|
Recent timeline for the McLean Quarry Project: |
The Cavendish Planning Commission and Selectmen met this past week. We are pleased that both groups support the motion that CCC is in the process of preparing. This motion, to be filed by the end of the week, by a well respected Act 250 attorney, states that the Commission used an incorrect noise standard, based on prior precedent, to grant approval of the South Quarry. We will be e-mailing you a copy of this motion later in the week. In addition, the Planning Commission will be submitting a motion , identifying issues of concern with truck traffic and noise. The Selectman are also sending a letter, supporting the motion of CCC and the Planning Commission and discussing additional concerns regarding water issues. To recap:
Some of you may have noticed that work has begun on the road to the South Quarry. A Stay was issued, through the activities of CCC, which caused all activities to cease for seven days. The Stay ends the early part of this week. Please don't hesitate to e-mail the address above if you have questions and concerns.
Dated March 18, Attorney George Lamb has filed a "Motion to Alter Decisions Pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 31 (A)" which states the following: "Comes now John P. Mills, an interested party, in these proceedings and moves the ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION to alter its decisions herein entered on February 19, 2003, and as grounds therefore state as follows: Alternation #1 NOISE STANDARD: The Commission is requested to alter Condition #22 which currently reads: Audible noise from non blasting quarry operations shall not exceed 50 (fifty) dBA Leq 1 second as measured at any residence. Said Party moves that the above Condition #22 be altered to read: Audible noise from non blasting quarry operations shall not exceed 50 (fifty) dBA Leq 1 second as measured at any residence or area of frequent use. Alteration #2 NOISE MONITORING: The Commission is requested to later its decision to require noise monitoring. Alteration #3 FOREST DEBRIS: The commission is requested to alter its decision to require the standard condition applicable in District 2 which requires that forest debris created by construction be chipped rather than burned. Alteration #4 CONTRARY TO LAW: The Commission is requested to alter its decision to grant the LAND USE PERMIT as not being in conformity to law. The evidence adduced in the record does not support the position that the Applicant can meet the 50 dBA leq standard regarding noise levels at the residence and areas of frequent use, and a permit should not be issued applying standards which cannot be met. Further the evidence in the record supports that the permit seeks to avoid proper inquiry into the effect of the quarrying operation on area water wells and wetlands by the prohibiting the pumping of ground water from the quarry should a water bearing fracture be penetrated."
While much is going on in the world to attract our attention, we can not be distracted from the events this week relating to the quarry. Below is a listing of motions and activities relating to the recent approval of a 25 year permit to McLean Enterprises to establish a South quarry (the one located closest to 131). McLean filed their motion this week, which seeks both a permit for the North quarry (Tierney Rd) as well as a 50 year permit, versus the 25 granted. CCC met with their attorney, Dan Hershenson, a well respected Act 250 attorney, last Sunday (3/16). It was determined that if McLean is not successful with their current motion, it will be easier for them in the future to obtain a permit to expand, because the character of the area will have been altered by the existence of the south quarry. Clearly then, our best chance to stop further devastation to our town and land is now. That means we must appeal, and do so within 30 days, otherwise that opportunity will be lost. The expenses associated with an appeal (lawyers fees, expert testimony etc.) will be costly. We estimate the cost will be a minimum of $60,000 to $70,000. Once we commit to taking the appeal, we cannot back down. McLean will likely cross appeal for everything they requested initially-two quarries to operate for 50 years. If we do not defend against their cross-motion, they will win. Our success cannot be absolutely guaranteed, but we have the opportunity now to oppose the operation of these quarries. As outlined in a letter, being sent out today by CCC to all home owners in Cavendish and Proctorsville, the quarry project will affect our environment and the quality of life for many years to come. Regardless of where you live, you will be affected, as the operation of the quarries will:
We can't take on this campaign without your help, both morally and financially. We must raise, at least half of the amount we will need for the appeal- $30,000 to $35,000 - within the next month. Without that amount, we cannot proceed. Please send your contributions of any amount to Concerned Cavendish Citizens c/o Suzanne Meaney, 118 Main Street, Ludlow, VT 05149 RECAP OF FILINGS AND MOTIONS
RECAP OF OTHER ACTIVITIES
Below is an article from today's (Monday March 23) Rutland Herald regarding the Quarry. As some of you may not be aware of what is going on with the road construction to the South Quarry off Route 131, we've included a photograph. As noted in the Motion by John Mills' lawyer, chipping should be done instead of burning. Unfortunately, the burning at the site got out of hand on Friday and the fire department responded both on Friday and Saturday morning. On Sunday, the site was still smoldering. Thank you Liz and Garey for the photographs. Quarry permit garners reaction March 23, 2003 (from the Southern Vermont section) By DONNA MOXLEY Southern Vermont Bureau CAVENDISH - A flurry of paperwork has followed the issuance of a permit for the Glimmerstone Granite Quarry on Route 131. District 8 Environmental Commission coordinator Warren Foster said that in addition to the applicant, McLean Enterprises, Corp., five other people or groups of people have filed motions to alter the commission's decision to grant the permit. Foster said the situation is unusual. Normally, he said, disputes "tend to be distilled down to two sides. This may be a record, certainly in our district it's a record, to have this many different motions to alter" a decision. The reason for the argument with at least six sides is that each person or group filing their disputes with the decision have a different relationship to the quarry. McLean, the applicant, does't feel the company got enough of what it wanted. For example, it wants to be able to quarry at two open rock faces, not just the one southern face the commission permitted. Some, like George Mills, who is represented by Springfield lawyer George Lamb, are neighbors of the proposed south quarry. Millsı land abuts the new proposed road to the operation, and he is filing for an alteration based mostly on noise and removal of forest debris. Others who have filed motions as part of a group or on their own live on Tierney Road, the access to McLean's northern face, or close enough to the quarry that they feel they would be troubled by noise and additional traffic on Route 131. Two of the motions were filed by town boards - the Select Board and the Planning Commission. The permit was issued in February, and there was reported clearing at the site until opponent Suzanne Meaney filed a motion for an automatic stay last week. That motion expired Wednesday, and although there was one additional motion to stay, Foster said, no one had asked to have that automatic stay extended. Since only one stay is permitted, the second one was moot, he said. Logging was reported on the hill north of Route 131 on Thursday. McLean had been taking stone from the northern quarry off of Tierney Road, for private use and without a permit, for about a year. The company's owner was using the distinctive, mica-laden schist for his home in Chadds Ford, Penn. Neighbors and other local residents came to hearings in high numbers to tell the district commission that the noise from that limited operation had been too much, and that they opposed the project. Some said a new road leading onto the curvy Route 131 would make the road more dangerous. A few townspeople spoke in favor of the quarry, saying it would be helpful to the local economy. Foster said the involvement of Norwich lawyer Anthony Roisman, of Hershenson Carter Scott and McGee, in one of the motions to alter represents a "ratcheting up" of the debate over the permit. The firm is known for its experience litigating cases in front of the Vermont Environmental Board the ultimate venue of appeal of environmental permits. The parties all have 15 days to respond to the various motions, then the commission will decided whether to decide each motion on its merit or to hold a hearing on the motions to get more input. Then the commission will issue a decision on each motion. Contact Donna Moxley at donna.moxley@rutlandherald.com.
