I have Brooke Dalton next, and after Ms.
Dalton, Mr. Jeff Carter.
Mr. Brooke Dalton
Good evening. My name is Brooke Dalton. I live in Middletown in the Back Creek District, and
I am a member of Preserve Frederick. This year I was crowned "Ms. Middletown Honorary Fire
Chief' from Middletown Volunteer Fire and Rescue. My concerns are regarding the town that I
have loved and grown up in my entire life. My history with Middletown goes back with my
grandparents —Wayne and Judy Dalton. My grandfather served as mayor of Middletown and
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 37
both my grandparents are well known and liked in our community. Both my parents —Mark and
Lynnette Dalton —have also lived their whole lives here and are both active not only in their civil
duties, but also in their volunteer duties.
As a third -generation native to Middletown I would like to state how disappointed I am that
Middletown is even having to defend itself against this rezoning. I know as time passes that the
town is destined to change, but I hope that it will retain its historical and family -oriented
atmosphere to which I was brought up upon. There are lots of other places in Virginia to get
limestone. There is no need to blast right on top of a historic battlefield where thousands gave
their lives for our freedom. I am proud to say that I live in this county and I represent it.
Citizens are worth more than holes, hollowed ground, and piles of reclamation dirt. I represent
the future of Middletown and I would like to make a request at this time. Would everyone [in
the audience] who is opposed to the O-N application please rise. On behalf of all those who are
standing and the almost 500 names who are on these petitions we are respectfully asking that you
deny the rezoning of the 639 acres of historical countryside. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you so much. Mr. Jeff Carter.
Mr. Jeff Carter
My name is Jeff Carter and I live in the Back Creek District. I am a founding member of
Preserve Frederick. The idea that Middletown and surrounding areas would come together with
such passion as those who spoke before you tonight is astounding to me. What community in
America today should be forced to defend its way of life? None, but the members of this
community have risen to the challenge. Other residents in this county take for granted what a
beautiful and historic place they live in. They should not cast out the riches they have inherited
by defacing a land so blessed by history and natural beauty. Others see what Frederick County
has to offer. This land is a stone's throw of our nation's capital and in a region with
unprecedented growth. It is also one of the most beautiful places on earth.
The resources that have been bestowed upon us are gifts —natural, historic, and economic —
creating balance is the challenge before us. As other localities struggle with lost industry and see
residents moving away, here we have growth knocking on our door. Given the unique position
of our county, is it wise to expand an industry that provides very few jobs and contributes so
little to local economy —one that has such a negative impact on our natural and historic
resources? Shouldn't we leverage our unique situation to bring in industry that would make us
even stronger? Here is the longer answer: Frederick County's Comp Plan is designed to direct
the right growth to the right place. It has failed to do so with mining, which is important because
the limestone belt stretches the length of the county. Just because O-N's predecessors initially
located a mine next to three incredible public assets —the creek, the park, and Middletown —does
not mean it is appropriate to triple its operations there. As it says in The Sentinel, Frederick
County has more than a thousand acres zoned for mining and extracted manufacturing. How
much more does it need to accommodate and where? Middletown is not the place. Thank you.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 38
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Mr. Walter McCauley, please.
Mr. Walter McCauley
My naive is Walter McCauley. I live at 7948 Church Street in Middletown. I am a member of
Preserve Frederick. Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, you have heard
much about the impact of the proposed mining and other [inclusions] abuses on physical health,
but equally important is emotional health. The mind and body are not separate entities —they
interplay. The health of the one affects the health of the other, and emotional health is dependent
upon the satisfying quality of life. In support of that statement, I submit this for your
consideration. After World War II when they began reconstruction of Vienna, Austria, the first
thing they rebuilt was the Opera House. The occupying troops —American, British, French —all
asked, "Why are you rebuilding this; why aren't you building roads or municipal buildings, or
housing?" And the Viennese told them that after so much horror and ugliness we need light and
beauty in our lives. And that is why I am speaking against this proposed rezoning, because it
will take the light and the beauty out of Middletown. We do not need more sources of anxiety or
irritation or stress in our lives. We need places like Middletown for our emotional well-being,
and for our emotional well-being we need them to remain as they are. On behalf of all of us, I
ask that you deny this application. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. This concludes, or actually we have covered all of those
who have signed up to speak. Obviously, if there are others who would like to speak, I ask only
that, first of all, you put up your hand, and secondly, you make sure that whatever you have to
say we have not heard before. Sir, would you please come forward.
Mr. Byron Smith
My name is Byron Smith. I just moved into the area here. I live in the Back Creek area. We
have talked about a lot of things here and a lot of water and a lot of health issues and everything,
but nobody has addressed what our most precious commodity is: our children, and the safety of
them on the school buses. I have traveled the mornings and seen the school buses and the big
trucks miss hitting each other's mirrors by inches. I've seen trucks behind school buses and
literally if that school bus stopped, there would have been no way that truck could have stopped.
All you have to do is look in the newspaper in Prince George's County where a dump truck
loaded with gravel ran into the back of a school bus, which pushed the school bus head-on into a
pick-up truck; killed the school bus driver, injured several kids, and killed the driver of the pick-
up truck. Do we need that in this community? Do we have to read about those kinds of things
where our children are hurt? No! We vote "no" on this proposition; we won't have it. Thank
you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who would like to address the
Commission? New information only. Sir, in the back, I don't believe you addressed the
Commission.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 39
Mr. Paul [Kissack]
My name is Paul Kissack. I live in the Back Creek Magisterial District and I am a member of
Preserve Frederick. I know for a fact that there are a lot of people tonight who could not say all
that they needed to say because of the two -minute limit. This isn't over; we have a lot more to
say and a lot more to do. We appreciate your time and patience, we appreciate you hearing us
out, and we hope you continue to give us the opportunity to express our viewpoints. Thank you
very much, and please deny this application.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. Anyone else who would like to speak that has not spoken
before or has something new to say? Your name, please.
Ms. Julie [Cleventure]
My name is Julie Cleventure. I'm in the Back Creek District and I don't believe this was
brought forward tonight. Everyone's been saying, "deny, deny, deny"; however, I am calling on
the Commission to go for a vote this evening and to not table this. Your constituents have been
ready. We only had sixty days to prepare for this, and we have come very prepared tonight,
along with a lot of things like Mr. Kissack said were not able to be said. We do have a lot more
to bring; however, based on what we have given you tonight I hope you will take this into
consideration and to please vote this evening "no/yes," but to give us a vote and not to table.
Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Sir? Would you come up to the microphone, please?
Mr. Keith McNealy
I just wanted to say that ten years ago when I bought my property, which adjoins Global
Chemstone's property, which was already zoned, I went to the offices of Global Chemstone and
I asked them what were their intentions with this property, and they told one that this property
was a buffer and that it would never be developed in my lifetime, and here I am, ten years later,
I'm still alive, I just want to say they've pulled the wool over my eyes and I'm asking that they
don't pull the wool over yours. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Final minutes. Mr. Kollar, something new?
Mr. Dave Kollar
David Kollar again. The suggestion by Ms. Cleventure was to ask for a vote and have the
rezoning not tabled; however, I would just ask that if that's a consideration you would also
consider tabling it for further examination by Staff and the applicant. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. I think we've run the gambit here, folks. I think for us, the
Commission, I would like to thank you very much for a very comprehensive public hearing, and
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 40
I will take the opportunity to close it at this moment. This is the opportunity for the applicant to
speak to us if they would like to say something regarding the rezoning or their intent in terms of
future motions.
Thomas (Ty) Moore Lawson, Esquire
Madam Chairman, Members of the Planning Commission, I am Ty Lawson here on behalf of the
applicant. We really don't have anything other to add then to renew our request for a table.
