Waitsfield Company Proposes
Mine Operation in Rochester
By Martha Slater

Kevin McLoughlin and Bill Gibson were outside Mac's Valley Market in Rochester village last Saturday with a petition to halt Rochester Sand & Gravel's mining operation. (Herald / Jeff Mather)

A Waitsfield company’s proposal to re-open an existing gravel pit on Route 100 in Rochester, which has been dormant for years, is attracting opposition from local residents.

An Act 250 land use permit hearing on the project will be held Tuesday, Feb. 13 at 9 a.m. at the Rochester town office. The hearing is open to the public.

The proposed operation will include quarry and aggregate processing from approximately 8.75 acres of a 192-acre parcel of land located on Route 100, south of Jerusalem Hill Rd. The company has a lease agreement with the landowner, Mike Bowen of North Hollow Farms in Rochester. Access to the facility would be via an existing driveway on Route 100.

The company planning to operate the facility, Rochester Sand & Gravel, LLC, is headquartered at the Kingsbury Construction offices in Waitsfield.

Rochester resident Jeff Sherwin of Kingsbury Construction, is the project manager overseeing the operation.

He confirmed for The Herald that in January 2006, the company met with the Rochester Selectboard to find out if town officials had any problems with the project. Kingsbury had originally thought the pit was "grandfathered" due to its previous use.

"We weren’t sure if we needed an Act 250 permit or not," Sherwin said, "but we started the application process soon after that, when it became evident that we did."

Sherwin contacted Julia Schmitz, the District 3 Act 250 coordinator, for help and the company hired Mark Bannon of Bannon Engineering in Randolph, who prepared the project’s Act 250 Land Use application.

"We’re trying to start the Act 250 process, and determine whether the project is feasible," Bannon told The Herald. "We’re taking it slow. Mike Bowen is a local person and very open to the neighbors’ concerns."

According to project information outlined in the application, "operation of the quarry, that is, drilling, blasting, crushing and processing of aggregates will occur from May 15 to Oct. 1 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, with the Memorial Day, July 4 and Labor Day holidays excluded. The transporting and loading of aggregate materials from the quarry may take place during the entire year on weekdays, from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m."

The application also states that the site would include a construction trailer, storage shed, portable rock crusher, and other related utilities. No site lighting is proposed.

The proposed project is anticipated to load an average of 20 trucks per day, which equals 40-42 trips per day. According to the application, "this estimate is optimistic and will likely not occur on a daily basis. It is anticipated that on many days, no trucks will be loaded. The pit is expected to serve local contractors constructing residential and commercial septic systems, driveways and roads."

There is already a gravel pit in the area, owned by Tom Pierce off Rte. 73 in Rochester, and there is another one in Stockbridge owned by Harvey’s P & E of Rochester, as well as one in Granville and others in Rutland County.

Neighbors’ Concerns

Kevin McLoughlin, who owns a shop on Route 100 across from the proposed site, is opposed to the project.

"It’s not a gravel extraction process," he told the Herald. "They’re going to quarry and crush rock, so it’s a mining operation. That means blasting and truck traffic right through the village and up Route 100 heading north to the Warren, Waitsfield and Sugarbush area, where Kingsbury does a lot of business. They’re not necessarily going to be selling to local contractors.

"This is the same company that got turned down for a permit in Moretown last year. It’s a known fact that property values drop around quarrying operations. If there was a truck going by your place every 12 minutes or so, how would you feel?"

Jerusalem Hill Road resident Bill Gibson organized a petition effort when he initially learned of the project last year. He said he now has total of 120 signatures, including 57 collected last Saturday in front of Mac’s Valley Market in Rochester village.

The petition stated its signers’ opposition to "the opening of a mine operation in south Rochester by the newly formed Rochester Sand and Gravel LLC of Waitsfield. We oppose drilling, blasting, rock crushing, strip mining, the loading of dump trucks and the hauling of this material through Rochester."

The petition also cited dangers and asked town and state officials to "not grant the permits and to protect our homes and quality of life."

Gibson noted that the deck of his house is about 430 ft. from the proposed quarry, adding, "I do believe if it went ahead, it would render my house un-sellable."

Local real estate agent Dave Hunt agrees with Gibson that the proposed project would have an adverse effect on property values.

"It would unquestionably change the whole area along Route 100," Hunt told The Herald. "The value and salability of any property along that road would go down." Hunt, who lives on Liberty Hill Road, said he also has concerns about safety issues from the increased traffic.

Frank Twitchell, who lives directly across from the proposed site, said his biggest worries are that basting could cause the loss of veins of water that supply wells for homes in the area and the vibrations could damage the foundations of those homes.

He also expressed concerns about dust, noise, and safety issues, noting that the truck traffic would have an impact on people in Hancock and Granville, too.

"Over 40 trucks a day is a lot of traffic for our little towns, and the condition of our roads will suffer," said Twitchell, who has also circulated his own petition among his neighbors opposing the project.

Schmitz explained that during the hearing process, the Act 250 commission will look at criteria including: 1) air pollution 1b) waste disposal and stormwater treatment, 3) impact on water supplies, 4) soil erosion, 5) traffic safety, 8) aesthetics including noise and visual impact; 9e) is extraction of earth resources (blasting), 9k) public investments (the impact on Route 100) and 10) conformation to the local town plan.

The project was the topic of a lively discussion at the Feb. 6 meeting of the Rochester Planning Commission, when quarry neighbors attended to voice their opposition. Commission members plan to write a letter to Kingsbury Construction and will be present at the Feb. 13 hearing.

Schmitz urged anyone with concerns about the project to make an effort to attend the Feb. 13 hearing. Prior to the hearing, there will be a site visit at 8:30 a.m.

"It’s not necessary for the public to go to the site visit, but anyone who has anything to say about this project should definitely come to the hearing to request party status and express their concerns," Schmitz told The Herald. "If they don’t, they lose their legal rights under Act 250."

"We’ll address any problems anyone has," Sherwin said. "We’re trying to be good neighbors."

____________