MARCH 25, 2003: FIRE AT THE SITE/WHO TO CONTACT/LAMB FILES MOTION FOR STAY The burning taking place at the South Quarry is becoming a problem for some residents. People are reporting soot in their yards from the unattended weekend fires. For those with allergies, this is a problem, as the smoke was being picked up by the wind and traveling throughout the area. It is our understanding that burning can take place as long as there is snow on the ground and thereafter a permit is needed from the local Forest Fire Warden. People should call the Warden, Robert Pixley (226-7345) or his assistant Bob Glidden (226-7302) if they are being bothered by the fires, if they see unattended fires or have other concerns regarding fire at the sit. The regional coordinator of the Forest Fire Wardens is Alan Sands in Springfield. His number is 885-8855. Attorney Lamb, on behalf of John Mills, has petitioned the District Commission for an automatic stay pursuant to Board Rule 42 (C). As in his previous motion, he points out that the permit does not provide the standard condition required in District 2 as to disposal of forest debris which is "All forest debris shall be chipped and not burned." He goes on to say, "The Permittee has already commenced burning forest debris which have resulted in fire departments being called out for unattended fires in violation of Article XI of the Town of Cavendish Solid Waste Ordinance, the permittee has previously been convicted of an unattended brush fire on Sept. 28, 2001 with regards to clearing associated with the North Quarry. Most recently and associated with the permit issued in this case, two fire departments were called out to the scene of an unattended brush fire started by the Permittee. That the omission of this condition and the resultant burning that is occurring is contrary to the standard health condition as applied in the District."
We have been asked about the lawyers and firm being used by CCC. Below is a description of the firm and f Anthony Roisman. This firm is recognized among the best in the state regarding environmental matters, including Act 250. Needless to say, the cost is substantial. We urge you to donate what you can to help us in the fight. FIRM BIOGRAPHY: The law firm of Hershenson, Carter, Scott and McGee, P.C. has been in existence since 1979. The firm has a state-wide practice in the areas of land use, environmental law, environmental litigation, property tax litigation, state regulatory board counseling, criminal defense, and a more regional practice in corporate, real estate and general litigation. ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN: Mr. Roisman is of counsel to the firm and concentrates on environmental consulting and litigation, appellate practice and general litigation. Mr.Roisman is a Research Fellow of Environmental Studies at Dartmouth College and serves on the Advisory Committee of the Environmental Law Center at the Vermont Law School. He was formerly of counsel to Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll in Washington, D.C. and a partner in Roisman, Kessler & Cashdan in Washington, D.C. Mr. Roisman was an attorney in the tax division at the United States Department of Justice and later served as Chief of the Hazardous Waste Section of the Land and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. He also served as special litigator for Hazardous Waste in the Land and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. From 1982 through 1987 he served as Executive Director of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice in Washington, D.C. Mr. Roisman has been a member of the faculty of the National Judicial College and a member of the Science in the Courtroom Advisory Committee for the National Judicial College. He served as a member of the Advisor's Committee for the Restatement of Law Third of Torts: Apportionment of Liability and is a member of the American Law Institute. He is a member of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America and has served as Chairperson and Co-Chair of a number of ATLA committees including the section on Toxic, Environmental and Pharmaceutical Torts (1992-93) and the Environmental Law Committee (1989-91). He is the author of numerous published articles on environmental law topics. Mr. Roisman graduated from Dartmouth College (AB cum laude 1960) and from the Harvard Law School (L.L.B. 1963).
APRIL 1: PLANNING COMMISSION/CCC MEETING/GRANT AWARD/ PHOTO PLANNING COMMISSION Last evening, March 31, the Planning Commission discussed and responded to the McLean motion to alter. As noted in the March 21 Quarry Update, McLean's motion was for a permit for the North quarry (Tierney Rd), a 50 year permit, versus 25, and the ability to take out stone from the North Quarry (clean up as they refer to it) using Tierney Rd this summer. The Commission will be sending a letter of rebuttal, which basically says the McLean motion to alter does not adhere to the town plan and in fact, weakens and compromises what currently exists. The McLean representative indicated that they have something to offer and will make a pitch at the upcoming Selectmen's meeting on April 14 (Monday), 6:30 pm at the Cavendish Town Office. CCC MEETING There will be an CCC meeting, open to all who are interested, on May 3 at 7 pm. More information will follow. GRANT AWARD CCC has received a grant for $2,500 from the Grass Roots Organization. Thank you April Hensel for writing the grant. Thanks to all of you who have contributed. We are committed to the appeal, and will work at raising the funds we need. PICTURE For those of you who aren't traveling by the 131 site, we enclose a photo . Thanks to Liz and Garey.