We've certainly all heard quite a bit of comments, greatly appreciate them, and as Mr. Ferrell has
said we want to have the opportunity to fully respond, to give that information to your Staff, to
give that information to you all, and if there is any follow-up to allow for that as well, so that we
would renew the request for the table, and we think it's very appropriate, especially in light of all
the comments that we've heard. We thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Mr. Lawson, please don't go away. Are you waving the time -frame.
[Mr. Lawson] I think we should and will.
[Madam Chairman] All right. Do you have any suggestion? Once you've waived the time -
frame, it's really your decision as to when you come back in, but it sure would be helpful for
everybody in this room to know what your intent is.
[Mr. Lawson] And, you know, it's very difficult. I think for the record we do need to do that
and it's our application, and I appreciate your asking that so we have a record of it. We would
like to get to this as quickly as possible, I know you all would as well, but I'd hate to set a date
and then —an artificial date —and then, for example, not give you all the opportunity to respond
timely and so on. So, we would like to be as flexible as possible, but I would, for the purposes of
a guess-timate, I think we're looking at something probably in the ninety- (90)-day range.
[Madam Chairman] Excellent. Um, Mr. Ours.
[Mr. Ours] Mr. Lawson, if you wouldn't mind satisfying my curiosity about one thing. You
were aware when we tabled this on April 51h, correct?
[Mr. Lawson] Actually I wasn't involved. I have certainly heard that.
[Mr. Ours] Okay. Well, maybe you can answer this question and maybe you can't, I'm just
curious why in the intervening two months since we tabled this we have not had any response or
dialogue from the company and now we're being asked to extend the original tabling. I'm just,
I'm curious about that.
[Mr. Lawson] Well, first of all, procedurally, I think it's important to point out that this would
be our first request for a table. As I understand the record ... [Mr. Ours: Yes, I do understand
that.] Okay. Thank you. Secondly, as I understand it and, again, I'm relatively new to this case,
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 41
as I understand it, there has been dialogue that's going on. I think Mr. Ruddy pointed out, for
example, he had met with representatives from DMME and learned quite a bit about the mining
industry and how heavily regulated it is, and how, in fact, many of the impacts that are discussed
are already being reviewed and being overseen by not only the state, but also federal authorities.
So, I think a lot has been accomplished and, certainly, more needs to be accomplished, and I
think, further, we've been working —and I have been involved with this —on a Proffer Statement
that will incorporate not only those things that are already in the regulations, but also things that
are site -specific, and things that can be done by this landowner. And, quite honestly, it takes a
lot of time and effort because we're going to make, as you know, a document that would run
with the land, would be binding on not only this landowner, but also subsequent landowners, and
a lot of time and effort and thought need to go into that. And I don't think we want to go into
that lightly or, again, do it with an artificial deadline in mind. We want to get it right. I think
everybody wants to get it right.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Mr. Mohn?
[Mr. Mohn] I have a couple of questions for Mr. Ruddy if I could. Mike, number one, I know
you have had conversations with folks from the state and learned a little bit more about their role
in regulating the mining activities and, in particular, what their role is in mediating disputes or
dealing with many of the offsite impacts that I think are concerns of everybody in the community
and on the Commission. If you could maybe give us a little insight before we accept that you
have the broad strokes, that it's a heavily regulated industry that theoretically should protect all
of these issues, or deal with all of these issues, that effectively. What have you found out in your
discussions?
[Mr. Ruddy] You speak specifically about the meeting we had with Mr. David Bennett of the
Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, and it became very clear during that meeting that,
while they regulate the operation, the mining company, and the permitting, and safety issues, the
scope of their involvement beyond the property and beyond the permit is very limited. In fact,
they are reluctant to become involved with any of the issues that revolve around blasting, water
issues, things of that nature, the type of things that we have discussed previously and again
tonight. So, the DMME is extremely reluctant and, in fact, will not get involved with issues
beyond the specific permitting operations of the mining facility, which they have the
responsibility for.
[Mr. Mohn] So, you'd agree that it's a little bit of an illusion to suggest that the state or the
federal government is going to provide protections to the local community. Is that correct?
[Mr. Ruddy] That would be accurate.
[Mr. Mohn] My second question is, and it's the only other one I have, is did O-N Minerals
submit a CPPA application by the June 1" deadline?
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 42
[Mr. Ruddy] No Comprehensive Plan Amendment has been submitted by the applicant in this
location.
[Mr. Mohn] So, at this stage that land that is subject to rezoning right now, is it still planned for
rural -areas use?
[Mr. Ruddy] It is planned for rural areas indeed. No additional designations ... [Mr. Mohn: No
Text Amendments?] That's correct.
[Mr. Mohn] Nothing that would suggest that maybe that should accompany a rezoning
application of this scale.
[Mr. Ruddy] That's correct.
[Mr. Mohn] Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Yes, Mr. [Rick] Ours.
[Mr. Ours] While you are here, Michael, if I might, and this may be beyond your scope, but I am
curious about, with mining of this type do you know at all what the requirements are as far as
remediation of the land after it has been mined, is there a requirement that it has to be —I'm
wondering if it has to be remediated within a time -frame or, you know, are there any
requirements for that.
[Mr. Ruddy] There certainly are a lot of requirements, but it became very clear there are a lot of
opportunities to modify the requirements and approach things in a different manner. So, I would
hate to be very specific in that situation because I certainly don't know what could indeed occur
on an individual basis, but it became very clear that there was a lot of flexibility in the permitting
and in the mining application, the mining plan that goes along with these operations.
[Mr. Ours] That would certainly be one thing that I would be interested in knowing because I've
seen a lot of these types of operations where once they are abandoned —they are abandoned —
there is no remediation, and I'm just curious if there are any requirements.
[Mr. Ruddy] Surely there are requirements and I think the discussion we are having here at this
moment highlights some of the things that, of course, have come up during the evaluation of this
and we've had several state agencies and, of course, the correspondence that was mentioned
tonight from the Secretary of Natural Resources points to that, where there is a lot of other
responsibility for folks who are out there. Many of whom offered their assistance to the county.
[Beginning of Tape No 3, side 6 — speaker unknown at this point]
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 43
[Mr. Mohn?] ... from all the exact details of the [Greenwood] Mill and the FCSA, if the
property was given to the FCSA before it was remediated, would that then negate any
responsibility on O-N's part to remediate the property?
[Mr. Ruddy] I wouldn't like to answer that one. [Audience laughter.] Really that would be
under the purview of the permitting of the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy.
[Mr. Mohn?] ... but it would be turned over to a quasi -public entity at that point and the
regulations change.
[Madam Chairman] Any other questions for Mr. Ruddy while he is up? Any further questions
of the applicant? Mr. Thomas
[Mr. Thomas] This is a question for Staff. If this is tabled tonight I think at the next meeting we
would need to have —or I would want to havea clear understanding of this agreement between
the Sanitation Authority and O-N. There are some statements in there that, not being a lawyer,
Ty can explain it to me, but there are some statements in there that are confusing. On
termination of liability, hold harmless, transfer of property, water rights, and that could have a
significant impact on my thought process on where we would go with approving this or
disapproving, and I think it's also something probably the community needs to know because
there are some statements in there that could be interpreted in different ways that have significant
liability, not only on the surrounding property owners, but also on the FSCA, which in turn
passes their liability onto everybody who buys water from them.
[Mr. Ruddy] So by pairing the prudent request for involvement from the FSCA, counsel, and
county counsel let's move forward with the discussion on this. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] We have had a number of questions posed by the public and I'm not
thinking that our Commissioners have any fewer questions, but are there some that you would
like to pose to the applicant that have not been expressed either on the April 5"' meeting or
tonight? Yes, Mr. Thomas.
[Mr. Thomas] I certainly have to commend the folks that came tonight. I don't think we've ever
had a public group that has been as well prepared and had as well a thought-out presentation as
the folks that have come tonight. And I've got to admit that your presentation was much better
than the applicant's application. [Tremendous applause.] I think probably, maybe I will be
repeating, not repeating, but going over and summarizing some things that have already been
said.
I think the traffic impact analysis that's in the package, if this is tabled and you start over,
essentially I think that's what you have to do, I think your traffic impact analysis is woefully
inadequate; you talk about the trip -generation analysis based on numbers of vehicles, when we're
talking about 40-ton dump trucks, when 60- or 70-percent of your traffic is a 40-ton vehicle the
traffic analysis projections go out the window, they are not really applicable to the analysis that
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 44
you did so I think that has to totally be redone. I think you need to do a route analysis that looks
at the geometries of the roads and also the conditions of the roads and the impact that such a
severely loaded truck is going to have. We are not talking about a thousand cars; we're talking
about eight- or nine -hundred 40-ton trucks. I think there needs to be a strip map in the
application so that the community understands the vehicular traffic that is going to occur with
such heavily loaded vehicles from the quarry to where ever they go, through Middletown or
where ever else.
I think the environmental impact analysis was a little lacking; there is nothing that I could find in
the analysis that talked about air quality. I think we need to have a particulate matter study. I
think there needs to be a wind -[rose] analysis that will show the distribution of the particulate,
the levels of particulate matter that will be experienced by the surrounding residences, and also
the particulate matter size that is going to be distributed. I think we need to look at —certainly
we talked a lot about the impact on people with the particulate matter. I think you also need to
look at —there are a lot of farms in that area with animals, what does that particulate matter do to
the animals who are going to be —I mean a cow's nostrils are pretty big when they are down in
the ground eating grass and they are sucking up the dust at the same time, so what's that going to
do to the cows? There are lot of apple blossoms and apple orchards in that area. If we have the
apple blossoms covered with particulate matter can they be pollinated by the bees? Are we
going to stop any pollination on our apple orchards? Dust outside we've talked about, but what
about dust inside the homes? A lot of these houses down there are new; they think they have
nice sealed windows, but when you're talking about particulate matter of this size, it gets into
homes. Everyone of those homes within a couple -mile area there are going to have a significant
dust problem in their house.
There was discussion, one lady talked bout some difficulties other people had in their process of
how they determine liability for water wells, blasting damage. Certainly there is a minimum state
standard, and the minimum state standard is to protect just the bear minimum. For a plan of this
significance I would expect to see something that goes well beyond the minimum. How are you
going to evaluate the existing water wells from a quality and quantity standpoint? How are you
going to inventory and evaluate the existing houses, and I would want to see a plan developed
that comes up with a process for damage -assessment and appeals that doesn't require the
homeowners surrounding that area to invest an extensive amount of money hiring lawyers and
suing people.
And also some type of a bonding process that would make sure there was, not an escrow fund,
but a bond somewhere that if, for some reason, the company had financial difficulties and went
somewhere else that the homeowners in the surrounding area are protected against potential
future damages and liabilities.
I haven't heard anything from the applicant talking about meetings with surrounding property
owners. I think there needs to be some partnering and meetings with surrounding property
owners to go over really what your plan is, how you're going to protect the property owners,
what your blasting plan is, and for all of the state -regulated items, Mr. Ruddy kind of expressed
Frederick County Plamiing Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 45
they regulate and control what's inside the permit and inside the area, they really have little
responsibility outside of the area, and your biggest problem is outside of the area and not inside
your quarry site. We have to have something that is certainly significantly more than the
minimum requirements. I mean, one seismograph in a blasting area in the type of topography
we're talking about there is woefully in inadequate —should have a minimum of three to five for
every blasting plan.
I think the liability for surrounding homeowners, water -wells blasting, I think that needs to be
expanded quite a bit. I think you need to look at uses of what's allowed in an EM area, and what
you're really going to do there, and if the items that are allowed by right in an EM area aren't
needed, I think you should drop them out of the proffer so that it doesn't confuse neighbors on
what could happen there.
And I think another significant item is length of this quarry operation. Are we talking about a
five-year operation or are we talking about a 50-year operation? What is your time phase plan
for development of your quarry and the extent of that development, and if you are proceeding
down the Valley with the operation are you remediating areas behind you or are they left open
through the entire process?
And have you considered a mining operation versus an open quarry? That would have less
impact on the visual area and dust, it has the same amount of impact on blasting and water wells
and those types of operations, but at least it reduces some of the impact of the surrounding area.
I've hit a lot of issues and I would certainly be available to talk over the next period of time, but I
think you need at least ninety (90) days to put together a package that would even start
approaching something that would be of the quality to be reviewed and considered.
[Madam Chairman] Well, we've got a row full here. Who is first? Robert [Morris].
[Mr. Morris] Are we still in the public hearing or have we closed it?
[Madam Chairman] No, we've closed it.
[Mr. Morris] Okay. I know of absolutely nothing —I can conceive of nothing —that can be
proffered that would make this an acceptable rezoning for me. [Tremendous applause.] I think
the issues raised by the citizens and the public all are valid and require mitigation, and that
cannot be accomplished in my mind any way accept denying the rezoning. With that said I see
absolutely no benefit or reason for any of us to grant the request for a ninety -day suspension. I
think we ought to vote tonight for denial.
[Madam Chairman] I saw other hands up. Mr. [Gary] Oates.
[Mr. Oates] I'd like to thank Mr. Thomas. He's saving me a lot of talking. [Laughter.]
Something else I'd like to see before you come back before us, I'd like you to revisit HRAB with
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 46
your new plan. I think you need to visit the town of Middletown, also, present it to the Council
and get their recommendation, and certainly public works needs to see it also.
Something I'm really worried about and I'll reiterate is addressing the well issue. Some type of
bonding process, make sure neighbors aren't the ones who have to prove that you did it.
I'd like to see something in there about increased buffers, keeping them further away from
residences.
My concern is if we were to vote tonight, for me this would be an easy vote; however, recently
we did something similar, the applicant went forward to the Board, the plan was revised
considerably, and the Board turned around and sent it right back to us. So, before we go through
the motion of sending it out, for it to come back, I think that it's important that we go ahead and
let the applicant revise it so that what we send forward reflects what they are going to present to
the Board.
[Madam Chairman] Mr. [Greg] Unger.
[Mr. Unger] I have a couple of things to add that Roger [Thomas], I didn't hear, but he may
have tapped on, if it's possible the buffer does concern me, too, and I think they are getting too
close, to have some kind of reasonable buffer from they are planning on doing with the adjacent
landowners. Also, how the quarry is going to be handled as far as extracting dirt that is hauled
up around there and is visible to the community over the next 10, 25 and 50 years, and if there is
lands, and I don't know how long the quarry will be there, if they could do some kind of drawing
of what they are expecting it to look like over 10, 25 and 50 years, so the residents can see it and
see what it's going to look like. I think that would be a positive thing for the people.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Mr. Ours
[Mr. Ours] Thank you. I think Mr. Thomas raised a lot of very valid and good questions, but it
seems to me that when you have that many questions and that many concerns that it would seem
to belie that there is something not quite right about this. I think simply put this is a square peg
trying to be jammed into a round how. I grew up in West Virginia and I know a little bit about
mining and mines and, believe me, I know what it's like when they come and go. I am very
concerned about how this would be remediated.
I'm very concerned about how it would be even humanly possible to mitigate the impacts on the
view -shed, especially when this property comes within feet of peoples' property. I had the
opportunity to go down and drive around this beautiful area and walk along the creeks and see
how beautiful this is and I have to believe that after reading the March 2000 agreement between
Global Chemstone and the FCSA that if we were to go forward and at some point the mine is,
they are finished, and they convey it as per the agreement to the Frederick County Sanitation
Authority for a dollar, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority is not in the business of
remediation, and I can't see anything happening.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 47
Traffic issues: if you go down through Middletown you can see evidence of just what the traffic
from the operation is doing right now, so I can't imagine what it would be like —we've had so
many issues before us where we've dealt with the areas in northern Frederick County where we
have in our Comprehensive Plan for it to be industrial usage and one of the big problems that we
have addressed is how to get the traffic from the industrial areas out onto the Interstate, and this
was through rural areas, and at times community centers, and not through an actual community
that grows and thrives.