APRIL 8: MILLS OPPOSITION OF PERMITTEE'S MOTION TO ALTER Legal counsel has filed "Memorandum of John P. Mills in Opposition to Permitte'es Motion to Alter" on April 7. As noted in previous Updates, McLean has sought to overturn the Commission's refusal to grant a permit for the North Quarry, desiring to operate both quarries (North and South), and to expand the mill site substantially. In addition, McLean has asked for 50 years, as opposed to the 25 years granted, and to "stabilize the North Quarry," which would result in 300 truckloads on Tierney Rd this summer. Mills Memorandum points out that just because the ground is rich with a particular stone it is not justification in and of itself to grant a permit, rather , "mineral and earth extraction activities have to be weighed against other criteria and do not have special access privileges just because they exist." As part of the justification against the North Quarry, the Memorandum quotes the Town Plan, which specifically recognizes the hazards of noise pollution emanating from mining activities and specifically states: "In addition, mining can cause noise pollution and dust. These negative effects of mining should be mitigated if such industries are going to operate in the townSSLand adjacent to, land with views to, or land including areas of cultural or historical value should be maintained and/or developed in a manner that will not reduce or destroy the value of the resource." In the preamble to the Town Plan, it states: "The people of Cavendish desire to maintain the rural character of the community while encouraging the economic well being of its residents. The rural character is exemplified in the many attributes of the Town, such as the vast amount of wooded and undeveloped areas, streams, ponds, and abundant wildlife; the absence of bright lights in both the outer reaches of the town as well as both village areas; the low volume of traffic; and the lack of objectionable noise." The Mills's house is one of the residences noted as "materially problematic" for McLean to comply with the established standard. The Memorandum strongly disagrees with McLean's desire to therefore lower the standard. McLean's view is that the house is not occupied full-time. Even though this is not an accurate assessment by McLean, the Memorandum points out "Sthe notion that noise at part-time residences is somehow of less concern than noise at full time residences is specious. Residences of that type are commonly acquired in particular because of their quiet serenity and as a consequence disruption is more acutely felt by the occupants." As to the "Stabilization of the North Quarry" request, the Memorandum states, "This party (Mills) asserts that the record is currently silent as to the need asserted in this portion of the motion and that authorization is therefore inappropriate."
APRIL 9: SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES Several weeks ago, John Mills filed for a stay regarding the activities at the South Quarry. A "stay" stops activities for a specified period of time. In order to help you keep up with ongoing activities, below is a list of what is taking place and some idea of what we might expect:
We expect the Commission's ruling on the "Motion to Alter" to occur in two or weeks three weeks, at which time, all sides will have 30 days, from the date of the decision, to appeal. Once the appeal process begins, a whole series of preliminary filings and prehearing conferences take place, with the hearing on the appeal probably being scheduled in October.
As mentioned in the last update, Johns Mills filed a motion for a Stay. His reasons were as follows: enable time for a ruling on the issues of burning vs. chipping the forest debris; blasting impacts on nearby Historic Places; and scenic impacts along the highway. In Suzanne Meaney's letter supporting the Rule 42 İ Stay request, she argued that a Stay is warranted since McLean has argued in it's Motion to Alter that it can not meet the 50 dBA requirement; blasting will cause irreversible damage to the access road hillside; and burning forest debris and roadway blasting will cause undue hardship to Howard Merritt who lives adjacent. McLean responded with a filing on April 4, contending that a Stay was unwarranted, and requested a bond if a Stay was ordered, as this would have a significant financial impact on them. They also argue that opponents have not demonstrated any adverse impact on the values protected by Act 250, which would result from construction of the approved project, nor have they made more than generalized allegations of a detriment to the public health, safety, and welfare. The Commission met by phone on April 8 and made the following decision: "Since the Commission will be deliberating next week on the Motions to Alter and issuing a decision shortly thereafter, no significant hardship will occur to the Permitted [McLean] from a Stay of work pending our decision making. Since the Motions include issues germane to the construction process taking place, we feel it important to impose a time out while we decide those issues. If a permit with or without modified conditions ensues, aggrieved parties may appeal to the Environmental Board who could also consider a Stay petition and bonding request. Order: Land Use Permit #2S1147-1 is stayed effective April 10, 2003, until the date of the Commission's decision on the pending Motions to Alter. The request for a bond is denied."
APRIL 16: SAVE THE DATE/SELECTBOARD'S MEETING/BRIBE EDITORIAL SAVE THE DATE CCC is hosting a reception on May 4, Sunday, at 11 am at the Cavendish Library in Proctorsville, VT to discuss the proposed Glimmerstone quarry located on Scenic Rt. 131 in Cavendish. This is an opportunity for people to have their questions answered, learn what CCC is trying to do about preserving the rural nature of the town, and how they can help in the process. The Cavendish Library is adjacent to the Cavendish Town Elementary School in Proctorsville. For more information: Robin Timko 226-7736 or Suzanne Meaney 225-8161 or margoc@tds.net SELECT BOARD MEETING On Monday night at the Select Board meeting, Goss, the attorney for McLean, made the following proposal: in exchange for the active support of the Planning Commission and Select Board during the Act 250 process for the McLean's Motion to Alter (this would be both quarries, 50 year permit, reduction in noise requirements etc.), McLean would give the town 1% of gross sales of the stone; crushed stone; and a location for a new well. They estimate the worth of this package to be $130,000 per year. In order for this "deal," the project must "receive final approval with out appeal." That means that the Town agrees not to appeal any permits granted to McLean. CCC spoke out about the proposal, demonstrating that using this area for residential purposes would bring in considerably more money and not damage the environment. While it is recognized that a well is needed by the Town, as April Hensel pointed out, any well site on that land would be especially susceptible to contamination and fuel spills are unavoidable. Through pictures and presentations, it was shown that the way McLean has handled the clearing of the land along Rt 131, is already in violation of their permit because they have not done enough to prevent soil erosion. It was brought out that a McLean housing venture in Ludlow, was cited for similar erosion violations in previous years. While the Select Board and Planning Commission will need to meet and vote, the sentiment of those in attendance was very much in opposition to McLean's proposal. "The Black River Tribune," April 16 edition, includes both an article and an editorial (see below). If you would like a copy of the article, please e-mail the address above with your snail mail address. EDITORIAL: IT LOOKS LIKE A BRIBE The following editorial, by Leo Graham, appears in the April 16 issue of "The Black River Tribune." From the start, McLean Enterprises efforts to quarry stone in Cavendish have been contentious. The Select board and Planning Commission in Cavendish have opposed the project in writing. McLean said they would go ahead and get an Act 250 permit and did so. The Town, Planning Commission, and citizen's groups appealed and that appeal was granted, rather unusually. McLean also wanted changes in the permit. They want to be able to use two different sites for quarrying not just the one approved. Last Monday, McLean representatives came before the Cavendish Select board and tried to make nice. They also tried to buy a change of heart. Suddenly, big, bad McLean Enterprises came in with talk of being a good "corporate citizen." Talk not heard previously. But good citizenship rarely involves a blatant attempt to purchase votes. For what may, or may not, be $130,000 a year and a site for a well, McLean expects the two boards to not only get out of the way, but to become enthusiastic supporters of the quarry and McLean's attempts to expand their Act 250 permit. The Town won't get any money if they oppose any part of McLean's plan. The Seventh edition of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines a bribe as: "Money or favor bestowed on or promised to a person in a position of trust to pervert his judgment or corrupt his conduct." The second definition that word is "Something that serves to induce or influence." Some kinds of bribery are enshrined in permitting processes. For example an "impact fee" is little more than one group throwing money at another because the second group is going to be inconvenienced by action taken by the first group. It is supposed to make the inconvenience bearable. People who would ordinarily oppose something agree to support it for money. (In fairness, no one is accusing McLean of trying to put money directly into the pockets of any one Select Board or Planning Commission member). But there are two real problems with McLean's proposal. First it is a ham-fisted approach to make friends and second, it's too low. If they want to put a bribe out there, make it a good one. The low-ball proposal McLean put forward is not going to change any minds. That was evident from the reaction of the crowd at the meeting. Most of those in attendance were opposed, some passionately, to the quarry. None of them changed their minds then. By McLean's own estimates, they are going to sell between four and 10 million dollars worth of stone from that quarry for 50 years. If they want to turn some heads, they are going to have to pretty-up the proposal. Every person is said to have a price, every Town does too. This isn't close. It's not so much that I am opposed to an attempt to give Cavendish enough goodies to make the board change its mind. (Welcome to the real world.) But don't insult them with this little offer. If you're going to buy them off, do it right.