I was very surprised, too, about the actual size of the national historic park, and I hope that
everybody realizes that it extends far beyond just the Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek area, that
it covers a lot of these peoples' homes, and it literally goes right up to the border, the boundary,
of this proposed rezoning.
And, just finally, I think if we take the very essence of our Comprehensive Plan, I don't see how
we can go forward with this rezoning. So, my final comment would be that I'm in agreement
with Mr. MorrisI'm ready to vote on it tonight. [Applause.]
reason why we're
.e Planning Comn
[Speaker unidentified] Madam Chairman, I also want to compliment Mr. Thomas on the way
that he summarized the meeting that we had here tonight and that if we consider some of the
points that he had given in there and in particular some of the health issues and some of these
types of things, there is no way that this could be done in ninety days, and so I agree with Mr.
Morris and Mr. Ours that I think we need to vote on this tonight.
[Madam Chairman] I see some hands up down here. Mr. [Chrisopher] Mohn.
[Mr. Mohn] I would 100-percent agree with both Mr. Ours and Mr. Morris. Frankly, listening to
everything this evening, I really don't know what 90 days, 120 days, six months, a year, is going
to matter in terms of the amount of analyses that need to be done or can be done in this case. I
mean, clearly, they can study everything to death and, at the end of the day, I don't really know
that it would matter much to me because I think, fundamentally, as a land -use issue, the time for
the expansion of this quarry and the industrial use of these particular properties is frankly passed.
The surrounding community is clearly residential now and we can try to ignore it if we want to
and extend the agony of this stuff, but frankly I don't have an interest in seeing it again, and even
with all of the analyses, I don't, you know, we've asked them for things sixty days ago and
didn't get anything. I'm sure they would give us more, seeing what's on the table now, but I'm
inclined to vote tonight, and I'd encourage everybody to really view this in the spirit of the Comp
Plan and not whether or not you can fit that square peg in a round hole, and I, for one, would like
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 48
[Madam Chairman] Mr. [Gregory] Kerr.
[Mr. Kerr] Actually, Chris just stole half of what I was going to say. [Laughter.] I shouldn't
have let him go first. I'd like to commend Mr. Thomas, I mean he summarized that very, very
well. I'm kind of going back to what Chris said, you know, a lot of the issues that Mr. Thomas
just addressed were addressed sixty days ago, and we've gotten no response. If we got no
response in sixty days, how much more are we going to get in ninety? How much more are we
going to get in 120? I would also like, as Mr. Thomas did, commend the people that showed up
tonight, I mean, it was very informative on my part, you know, there were a couple distractions
here and there. Up to the point, I'm ready to vote on it.
[Unidentified speaker —possibly Mr. Oates] I agree with everything that is being said. My
concern is our responsibility to the Board of Supervisors and to the citizens is to send a package
forward that is worthwhile and gives the Board the ability to review something. If we send
forward what we have, excuse my abrupt expression, but we're sending forward a pile of crap,
that does not allow the Board any opportunity to review it. What we are doing is putting the
Board into a position that they have no other option but to turn around send it back to us. You
know, and that concerns, me. If I have any confidence that the Board was going to vote on this
when we send it to them I would agree with everything that is being said about act on it tonight
and send it forward, but in a reasonable fashion, the Board has nothing to vote on when we send
them this. They can't review anything because there is nothing there to review. They could vote
it down, but I think at that point it would be considered that their decision is capricious and
arbitrary because what they're being given has nothing substantive in it to review and vote on.
Now, may Staff, maybe the Board members, maybe other folks who have more experience with
that would like to correct me on that.
[Unidentified speaker —possibly Mr. Mohn] If I could take your point and may raise it one
more —you vote on what you get, you know, and we've had applications in the history of
Frederick County and over time that have been inadequate, that have been given opportunities to
step up and have not been given endless amounts of time to provide additional analyses kind of
at their discretion, you know, and, again, I hope, fiankly, that the recommendation that we make,
if it were to deny, was based on the Comp Plan and not on any amount of technical analyses or
water or anything else. It's a fundamental land -use issue. If the Board, with all due respect to
the Board members who are here and watching it on TV, if they can't look at their Comp Plan
and see what's missing or what it says and they send it back to us then I hope we send it right
back to them saying the land use doesn't work, it's not compatible, it doesn't work. If they want
to give them six months or a year to study the thing to death before they get comfortable, let
them do it; it's their prerogative. I think we view this as a land -use issue and nothing else.
That's my opinion.
[Mr. Ours] Madam Chairman, I am going to make a motion that we deny Rezoning 03-06 and
also I'd like to include in this motion that all materials from the public that were provided to the
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 49
Commission tonight be included as part of the record that goes forward to the Board of
Supervisors.
[Mr. Morris] Second.
[Madam Chairman] All right, so we have a motion to deny Rezoning 03-06 with the caveat that
all materials that the public has presented go along with it to the Board of Supervisors for their
action.
[Unidentified speaker] Madam Chairman, may I make a comment? I agree with everything
Roger [Thomas] said. I think he did a fine, distinct job of pointing out a lot of the aspects of
what needs to be done, and I agree that when [the applicant] didn't answer in sixty days that was
a viable answer, and I'd like to say that I think Frederick County is a five -acre bedroom
community and I think, at this point, the quarry is going to be a hard thing to get at this point in
today's time, and it should have been thirty years ago.
I learned a lot about everything here tonight, but I'm going to tell you what I didn't learn, which
kind of bothers me, which makes it a little unfair and causes me concern. Number one is: I
didn't hear any real complaints about the quarry being a bad neighbor today —that they did this,
they do that, yes there is air pollution, yes she moved into the area with the quarry there, and I'm
not saying it's a bad neighbor, but I didn't hear a tremendous amount of offensiveness of the job
of their daily operations.
What I don't know is whether the quarry will limit their rezoning to only active [court] area. I
don't know how much quarrying they've actually done in the past ten years, in the past five
years, in the future five years, the future ten years, but I can't live with it because it hasn't been
shown to us.
I can't say that I would disagree with the rezoning that limits it down to a very few acres if we
had proffers that only said we will remediate—remediate means nothing —that means I am going
to call Ty and argue with him for five years, but if there are actual captures, triggers, dates, and
answers that capture anything of local priority outside the active [court] area of that quarry that
becomes a local responsibility that we may well have missed an opportunity to protect the
citizens further, such as the well -head of mitigation that we would come out with their rezoning
of some minor amount with protection where you have no protection today.
As far as the battlefields go, I think the battlefields have a better chance of a topographical view -
shed protection system that we could come up with that would protect Belle Grove and the
battlefields by use of the rezoning and use of mitigation than they have today.
I think trips and triggers that will protect against increased traffic that are TIA-driven on a yearly
basis, or some amount of basis, would protect you further than what possibly could be done
today. And I think to shut the door without allowing a customer —a paid applicant —to come
here without at least giving them an answer, and, I agree, they didn't do their job to start with,
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 50
but if they say they should be given an opportunity to try to answer the public concerns, I think
there's a benefit to the protection of the community in ways that you don't have now; however, I
think the quarry got the message where nobody is going to rezone 600 and some acres here, I
mean, that message is pretty loud and clear. But I think there are protection standards that could
be put in place that would be better than what are there today, let's put it that way.
[Mr. Thomas] You know I am still really concerned about sending this to the Board tonight.
The Board has three obvious actions they can take: they can send it back to us and tell us to fix
it; they can turn it down totally; or they can vote "yes" on it and approve it. And if they approve
it in its current form, we've got a real problem —you all have a real problem. And without
allowing the applicant to go back and fix this thing, and come up with maybe a phasing plan,
come up with a smaller area, come up with the protection for the surrounding areas, I think you
are at significant danger if we send this onto the Board tonight even with the negative
recommendation. The Board will do their own analysis and, like I said, they have three obvious
choices. Just because we vote to deny it doesn't guarantee the Board is going to agree with us
and say, yes, deny it. And what is in the application right now is extremely onerous and
offensive. And, you know, there is no guarantee that the Board would turn it down.
[Unidentified speaker] ... and they've done it before to us. This is so funny that we sit here
going around about what the Board is going to do. The Board is elected by these people, you
know, frankly, if they want to approve it, let them approve it. And let theirs deal with the upshot
of it. I don't think that our responsibility is to find ways to package rezonings in some format
that we think will be okay for the Board to pass. Honestly, I didn't hear anything tonight that
makes me think that something can be done with this thing that is really going to make it
compatible as a land use and, again, if the Board wants to they can send it back to us, tell us what
they want us to do, if they want us to analyze the thing to death with the applicant, let them tell
us to do that, but they are the ones who are accountable to the voters. It's almost like we're
skittish about sending a "no" vote to the Board, and if they choose to ignore us, they choose to
ignore us, if they want to support it —it's the same application we saw —you let them approve it.
[Madam Chairman] Yes, Mr. Oates.
[Mr. Oates] My only concern is that, yes, the Board answers to these people, but we've got
something sitting up in Stephenson where the people didn't like what was voted on and now
we're stuck with it because the rezoning went through. Personally, I'd rather not give what
we've got before us a chance to get thrown forward. I'd rather see something go up that is a lot
more —for lack of a better word —turn the screws on it, make it something that if it did get
approved, it's not nearly as bad as what we're looking at right now. So that is my concern.
[Beginning of Tape No. 4, side 7— possibly Mr. Unger] With what we've asked for, if it gets
approved at least they are going to be protected, we're going to see what the place is going to
look in five, 25 and 50 years. I think you are really rolling the dice if you send it on now.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 51
[Unidentified speaker —possibly Mr. Molui] If we make that motion clear also, considering a
no -confidence vote in our Board of Supervisor, it seems like that should go along with any land
use decision that this Planning Commission recommends. You know, I am relatively new to the
Commission so maybe this is the way we're supposed to hammer out this stuff, but, I mean, if it
seems wrong, it seems wrong.
[Madam Chairman] Gentlemen, we've got a motion on the floor, and if it's all the same to
everyone I suspect, unless there is any reason not to, that we should vote.
Unger:
No
Watt:
Yes
Mannuel:
No
Morris:
Yes
Oates:
Yes
— and I hope I don't regret it.
Light:
No
Thomas:
No —
because I think we need to work out the problem.
Ours:
Yes
— because I think we found that it's wrong and it's still going to be wrong.
Kriz:
Yes
Kerr:
Yes
Mohn:
Yes
Wilmont:
Yes
[Madam Chairman] I do believe the [deny] motion passes.
[Member of the audience] Can we clap now?
[Madam Chairman] Clap!
[Tremendous applause and cheering from the audience]
[Madam Chairman] Folks, you'll never believe this, but we've got more work to do. I'm not
throwing you out, but if you go peacefully that would be wonderful. Thank you. Excuse me, I
have one other piece of information —sorry, in the exuberance —this will go to the Board of
Supervisors on June the 281n
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 40
I will take the opportunity to close it at this moment. This is the opportunity for the applicant to
speak to us if they would like to say something regarding the rezoning or their intent in terms of
future motions.
Thomas (Ty) Moore Lawson Esquire
Madam Chainnan, Members of the Planning Commission, I am Ty Lawson here on behalf of the
applicant. We really don't have anything other to add then to renew our request for a table.
We've certainly all heard quite a bit of comments, greatly appreciate them, and as Mr. Ferrell has
said we want to have the opportunity to fully respond, to give that information to your Staff, to
give that information to you all, and if there is any follow-up to allow for that as well, so that we
would renew the request for the table, and we think it's very appropriate, especially in light of all
the comments that we've heard. We thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Mr. Lawson, please don't go away. Are you waving the time -frame.
[Mr. Lawson] I think we should and will.
[Madam Chairman] All right. Do you have any suggestion? Once you've waived the time -
frame, it's really your decision as to when you come back in, but it sure would be helpful for
everybody in this room to know what your intent is.
[Mr. Lawson] And, you know, it's very difficult. I think for the record we do need to do that
and it's our application, and I appreciate your asking that so we have a record of it. We would
like to get to this as quickly as possible, I know you all would as well, but I'd hate to set a date
and then —an artificial date— and then, for
e as flexible as t give oss possible, butall
lthe
would, for the purposes of
timely and so on. So, we would like to bp
a guess-timate, I think we're looking at something probably in the ninety- (90)-day range.
[Madam Chairman] Excellent. Um, Mr. Ours.
[Mr. Ours] Mr. Lawson, if you wouldn't mind satisfying my curiosity about one thing. You
were aware when we tabled this on April 5th, correct?
[Mr. Lawson] Actually I wasn't involved. I have certainly heard that.
[Mr. Ours] Okay. Well, maybe you can answer this question and maybe you can't, I'm just
curious why in the intervening two months since we tabled this we have not had any response or
dialogue from the company and now we're being asked to extend the original tabling. I'm just,
I'm curious about that.
[Mr. Lawson] Well, first of all, proceduray,
tand the recordiinpo [�anfrt tOo point
Yes t I dothat
understand
this would
be our first request for a table. As I unders
that.] Okay. Thank you. Secondly, as I understand it and, again, I'm relatively new to this case,
• 0
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 41
as I understand it, there has been dialogue that's going on. I think Mr. Ruddy pointed out, for
example, he had met with representatives from DMME and learned quite a bit about the musing
industry and how heavily regulated it is, and how, in fact, many of the impacts that are discussed
are already being reviewed and being overseen by not only the state, but also federal authorities.
So, I think a lot has been accomplished and, certainly, more needs to be accomplished, and I
think, further, we've been working —and I have been involved with this —on a Proffer Statement
that will incorporate not only those things that are already in the regulations, but also things that
are site -specific, and things that can be done by this landowner. And, quite honestly, it takes a
lot of time and effort because we're going to make, as you know, a document that would run
with the land, would be binding on not only this landowner, but also subsequent landowners, and
a lot of time and effort and thought need to go into that. And I don't think we want to go into
that lightly or, again, do it with an artificial deadline in mind. We want to get it right. I think
everybody wants to get it right.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Mr. Mohn?
[Mr. Mohn] I have a couple of questions for Mr. Ruddy if I could. Mike, number one, I know
you have had conversations with folks from the state and learned a little bit more about their role
in regulating the mining activities and, in particular, what their role is in mediating disputes or
dealing with many of the offsite impacts that I think are concerns of everybody in the community
and on the Commission. If you could maybe give us a little insight before we accept that you
have the broad strokes, that it's a heavily regulated industry that theoretically should protect all
of these issues, or deal with all of these issues, that effectively. What have you found out in your
discussions?
[Mr. Ruddy] You speak specifically about the meeting we had with Mr. David Bennett of the
Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, and it became very clear during that meeting that,
while they regulate the operation, the mining company, and the permitting, and safety issues, the
scope of their involvement beyond the property and beyond the pen -nit is very limited. In fact,
they are reluctant to become involved with any of the issues that revolve around blasting, water
issues, things of that nature, the type of things that we have discussed previously and again
tonight. So, the DMME is extremely reluctant and, in fact, will not get involved with issues
beyond the specific permitting operations of the mining facility, which they have the
responsibility for.