APRIL 18: ARTICLES IN MESSAGE/CONTACT SELECT BOARD THE MESSAGE In addition, on page 16, there is a Letter to the Editor from Mickey Gelineau, Project Manager, McLean Enterprises Corp, Cavendish. It is written as follows, "Editor, The Message: McLean Enterprises Corporation, which recently received an Act 250 Permit to open a mica/schist stone quarry off of Rt.131 in Cavendish, recently presented a major economic benefits proposal to the Cavendish Selectmen. The offer marks McLean's ongoing efforts to garner support of the Cavendish Select board, and the town at large, for the project. Representatives of McLean presented the proposal to the selectmen at their regularly scheduled meeting. In exchange for the town's active support for the project in the form currently before the state permit process, McLean proposed to give the town the following: 1. A 1% annual cash royalty on the gross revenue of the quarry, which would have an estimated value of approximately $60,000 per year to the town. 2. Crushed waste stone generated by the project which is usable by the town as surepac, rip rap and for other municipal purposes. The town is presently purchasing this material from sources in the Town of Weathersfield. Between the value of the donated stone and the avoided cost of trucking that stone, this proposal would be worth approximately $51,000 per year to Cavendish. 3. A potential location for a new municipal water well on the McLean property in a addition to rights of way necessary to maintain that well. The town has already commissioned hydrogologic studies indicating that the McLean property may be suitable for a municipal water supply for Cavendish. It is estimated that this offer by McLean would save the town approximately $100,000 to $150,000 in condemnation and related costs for such a facility. The offer made by McLean, which is conditioned on final approval of the project as requested, is in addition to an estimated $18,740 per year in real estate tax revenue which Cavendish would realize from the project as well as up to 20 full time jobs with a payroll in the vicinity of $550,000 per year. The package offered by McLean represents a direct economic benefit to the town of approximately $130,000 per year in additional revenue as well as the donation of the municipal well site. This proposal shows our good faith in trying to do positive things for the Town of Cavendish. The direct, annual economic benefit alone represents something like 20 percent of the entire Cavendish Town operating budget. We believe there is substantial support for our project in the community. Hopefully, this proposal will help the town fathers realize the project is good for Cavendish. The McLean quarry is located off Rt. 131 between the village centers of Proctorsville and Cavendish. It has received an Act 250 permit to extract glimmerstone, a unique stone product, from two extraction sites on the property. Initially, it was proposed that both extraction sites would operate simultaneously. However, the permittee currently proposes to permit both sites but to only operate one site at any one time. As presently permitted, earth extraction will only occur during business during the week with no extraction during the early mornings, evenings or on the weekends." CONTACT SELECT BOARD
APRIL 21: MTG.WITH ST REP/COMING UP THIS WEEK/HOW YOU CAN HELP/WATER MEETING WITH STATE REPRESENTATIVE COMING UP THIS WEEK
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP
WATER
Below is an article from today's Rutland Herald, which summarizes the Commission's position on the Glimmerstone quarry. As noted in yesterday's Quarry Update, CCC will now begin the process of obtaining a Stay and appealing the decision to the Environmental Board. Glimmerstone quarry will continue operations April 21, 2003 (from the Southern Vermont section) By DONNA MOXLEY Southern Vermont Bureau CAVENDISH The permit for the Glimmerstone Granite Quarry will remain in effect for 25 years, and quarry operators will not be able to remove stone from the already existing north quarry without an amendment to the permit. The District 8 Environmental Commission issued a decision Monday on several motions to alter the Route 131 quarryıs permit, which was issued Feb. 19. Both McLean Enterprises Corp., which owns the quarry, and numerous opponents of the quarry filed the motions. McLean, which had hoped to quarry two open rock faces simultaneously, had asked the commission to reconsider its decision to allow quarrying only at a new, southern rock face closer to Route 131. The commission, in its decision Monday, said that since quarrying the northern face would affect property owners on Tierney Road and would involve some on-site stone processing, McLean would need to apply for an amendment to the permit to use it. Under those circumstances, the commission ruled modifications to the considerations for deer yards on the site would be in order. The decision does allow for removal of loose rock at the edge of the north face, which has been quarried for the ownerıs private use, to stabilize it. The commission said the work could be done in a three-day period. That decision also served to answer, in the negative, a motion to alter by Tierney Road resident Terry OıBrien. He had requested that the commission make a final determination that the north quarry would be abandoned. The district also rejected McLeanıs request to double the permit period to 50 years. Opponents of the permit had filed objections and requests regarding several aspects of the permit, including water supply and discharge, noise levels, traffic and public safety. Some had cited to the commission the burning of brush at the site of the quarryıs new road, shortly after the permit was issued, which went unattended and brought several fire trucks to the scene. The commission denied all of those motions except one, which was to clarify the party status of two people who oppose the project. The commission ruled that stone dust does not pose a threat to the stateıs waters, and refused to require monitoring of local wells for water levels. The commission also stated that voluminous evidence dealing with noise levels was presented at hearings on the application for the quarry and refused to allow neighborsı schedules to dictate blasting for the new road. The decision says that ³basically allows the projectıs opponents to forever delay the project.² The commission also denied a request to reduce the amount of truck trips per day from an average of 12 trips to a maximum of 12 trips. "There is no persuasive evidence in the record that more than 12 truck loads per day would cause safety (concerns) or congestion along Route 131," the decision says. Contact Donna Moxley at donna.moxley@rutlandherald.com.