[Mr. Mohn] So, you'd agree that it's a little bit of an illusion to suggest that the state or the
federal government is going to provide protections to the local community. Is that correct?
[Mr. Ruddy] That would be accurate.
[Mr. Mohn] My second question is, and it's the only other one I have, is did O-N Minerals
submit a CPPA application by the June I" deadline?
1 0
Frederick County Plamzing Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 42
[Mr. Ruddy] No Comprehensive Plan Amendment has been submitted by the applicant in this
location.
[Mr. Mohn] So, at this stage that land that is subject to rezoning right now, is it still planned for
rural -areas use?
[Mr. Ruddy] It is planned for rural areas indeed. No additional designations ... [Mr. Mohn: No
Text Amendments?] That's correct.
[Mr. Molui] Nothing that would suggest that maybe that should accompany a rezoning
application of this scale.
[Mr. Ruddy] That's correct.
[Mr. Mohn] Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] Yes, Mr. [Rick] Ours.
[Mr. Ours] While you are here, Michael, if I might, and this may be beyond your scope, but I am
curious about, with mining of this type do you know at all what the requirements are as far as
remediation of the land after it has been mined, is there a requirement that it has to be —I'm
wondering if it has to be remediated within a time -frame or, you know, are there any
requirements for that.
[Mr. Ruddy] There certainly are a lot of requirements, but it became very clear there are a lot of
opportunities to modify the requirements and approach things in a different manner. So, I would
hate to be very specific in that situation because I certainly don't know what could indeed occur
on an individual basis, but it became very clear that there was a lot of flexibility in the permitting
and in the mining application, the mining plan that goes along with these operations.
[Mr. Ours] That would certainly be one thing that I would be interested in knowing because I've
seen a lot of these types of operations where once they are abandoned they are abandoned —
there is no remediation, and I'm just curious if there are any requirements.
[Mr. Ruddy] Surely there are requirements and I think the discussion we are having here at this
moment highlights some of the things that, of course, have come up during the evaluation of this
and we've had several state agencies and, of course, the correspondence that was mentioned
tonight from the Secretary of Natural Resources points to that, where there is a lot of other
responsibility for folks who are out there. Many of whom offered their assistance to the county.
[Beginning of Tape No 3, side 6 — speaker unknown at this point]
Frederick County Plaiming Conunission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 43
[Mr. Mohn?] ... from all the exact details of the [Greenwood] Mill and the FCSA, if the
property was given to the FCSA before it was remediated, would that then negate any
responsibility on O-N's part to remediate the property?
[Mr. Ruddy] I wouldn't like to answer that one. [Audience laughter.] Really that would be
under the purview of the permitting of the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy.
[Mr. Mohn?] ... but it would be turned over to a quasi -public entity at that point and the
regulations change.
[Madam Chairman] Any other questions for Mr. Ruddy while he is up? Any further questions
of the applicant? Mr. Thomas
[Mr. Thomas] This is a question for Staff. If this is tabled tonight I think at the next meeting we
would need to have —or I would want to have —a clear understanding of this agreement between
the Sanitation Authority and O-N. There are some statements in there that, not being a lawyer,
Ty can explain it to me, but there are some statements in there that are confusing. On
termination of liability, hold harmless, transfer of property, water rights, and that could have a
significant impact on my thought process on where we would go with approving this or
disapproving, and I think it's also something probably the community needs to know because
there are some statements in there that could be interpreted in different ways that have significant
liability, not only on the surrounding property owners, but also on the FSCA, which in turn
passes their liability onto everybody who buys water from them.
[Mr. Ruddy] So by pairing the prudent request for involvement from the FSCA, counsel, and
county counsel let's move forward with the discussion on this. Thank you.
[Madam Chairman] We have had a number of questions posed by the public and I'm not
thinking that our Commissioners have any fewer questions, but are there some that you would
like to pose to the applicant that have not been expressed either on the April 5th meeting or
tonight? Yes, Mr. Thomas.
[Mr. Thomas] I certainly have to commend the folks that came tonight. I don't think we've ever
had a public group that has been as well prepared and had as well a thought-out presentation as
the folks that have come tonight. And I've got to admit that your presentation was much better
than the applicant's application. [Tremendous applause.] I think probably, maybe I will be
repeating, not repeating, but going over and summarizing some things that have already been
said.
I think the traffic impact analysis that's in the package, if this is tabled and you start over,
essentially I think that's what you have to do, I think your traffic impact analysis is woefully
inadequate; you talk about the trip -generation analysis based on numbers of vehicles, when we're
talking about 40-ton dump trucks, when 60- or 70-percent of your traffic is a 40-ton vehicle the
traffic analysis projections go out the window, they are not really applicable to the analysis that
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 44
you did so I think that has to totally be redone. I think you need to do a route analysis that looks
at the geometrics of the roads and also the conditions of the roads and the impact that such a
severely loaded truck is going to have. We are not talking about a thousand cars; we're talking
about eight- or nine -hundred 40-ton trucks. I think there needs to be a strip map in the
application so that the community understands the vehicular traffic that is going to occur with
such heavily loaded vehicles from the quarry to where ever they go, through Middletown or
where ever else.
I think the enviromnental impact analysis was a little lacking; there is nothing that I could find in
the analysis that talked about air quality. I think we need to have a particulate matter study. I
think there needs to be a wind -[rose] analysis that will show the distribution of the particulate,
the levels of particulate matter that will be experienced by the surrounding residences, and also
the particulate matter size that is going to be distributed. I think we need to look at —certainly
we talked a lot about the impact on people with the particulate matter. I tlunk you also need to
look at —there are a lot of farms in that area with animals, what does that particulate matter do to
the animals who are going to be —I mean a cow's nostrils are pretty big when they are down in
the ground eating grass and they are sucking up the dust at the same time, so what's that going to
do to the cows? There are lot of apple blossoms and apple orchards in that area. If we have the
apple blossoms covered with particulate matter can they be pollinated by the bees? Are we
going to stop any pollination on our apple orchards? Dust outside we've talked about, but what
about dust inside the homes? A lot of these houses down there are new; they think they have
nice sealed windows, but when you're talking about particulate matter of this size, it gets into
homes. Everyone of those homes within a couple -mile area there are going to have a significant
dust problem in their house.
There was discussion, one lady talked bout some difficulties other people had in their process of
how they determine liability for water wells, blasting damage. Certainly there is a minimum state
standard, and the minimum state standard is to protect just the bear minimum. For a plan of this
significance I would expect to see something that goes well beyond the minimum. How are you
going to evaluate the existing water wells from a quality and quantity standpoint? How are you
going to inventory and evaluate the existing houses, and I would want to see a plan developed
that comes up with a process for damage -assessment and appeals that doesn't require the
homeowners surrounding that area to invest an extensive amount of money hiring lawyers and
suing people.
And also some type of a bonding process that would make sure there was, not an escrow fund,
but a bond somewhere that if, for some reason, the company had financial difficulties and went
somewhere else that the homeowners in the surrounding area are protected against potential
future damages and liabilities.
I haven't heard anything from the applicant talking about meetings with surrounding property
owners. I think there needs to be some partnering and meetings with surrounding property
owners to go over really what your plan is, how you're going to protect the property owners,
what your blasting plan is, and for all of the state -regulated items, Mr. Ruddy kind of expressed
Frederick County Plaiming Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 45
they regulate and control what's inside the permit and inside the area, they really have little
responsibility outside of the area, and your biggest problem is outside of the area and not inside
your quarry site. We have to have something that is certainly significantly more than the
minimum requirements. I mean, one seismograph in a blasting area in the type of topography
we're talking about there is woefully in inadequate —should have a minimuin of three to five for
every blasting plan.
I think the liability for surrounding homeowners, water -wells blasting, I think that needs to be
expanded quite a bit. I think you need to look at uses of what's allowed in an EM area, and what
you're really going to do there, and if the items that are allowed by right in an EM area aren't
needed, I think you should drop them out of the proffer so that it doesn't confuse neighbors on
what could happen there.
And I think another significant item is length of this quarry operation. Are we talking about a
five-year operation or are we talking about a 50-year operation? What is your time phase plan
for development of your quarry and the extent of that development, and if you are proceeding
down the Valley with the operation are you remediating areas behind you or are they left open
through the entire process?
And have you considered a mining operation versus an open quarry? That would have less
impact on the visual area and dust, it has the same amount of impact on blasting and water wells
and those types of operations, but at least it reduces some of the impact of the surrounding area.
I've hit a lot of issues and I would certainly be available to talk over the next period of time, but I
think you need at least ninety (90) days to put together a package that would even start
approaching something that would be of the quality to be reviewed and considered.
[Madam Chairman] Well, we've got a row full here. Who is first? Robert [Morris].
[Mr. Morris] Are we still in the public hearing or have we closed it?
[Madam Chairman] No, we've closed it.
[Mr. Morris] Okay. I know of absolutely nothing —I can conceive of nothing —that can be
proffered that would make this an acceptable rezoning for me. [Tremendous applause.] I think
the issues raised by the citizens and the public all are valid and require mitigation, and that
cannot be accomplished in my mind any way accept denying the rezoning. With that said I see
absolutely no benefit or reason for any of us to grant the request for a ninety -day suspension. I
think we ought to vote tonight for denial.
[Madam Chairman] I saw other hands up. Mr. [Gary] Oates.
[Mr. Oates] I'd like to thank Mr. Thomas. He's saving me a lot of talking. [Laughter.]
Something else I'd like to see before you come back before us, I'd like you to revisit HRAB with
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 46
your new plan. I think you need to visit the town of Middletown, also, present it to the Council
and get their recommendation, and certainly public works needs to see it also.
Something I'm really worried about and I'll reiterate is addressing the well issue. Some type of
bonding process, make sure neighbors aren't the ones who have to prove that you did it.
I'd like to see something in there about increased buffers, keeping them further away from
residences.
My concern is if we were to vote tonight, for me this would be an easy vote; however, recently
we did something similar, the applicant went forward to the Board, the plan was revised
considerably, and the Board turned around and sent it right back to us. So, before we go through
the motion of sending it out, for it to come back, I think that it's important that we go ahead and
let the applicant revise it so that what we send forward reflects what they are going to present to
the Board.
[Madam Chairman] Mr. [Greg] Unger.
[Mr. Unger] I have a couple of things to add that Roger [Thomas], I didn't hear, but he may
have tapped on, if it's possible the buffer does concern me, too, and I think they are getting too
close, to have some kind of reasonable buffer from they are planning on doing with the adjacent
landowners. Also, how the quarry is going to be handled as far as extracting dirt that is hauled
up around there and is visible to the community over the next 10, 25 and 50 years, and if there is
lands, and I don't know how long the quarry will be there, if they could do some kind of drawing
of what they are expecting it to look like over 10, 25 and 50 years, so the residents can see it and
see what it's going to look like. I think that would be a positive thing for the people.
[Madam Chairman] Thank you. Mr. Ours
[Mr. Ours] Thank you. I think Mr. Thomas raised a lot of very valid and good questions, but it
seems to me that when you have that many questions and that many concerns that it would seem
to belie that there is something not quite right about this. I think simply put this is a square peg
trying to be jammed into a round how. I grew up in West Virginia and I know a little bit about
mining and mines and, believe me, I know what it's like when they come and go. I am very
concerned about how this would be remediated.
I'm very concerned about how it would be even humanly possible to mitigate the impacts on the
view -shed, especially when this property comes within feet of peoples' property. I had the
opportunity to go down and drive around this beautiful area and walk along the creeks and see
how beautiful this is and I have to believe that after reading the March 2000 agreement between
Global Chemstone and the FCSA that if we were to go forward and at some point the mine is,
they are finished, and they convey it as per the agreement to the Frederick County Sanitation
Authority for a dollar, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority is not in the business of
remediation, and I can't see anything happening.
Frederick County g PlanningPomrnission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 47
Traffic issues: if you go down through Middletown you can see evidence of just what the traffic
from the operation is doing right now, so I can't imagine what it would be like —we've had so
many issues before us where we've dealt with the areas in northern Frederick County where we
have in our Comprehensive Plan for it to be industrial usage and one of the big problems that we
have addressed is how to get the traffic from the industrial areas out onto the Interstate, and this
was through rural areas, and at times community centers, and not through an actual community
that grows and thrives.
I was very surprised, too, about the actual size of the national historic park, and I hope that
everybody realizes that it extends far beyond just the Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek area, that
it covers a lot of these peoples' homes, and it literally goes right up to the border, the boundary,
of this proposed rezoning.
And, just finally, I think if we take the very essence of our Comprehensive Plan, I don't see how
we can go forward with this rezoning. So, my final comment would be that I'm in agreement
with Mr. Morris —I'm ready to vote on it tonight. [Applause.]
[Madam Chairman] We are at the important point as to the reason why we're here and we
appreciate your emotion, but I would request that you let the Planning Commission do its
business.
[Speaker unidentified] Madam Chairman, I also want to compliment Mr. Thomas on the way
that he summarized the meeting that we had here tonight and that if we consider some of the
points that he had given in there and in particular some of the health issues and some of these
types of things, there is no way that this could be done in ninety days, and so I agree with Mr.
Morris and Mr. Ours that I think we need to vote on this tonight.
[Madam Chairman] I see some hands up down here. Mr. [Chrisopher] Mohn.
[Mr. Mohn] I would 100-percent agree with both Mr. Ours and Mr. Morris. Frankly, listening to
everything this evening, I really don't know what 90 days, 120 days, six months, a year, is going
to matter in terms of the amount of analyses that need to be done or can be done in this case. I
mean, clearly, they can study everything to death and, at the end of the day, I don't really know
that it would matter much to me because I think, fundamentally, as a land -use issue, the time for
the expansion of this quarry and the industrial use of these particular properties is frankly passed.
The surrounding community is clearly residential now and we can try to ignore it if we want to
and extend the agony of this stuff, but frankly I don't have an interest in seeing it again, and even
with all of the analyses, I don't, you know, we've asked them for things sixty days ago and
didn't get anything. I'm sure they would give us more, seeing what's on the table now, but I'm
inclined to vote tonight, and I'd encourage everybody to really view this in the spirit of the Comp
Plan and not whether or not you can fit that square peg in a round hole, and I, for one, would like
to see us vote.
Frederick County Planning Cornrnrssron
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 48
[Madam Chairman] Mr. [Gregory] Kerr.
[Mr. Kerr] Actually, Chris just stole half of what I was going to say. [Laughter.] I shouldn't
have let him go first. I'd like to commend Mr. Thomas, I mean he summarized that very, very
well. I'm kind of going back to what Chris said, you know, a lot of the issues that Mr. Thomas
just addressed were addressed sixty days ago, and we've gotten no response. If we got no
response in sixty days, how much more are we going to get in ninety? How much more are we
going to get in 120? I would also like, as Mr. Thomas did, commend the people that showed up
tonight, I mean, it was very informative on my part, you know, there were a couple distractions
here and there. Up to the point, I'm ready to vote on it.
[Unidentified speaker —possibly Mr. Oates] I agree with everything that is being said. My
concern is our responsibility to the Board of Supervisors and to the citizens is to send a package
forward that is worthwhile and gives the Board the ability to review something. If we send
forward what we have, excuse my abrupt expression, but we're sending forward a pile of crap,
that does not allow the Board any opportunity to review it. What we are doing is putting the
Board into a position that they have no other option but to turn around send it back to us. You
know, and that concerns, me. If I have any confidence that the Board was going to vote on this
when we send it to them I would agree with everything that is being said about act on it tonight
and send it forward, but in a reasonable fashion, the Board has nothing to vote on when we send
them this. They can't review anything because there is nothing there to review. They could vote
it down, but I think at that point it would be considered that their decision is capricious and
arbitrary because what they're being given has nothing substantive in it to review and vote on.