4/29: ARTICLES IN BLACK RIVER TRIBUNE/SUNDAY REMINDER The following article and editorial appears in the Wednesday, April 23, 2003 edition of the Black River Tribune. The cover photograph is of the McLean Quarry site on 131. HALF A QUARRY IN CAVENDISH BY LEO GRAHAM In essence, the Commission upheld its previous decision and roughly told each side of the issue that they were not going to change their minds. McLean wanted to quarry the "glimmers/one" at sites on both the North and the South sides of the property they own just North of Route 131 between the Proctorsville and Cavendish village areas. Originally the Environmental Commission said they could only use the South quarry. McLean can, however stabilize the North quarry site. The North site has been the eye of the storm from the start. Last Memorial Day weekend, McLean removed many 10-wheel trucks full of stone for the personal use of the owner. As such, not illegal. What it did do, however, was put heavy truck traffic on Tierney Rd. and alarm residents there. Previously, McLean had estimated that upwards of 250 truck loads would be needed to stabilize the site. The Environmental Commission thought the work could be done in three days. The decision also specifically states that McLean cannot remove stone from the North quarry site without going through the amendment process. So "stabilizing" the site is required but removing stone is not allowed. The original Act 250 permit calls for a 25 year life for the quarry. McLean appealed, asking for 50 years. That appeal was also turned down. It does not mean that some years down the road, McLean couldn't ask for an extension. Other appeals by opponents of the quarry said that McLean was muddying the waters of the Black River. The decision denied that motion saying, "We do not find that stone dust eroding from the quarry poses any threat to the waters of the state." Opponents also charged that insufficient study has been done to determine the effect of quarry operations on groundwater supplies, specifically the wells of abutting residents. The commission denied that appeal as well, saying that the geology of the site will allow the "continued passage of ground water." All of the opponents motions about noise were rejected. The Commission found some of them needlessly arbitrary and others unenforceable. Thus, the quarry will be able to create noise equivalent of 50 decibels at the nearest residence. The opponents were also concerned that the Act 250 permit originally granted allowed for an "average" of 12 truck trips a day from the site. They wanted that changed to a "maximum" of 12 trips a day. The Commission denied that motion as well. They wrote, "There is no persuasive evidence on the record that more than 12 truck loads per day would cause safety or congestion along Route 131. " There seems to be word missing after "safety" but that's the way the decision reads. The group, Concerned Cavendish Citizens, has a meeting scheduled for Sunday May 4 at 11 am, at the Cavendish Fletcher Memorial Library, next to the Cavendish Town Elementary School in Proctorsville to discuss their next move. Note: Sunday's meeting has been moved to the Proctorsville Fire hall, which is next to the elementary school. EDITORIAL: PLAY NICE by Leo Graham Cavendish residents have only to look up the road to Ludlow to see what development pressures can do to a town. While things in Ludlow seem relatively calm at the moment much still simmers. The pressures to create jobs and the pressures to preserve the environment have led to contentious debates among people who do not believe in the essential goodwill of their neighbors, if those neighbors disagree on development issues. My first day in Vermont, June 11, l986, a native responded to my remark about the beauty of the state by saying, "Ayup, but you can't eat the scenery." I've never forgotten those words. So let's take the arguments to the extreme. Everyone knows you can't eat the scenery and everyone knows we don't want Vermont, any part of it, to resemble Gary, Indiana or Elizabeth, New Jersey. The McLean quarry could create 20 or more jobs in Cavendish. There is no way to insure that Cavendish residents get those jobs but the fact remains, Cavendish will have more jobs than it does not. Last week McLean made a clumsy attempt to buy the Town's goodwill, or at least that of the Select Board and Planning Commission. With the recent Environmental Commission decision, McLean's offer to the Town may be off the table now. No matter, it was too little, too late anyway. McLean is also a good reason for care. The stone has been there for eons. It can be removed in decades. That hill will never be the same, indeed it will not exist if quarried. No matter the value of the stone, deliberate care is called for. But no matter the ultimate decision, the people of Cavendish will still have to live together. Opponents of the quarry have frequently used terms best described as apocalyptic. It probably wont presage the end of the world, or even the end of life as Cavendish knows it. It will undoubtedly change it. How much is the question. Few know what 50 decibels sounds like and fewer know the difference between 50 and 55 decibels. But it is being talked about as if it is the sound of the soul of the community. The residents of Cavendish are to be commended for their passionate concerns for the welfare of their town, both sides. Maybe the school needs expansion, maybe the Town needs zoning, maybe the quarry will bring countless dollars into Cavendish. But whatever happens, the people of Cavendish must remember that they are neighbors, that their children attend the same school, that they all want the best for the Town even if they define it differently. In short, they must continue to treat each other as people of goodwill. If only because so many of them are. MAY 4 REMINDER
MAY 1: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR OF THE MESSAGE Two letters "to the editor" were printed in the April 29-May 6 issue of "The Message," one in favor of the project-and in opposition to CCC activities-and the second concerning how the Quarry will take advantage of Cavendish. THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CAVENDISH QUARRY ISSUE (appears on Page 9) Editor, The Message The recent debates on a quarry operating in the town of Cavendish have prompted me to set the record straight. Vermont Glimmerstone Granite is trying to set up shop on their own property. A small group known as The Concerned Citizens of Cavendish or The C.C.C is trying to deny them their constitutional right. The C.C.C. says they speak on behalf of the community. Most residents of this town have not weighted in yet. In my opinion they speak on behalf of their own selfishness; I say small group because they are not the majority. Not by a long shot. Mr. Gelineau and McLean Enterprises have been dragged through the mud by this group. It's been my experience that both Mr. Gelineau and the McLeans are among the finest people one could hope to work for. They are exactly what our new governor wants in Vermont. I have worked with them for several years now. I am also a resident of Cavendish. Having worked at several places around here, I can tell you very few employment opportunities will give what I have received. My income has dramatically increased in less than five years, bonuses, rapid advancement, and most importantly, the backing they have provided me with. No matter if it's business or personal they have gone out of their way to help me and others. Through the years Mr. Gelineau, in association with McLean Enterprises, have poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Vermont economy and its resident workforce. With a proven track record of success and prosperity. They discovered this stone of a property owned by McLean Enterprises. Its rare quality has been described as "some of the best stone seen in over 20 years." The stone has a unique quality that allows it to be split in large but thin slabs by hand methods. This gray natural split face stone glimmers in the sun and turns very dark in the rain. These characteristics have masons, landscapers, and contractors all over the Northeast wishing they could get it. This quarry could generate millions in revenues. There is no waste from this product. Every pebble has a purpose. The quarry has plans to restore and enhance the land after the stone is extracted. This quarry, after a costly debate, was granted a permit to operate. Vermont Glimmerstone Granite began work and has since become the sole reason the C.C.C. exists. The so-called "Concerned Citizens of Cavendish" have used tactics that include false accusations, several blatant traffic violations, trespassing, total disregard for their own safety and others traveling past the site. One member takes his infant to late night town