Now, may Staff, maybe the Board members, maybe other folks who have more experience with
that would like to correct me on that.
[Unidentified speaker —possibly Mr. Mohn] If I could take your point and may raise it one
more —you vote on what you get, you know, and we've had applications in the history of
Frederick County and over time that have been inadequate, that have been given opportunities to
step up and have not been given endless amounts of time to provide additional analyses kind of
at their discretion, you know, and, again, I hope, frankly, that the recommendation that we make,
if it were to deny, was based on the Comp Plan and not on any amount of technical analyses or
water or anything else. It's a fundamental land -use issue. If the Board, with all due respect to
the Board members who are here and watching it on TV, if they can't look at their Comp Plan
and see what's missing or what it says and they send it back to us then I hope we send it right
back to them saying the land use doesn't work, it's not compatible, it doesn't work. If they want
to give them six months or a year to study the thing to death before they get comfortable, let
them do it; it's their prerogative. I think we view this as a land -use issue and nothing else.
That's my opinion.
[Mr. Ours] Madam Chairman, I am going to make a motion that we deny Rezoning 03-06 and
also I'd like to include in this motion that all materials from the public that were provided to the
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 49
Commission tonight be included as part of the record that goes forward to the Board of
Supervisors.
[Mr. Morris] Second.
[Madam Chairman] All right, so we have a motion to deny Rezoning 03-06 with the caveat that
all materials that the public has presented go along with it to the Board of Supervisors for their
action.
[Unidentified speaker] Madain Chairman, may I make a comment? I agree with everything
Roger [Thomas] said. I think he did a fine, distinct job of pointing out a lot of the aspects of
what needs to be done, and I agree that when [the applicant] didn't answer in sixty days that was
a viable answer, and I'd like to say that I think Frederick County is a five -acre bedroom
connnunity and I think, at this point, the quarry is going to be a hard thing to get at this point in
today's time, and it should have been thirty years ago.
I learned a lot about everything here tonight, but I'm going to tell you what I didn't learn, which
kind of bothers me, which makes it a little unfair- and causes me concern. Number one is: I
didn't hear any real complaints about the quarry being a bad neighbor today —that they did this,
they do that, yes there is air pollution, yes she moved into the area with the quarry there, and I'm
not saying it's a bad neighbor, but I didn't hear a tremendous amount of offensiveness of the job
of their daily operations.
What I don't know is whether the quarry will limit their rezoning to only active [court] area. I
don't know how much quarrying they've actually done in the past ten years, in the past five
years, in the future five years, the future ten years, but I can't live with it because it hasn't been
shown to us.
I can't say that I would disagree with the rezoning that limits it down to a very few acres if we
had proffers that only said we will remediate—remediate means nothing —that means I am going
to call Ty and argue with him for five years, but if there are actual captures, triggers, dates, and
answers that capture anything of local priority outside the active [court] area of that quarry that
becomes a local responsibility that we may well have missed an opportunity to protect the
citizens further, such as the well -head of mitigation that we would come out with their rezoning
of some minor amount with protection where you have no protection today.
As far as the battlefields go, I think the battlefields have a better chance of a topographical view -
shed protection system that we could come up with that would protect Belle Grove and the
battlefields by use of the rezoning and use of mitigation than they have today.
I think trips and triggers that will protect against increased traffic that are TIA-driven on a yearly
basis, or some amount of basis, would protect you further than what possibly could be done
today. And I think to shut the door without allowing a customer —a paid applicant to come
here without at least giving them an answer, and, I agree, they didn't do their job to start with,
Frederick County Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 50
but if they say they should be given an opportunity to try to answer the public concerns, I think
there's a benefit to the protection of the community in ways that you don't have now; however, I
think the quarry got the message where nobody is going to rezone 600 and some acres here, I
mean, that message is pretty loud and clear. But I think there are protection standards that could
be put in place that would be better than what are there today, let's put it that way.
[Mr. Thomas] You know I am still really concerned about sending this to the Board tonight.
The Board has three obvious actions they can take: they can send it back to us and tell us to fix
it; they can turn it down totally; or they can vote "yes" on it and approve it. And if they approve
it in its current form, we've got a real problem —you all have a real problem. And without
allowing the applicant to go back and fix this thing, and come up with maybe a phasing plan,
come up with a smaller area, come up with the protection for the surrounding areas, I think you
are at significant danger if we send this onto the Board tonight even with the negative
recommendation. The Board will do their own analysis and, like I said, they have three obvious
choices. Just because we vote to deny it doesn't guarantee the Board is going to agree with us
and say, yes, deny it. And what is in the application right now is extremely onerous and
offensive. And, you know, there is no guarantee that the Board would turn it down.
[Unidentified speaker] ... and they've done it before to us. This is so funny that we sit here
going around about what the Board is going to do. The Board is elected by these people, you
know, frankly, if they want to approve it, let them approve it. And let them deal with the upshot
of it. I don't think that our responsibility is to find ways to package rezonings in some format
that we think will be okay for the Board to pass. Honestly, I didn't hear anything tonight that
snakes me think that something can be done with this thing that is really going to make it
compatible as a land use and, again, if the Board wants to they can send it back to us, tell us what
they want us to do, if they want us to analyze the thing to death with the applicant, let them tell
us to do that, but they are the ones who are accountable to the voters. It's almost like we're
skittish about sending a "no" vote to the Board, and if they choose to ignore us, they choose to
ignore us, if they want to support it —it's the same application we saw —you let them approve it.
[Madam Chairman] Yes, Mr. Oates.
[Mr. Oates] My only concern is that, yes, the Board answers to these people, but we've got
something sitting up in Stephenson where the people didn't like what was voted on and now
we're stuck with it because the rezoning went through. Personally, I'd rather not give what
we've got before us a chance to get thrown forward. I'd rather see something go up that is a lot
more —for lack of a better word —turn the screws on it, make it something that if it did get
approved, it's not nearly as bad as what we're looking at right now. So that is my concern.
[Beginning of Tape No. 4, side 7— possibly Mr. Unger] With what we've asked for, if it gets
approved at least they are going to be protected, we're going to see what the place is going to
look in five, 25 and 50 years. I think you are really rolling the dice if you send it on now.
Frederick County Plamring Conunission
Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2006
Page 51
[Unidentified speaker —possibly Mr. Mohn] If we make that motion clear also, considering a
no -confidence vote in our Board of Supervisor, it seems like that should go along with any land
use decision that this Planning Commission recommends. You know, I am relatively new to the
Commission so maybe this is the way we're supposed to hammer out this stuff, but, I mean, if it
seems wrong, it seems wrong.
[Madam Chairman] Gentlemen, we've got a motion on the floor, and if it's all the same to
everyone I suspect, unless there is any reason not to, that we should vote.
Unger: No
Wait: Yes
Mamiuel: No
Morris: Yes
Oates: Yes — and I hope I don't regret it.
Light: No
Thomas: No — because I think we need to work out the problem.
Ours: Yes — because I think we found that it's wrong and it's still going to be wrong.
Kriz: Yes
Kerr: Yes
Mohn: Yes
Wilmont: Yes
[Madam Chairman] I do believe the [deny] motion passes.
[Member of the audience] Can we clap now?
[Madam Chairman] Clap!
[Tremendous applause and cheering from the audience]
[Madam Chairman] Folks, you'll never believe this, but we've got more work to do. I'm not
throwing you out, but if you go peacefully that would be wonderful. Thank you. Excuse me, I
have one other piece of information —sorry, in the exuberance -thus will go to the Board of
Supervisors on June the 28"'.
4##