meetings and stands in front of the local TV camera for sympathy. I haven't seen any of them address any other issue facing the town. Are they really concerned for this town or themselves? Recently, the quarry made an offer to the Town of Cavendish. The C.C.C. is trying to dismiss it. Here's a company that hasn't sold any product. Making an outstanding offer. Just to show they are part of the community and willing to help. They already have a permit. Whether the town accepts the offer or not. So the C.C.C. doesn't want the quarry's royalties. An offer that could create possibilities like property tax cuts or a school addition. They don't want a free municipal water well site or free crushed stone for roads and ditches. This is in addition to the previous list of don't wants. Which includes things like, some of the highest paid basic labor jobs in the state of Vermont. The "Concerned Citizens of Cavendish" seem to be only concerned with stopping the quarry. I feel as though supporting or funding the C.C.C. would be counter-productive for the community. Vermont has a long proud history in quarrying. Stone products from this state have built the U.S. Supreme Court and the Lincoln Memorial. Barre has the largest granite quarry in the world. It is surrounded by residential both dense and rural. Vermont Glimmerstone Granite is a very small operation compared to them. Most of V.G.G.'s work is done by hand. Quality Vermont craftsmanship. Thomas Ruby, QUARRY WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF CAVENDISH (appears on Page 11) Editor, The Message Recently, the District 8 Environmental Commission granted McLean Enterprises permission to proceed with their quarrying project, as well as permitting them to "stabilize" the north side. At the last Town of Cavendish Select board meeting, McLean Enterprises, through counsel, offered certain "economic benefits" to the town in return for the town agreeing to not only desist from any future opposition to their mining project, but to actively support them. This "deal" would require the town to support development which is already in total opposition to the Town Plan! McLean Enterprises says that this offer is made in "good faith." Yet, they have already shown, as a matter of practice, blatant disregard for the concerns of the governing bodies of this town and its citizenry by riding roughshod in here and proceeding with their own interests without following legal procedure, or keeping the town informed of its intents or activities. In every action that I am aware of that McLean Enterprises has taken to exploit or develop their property prior to their Act 250 permit, they have proceeded without first notifying the town fathers or getting the proper permits. Furthermore, they have continued to display their lack of consideration and respect for law by the abuses they have continued to practice since they were granted a permit, several of which have been documented. Only after they have been confronted have they taken steps to comply. Even as I write this, they are allowing the stopping, backing, and turning of heavy trucks at an intersection on Route 131 without benefit of warning signs or flaggers. As in any capital venture, the purpose of McLean's quarry project is the acquisition of money. That is to be expected; it's a part of the American way. Unfortunately, there are those who seek to acquire it at any cost to others, whether it be the environment, the peace and tranquility of a small town, or the negative impact on the house foundations, wells, property values, air quality, and noise levels emanating from increased truck traffic, engine brakes, rock crushing, and blasting, to say nothing of air laden dust and the decrease of safety on our streets and in our villages; in effect, turning a way of life in this community completely upside down. I acknowledge that in spite of all of these local concerns, and the obvious detriment to our community, the District 8 Environmental Commission has seen fit to grant McLean Enterprises a permit anyway. The Commission is a tool of the state which is in place to protect towns from developments such as this, which negatively impact the aesthetics as well as the environment of our towns. In this regard it has failed miserably. Because of continued opposition to their plan, McLean Enterprises has endeavored to prevent future delays or interference by offering certain "economic benefits" to our town. These should not be construed to come anywhere near offsetting the long term negative impact on our town and the village of Cavendish, impact which will disrupt our way of life for much longer than the 25 years the quarry is currently permitted for, and will ultimately cost us in dollars and quality of life much more than what the "benefits" will compensate. I predict that in the months and years to come, McLean Enterprises will repeatedly be in violation of its permit, knowing that it will not be caught in every instance, and that the cost of the few fines that may be levied against if from time to time will be cheaper than the effort to guarantee compliance. It's all a part of "doing business." I am confident too, that our town's future will be kept busy dealing with continuing efforts by McLean Enterprises to have their permit amended, and their quarrying project expanded. I don't believe they will be satisfied until they achieve every bit of their original permit application. It was a sorry day when this outfit rode into town. In spite of what appears to be a bleak future for our town, there are those of us who will continue to oppose this particular development in every legal way. I would urge those citizens of Cavendish Town who are concerned by what has transpired to contact the Concerned Cavendish Citizens 226-7736 or 226-8161 or e-mail margoc@ludl.tds.net and rally your support around any efforts by Concerned Cavendish Citizens to stop or reduce the impact of this project. Blake Edwards,
MAY 2: SELECTBOARD SAYS NO TO MCLEAN'S OFFER CAVENDISH BOARD WON'T CONSIDER QUARRY OFFER By DONNA MOXLEY Southern Vermont Bureau CAVENDISH The Select Board has decided it wonıt even look at what some have called a bribe to drop its opposition to the Glimmerstone Granite Quarry off Route 131. McLean Enterprises Corp. had offered the town more than $110,000 annually in royalties and donated stone, plus up to $200,000 for a new well for the municipal water supply. They also said annual property tax revenue from the working quarry would be nearly $19,000. In exchange, according to the offer, the town must "actively support" the project and appear before the state Environmental Board or any other tribunal in support of the quarry. The project must also receive final approval "without appeal" from all permitting authorities. Select Board members first suggested rejecting the offer Thursday night, but the board instead rejected the idea of even considering it. "Why waste money on legal fees?" asked Selectman George Timko, referring to paying for an attorney's review. Timko, an opponent of the quarry, suggested the refusal after Town Manager Richard Svec said the agreement was not possible. In all three clauses concerning the town's duty in accepting the "offerings" the project had to be approved as the company requested in a motion to modify its Act 250 permit. That motion was already rejected by the District 8 Environmental Commission rejected last week. "It is essentially impossible to meet the requirements of the offer, so the point is moot anyway," Svec said, "regardless of whether it might be construed as bribery." Project engineer Ralph Michael and company representative Mickey Gelineau could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday. Selectman Daniel Churchill, who's been taking a poll on the subject, said townspeople have overwhelmingly opposed the quarry and the company's offer. One person told him, "I could expect to be tarred and feathered and run out of town," Churchill said. The permit, issued earlier this year, allows the Glimmerstone Granite Quarry to be developed on 325 acres north of Route 131. McLean Enterprises can only remove stone from the proposed south quarry face, although the company had asked for two working rock faces. Work has already started to clear the hillside sloping from Route 131 in preparation for a new road, and blasting is expected to begin soon. The Concerned Citizens of Cavendish, a group opposed to the quarry, was expected to file an appeal of the quarry's Act 250 permit Thursday. Suzanne Meaney, a member of the group and resident of Tierney Road, which leads to a section of McLean's land that has been partially quarried, said the appeal was being hand-delivered to the district commission. The Select Board voted Thursday to ask the commission to order work at the site be halted pending consideration of the appeal.
MAY 5: STAY GRANTED/SUCCESSFUL MEETING/WHO TO CALL STAY GRANTED While we fully expect McLean to submit a request for reversal, there are several reasons to believe that the Stay will remain, as the request for a stay revolves around two key issues: 1) Can work activities taking place be irreversible? In the case of the McLean project, landscape architect Peter Bourgous submitted information which clearly shows that blasting for a roadway at the Route 131 site would cause irreversible damage. 2) Is there a good chance that the Environmental Board will not approve this project? Given the environmental violations and other issues identified in the appeal/stay statement, there is a strong likelihood that McLean will be denied a permit to quarry in Cavendish. In the upcoming months, there will be pre hearings and testimony will be prepared for the Environmental Board hearings which most likely take place in the fall. It is important to note that the Environmental Board does its own review and does not rely on materials from the Act 250 hearings. This next phase will be expensive, as we will need to acquire expert testimony and pay for the lawyer fees. Contributions of all sizes are needed. While we feel good about the granting of the Stay, we can not take anything for granted, and so need to continue our efforts through the appeal phase. SUCCESSFUL MEETING A phone tree is being established. This would involve making phone calls to several people, generally not more than 5. In this way, important information can be given to people quickly. If you would be willing to make a few phone calls, please call Robin at 226-7736. Two hand outs were distributed at the meeting. The first was a summary of activities to date and what we can expect over the next several months. This has been posted below for your review. The second handout was a timeline of activities pertaining to this project, starting with the filing of the Act 250 application up to the Stay on Friday. If you would like a snail mail version of the latter, please e-mail the address above with your snail mail address. HANDOUT: CONCERNED CAVENDISH CITIZENS Dedicated to: THE EDUCATION AND INVOLVEMENT OF THE CAVENDISH COMMUNITY CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE PLANNING BACKGROUND Mclean Enterprises, a developer from Pennsylvania, purchased a 325 acre lot in Cavendish with the intent of building new homes. In the process mica shist was found. They did not confer with the Cavendish Town Planning Commission but went directly to the Act 250 process to obtain a permit for quarrying stone from two sites, referred to as the North and South Quarry. For over a year people from Cavendish and Proctorsville have been working hard to try and stop this proposal. Not only does the Town Plan not support a quarry operation of this scope and size, but the Select board, Planning Commission as well as the residents, have all come out in opposition to this project. Unfortunately, an Act 250 permit was granted to McLean to establish a South Quarry site, which is directly off of Route 131 in Cavendish. PRESENT PERMIT STATUS The District 8 Environmental Commission issued
a decision after reviewing Motions to Alter, filed by both CCC and McLean,
on the Rte 131 Quarry permit. The Commission's decision allows the South
Quarry but continued to deny the North Quarry. The South Quarry site,
located on the scenic highway of 131 has been stripped in a manner not
consistent with good environmental practices and has not met the criteria
set forth in their permit. Spillage has already occurred in the Black
River.
CONCERNS OF C.C.C. After careful evaluation of the facts we believe the South Quarry permit is not acceptable. a) We believe that there is a real danger from waste discharge regarding water pollution to ground water and the Black river. We also believe that Mclean Enterprises has not made sufficient studies and that the quarry operations could dewater private wells in the area. b) Dust and pollution from the quarry operation and from the machinery and trucks entering and exiting on the curve at rte 131 create risks for our community. c) We believe it is necessary to conduct more sound tests prior to the commencement of quarry operations, and that the noise levels be monitored. It has been made clear that Mclean Enterprises will not be able to meet the noise criteria requested in the permit. d) We will all be affected by an increase in property taxes as a result of devaluation of property close to the quarries. In addition, blasting can cause structural damage to homes in the area. Lawyers hired by C.C.C. assure us Mclean Enterprises will not stop at the South Quarry but will proceed to apply for a permit to quarry stone at the North Quarry site, where the most valuable stone vein exists. This will be easier for them to accomplish once the South Quarry is in place. It is therefore clear that we must make a concerted effort to stop the Quarries now and C.C.C. is preparing to file an Appeal. APPEAL PROCESS -The Appeal process is limited but costly. It is conducted by the lawyers and specialists at the level of the State Environmental Board. The timing of the appeal process is as follows.
At this time there is only one more option for an appeal and it would be at the level of the Supreme Court, it would be focused and brief and less costly HOW TO HELP, WHAT YOU CAN DO 1) STAY INFORMED! This is a learning process for everyone! SIGNUP FOR INFORMATION UPDATES * Automatic e-mail updates at margoc@ludl.tds.net. * Snail Mail, let us know and we will send it to you. * Call us, or we can call you. 2) Continued communication and allegiance with our Town Planning Board and Select board in their assertion that the Mclean Quarry's proposal is not in accordance with the Town Plan. 3) SIGN UP FOR THE TELEPHONE TREE. This will help us communicate important information in a quick and effective way without it being a burden on anyone person. 4) HELP WITH FUNDRAISING. C.C.C Will be sponsoring events in the near future. 5) CONTRIBUTIONS Any size helps. Let friends and relatives know of the difficulty our town is facing, maybe they will want to pitch in. Contributions can be mailed to Concerned Cavendish Citizens P.O. Box 605 Cavendish Vt. 05142. For more information: Call 226-7736 and ask for Robin Timko or 226-8161 and ask for Suzanne Meaney. WHO TO CALL
MAY 8: ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD LOOKS AT QUARRY ISSUES The following article appears in today's (May 8) edition of The Rutland Herald. Board looks at quarry issues By SUSAN SMALLHEER Southern Vermont Bureau CAVENDISH Lawyers on both sides of the controversial new Glimmerstone Granite Quarry will make their case before the Environmental Board today on why construction at the quarry should "or shouldn't be shut down. Construction at the quarry was halted late last week when Patricia Moulton Powden, chairwoman of the Environmental Board, agreed to a temporary restraining order pending a hearing. Neighbors have alleged there has been inappropriate cutting of trees, erosion violations and impact to deer habitat since construction at the site started earlier this spring. Both sides are also unhappy about the noise condition imposed in the Glimmerstone quarry's Act 250 permit, and the company has said the condition as imposed makes the quarry uneconomical. The attorney for 10 neighbors to the McLean Enterprises project, calling themselves the Concerned Citizens of Cavendish, are fighting the quarry, which would be developed on 325 acres of land north of Route 131 between the villages of Cavendish and Proctorsville. "We donıt think this project would ever comply on noise," said Anthony Roisman, the neighborsı attorney. "So why let it tear up the land? That's irreparable damage." Roisman said that site preparation for the access road was under way, but that his group wanted to stop it before blasting began. "The road is going to be 24 feet wide, but they are clearing 100 to 200 feet wide." Roisman said Wednesday that he had filed for both a temporary restraining order and a permanent restraining order, pending the group's larger appeal of the quarry's Act 250 permit. Roisman said that if the group waited for the appeal to be heard, much of the environmental damage would be done. He said that a condition of the permit dealing with noise has already been called unacceptable by McLean, but that it had gone ahead with construction. Roisman said that McLean Enterprises had filed a motion to alter the permit condition dealing with noise, but that it had been rejected. "Since they say it is unacceptable and can't go forward with it, we say revoke the entire permit," Roisman said. Roisman said the standard, according to earlier Act 250 cases, is noise measured at people's homes and at places that are frequently used by humans. A hearing on the permanent restraining order will be heard on May 21, according to Powden, when the full board can hear the case. "Their appeal is lengthy, but they allege there is some cutting that was inappropriate, there have been erosion violations, there's been impact to deer wintering areas," Powden said. "We're trying to do this quickly and we're moving as fast as we can. But the appeal is going to take some time," she said. James Goss, the attorney for McLean Enterprises, didn't return a telephone call with a request for comment. McLean had asked for permission to open two rock faces to quarry stone, but the permit limited it to one. Last week, the town of Cavendish rejected what some called a bribe from McLean to drop its opposition to the project. The company had offered $110,000 in royalties and donated stone, plus up to $200,000 for a new well for a municipal system. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com.
MAY 16: MCLEAN WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR DISSOLVING OF STAY James Goss, the attorney for McLean Enterprises filed the following letter with Matthew Strassberg of the Vermont Environmental Board. May 15, 2003 Matthew J. Strassberg Re: McLean Enterprises Corporation Dear Matt: We have reviewed the Chair's May 13, 2003 Order prohibiting further blasting, drilling and cutting of trees for road construction and scheduling an evidentiary hearing on this issue on May 28th. In light of this, the Permittee's ability to proceed with construction of this permitted Project would remain undetermined until at least the first part of June. As a consequence, the Permittee's primary contractors with respect to construction of the Project access road have withdrawn their commitment to the Project so that they can proceed with jobs elsewhere. As a result, the Permittee now represents to the Board that it does not intend to continue construction of the Project until such time as the pending appeal is resolved on the merits. The pending Motion for Long Term Stay is therefore moot. The Permittee does intend to conduct limited grading and earth work necessary to stabilize the site and to maintain and install necessary erosion control devices during this time. In the event that the Permittee for some reason does desire to continue with construction of the Project during the pendency of the appeal, it will provide prior notice of the same to the Board and the parties to the appeal. At that time, the opponents would be free to refile their motion for long term stay and have the same heard by the Board. Please call should you have any questions. Sincerely, James P.W. Goss McLean Enterprises
Files New Quarry Application The new proposal now goes to the District 8 Environmental Commission, which will be scheduling hearings sometime in the future. In February of 2003, this Commission gave McLean permission to build the South Quarry, but denied the proposed North Quarry. Now, after the Environmental Board found so many problems with the South Quarry and the access road onto Route 131, McLean is coming back with a proposal for just the North Quarry, using Tierney Road, High Street, Wiley Hill Road and Center/Whitesville Road to access Route 131. Unlike the prior proposal which would have shut the North Quarry down during the winter to minimize impact on deer, the new application seeks permission to operate the North Quarry year round. Many issues are raised by the new proposal, including the noise that the operation will create both on site and along the path of the truck route.The District Commission will have to determine whether or not it is safe for heavily-loaded trucks to come down Tierney Road and navigate the intersection at the bottom of Wiley Hill Road. In addition, the new application says nothing about what McLean is proposing to do to clean up the mess it made on the hillside where it originally planned to construct the access road to the South Quarry. Copies of the complete McLean application are available in the Town Office. CCC will be preparing a fact sheet about the new proposal in the near future, and we will keep people up to date on the issue both in this Newsletter and by email in the Cavendish Community Update. March
2006 Environmental Commission Ruling on McLean Quarry The Commission concludes that McLean Enterprises Corporation has not satisfied its burden to correct the deficiencies cited by the Environmental Board. The Applicant has failed to show that it has corrected deficiencies with respect to Noise under Criteria 8 and 10. Furthermore, the Applicant’s new proposal for access via Tierney Road fails to address Traffic under Criteria 5 and 9(K). The application is denied.”
|
|
Cavendish
Community and Conservation Association
P.O. Box 605
Cavendish, VT 05142
Copyright 2005-2007 CCC
Website design by ParaGraPhix and JaeWerks
