Rebuts Letter
On Gravel Mine

In rebuttal to Ethan Bowen's July 26th letter to the editor, I would like to provide some clarifying facts of my own.

First of all, Ethan makes a strong case for his brother Mike needing a gravel mining operation in Rochester to make a living from his land. This is frankly very perplexing to me, because Mike Bowen is not on the deed to the land in question. Ethan and his sister Amanda, who lives out of state, exclusively own the land where the rock mining operation is to be located.

A second fact: Ethan emphasizes that the quarry project will benefit Rochester because Kingsbury Construction "employs people from our town." Kingsbury, a business located in Waitsfield, employs exactly one person from Rochester, who would benefit from the quarrying operation equally whether it was located in Rochester or in Waitsfield, which raises another disturbing question.

A quick look at state maps shows that there is far more available aggregate in Waitsfield than there is in Rochester. Why, I wonder, is it necessary for a large construction company to truck gravel from Rochester (a more than 50-mile round trip through Hancock, Granville and Warren) when they could find gravel close to home in their own town?

A third fact: Ethan states that the quarry has operated for nearly 40 years, and so has a right to be there. The past quarry operation was on a tiny scale compared to what is proposed. Our neighborhood never complained about the small-scale gravel operation in the past, even when it created some major inconvenience and problems.

I have lived next to this property for 30 years, during which there were just two crushing operations. Each time this took place we endured the very earth and our homes shaking under our feet. My wife Connie had to literally dust off our children when they played outside on those days.

The significantly enlarged Kingsbury quarrying operation will be blasting, drilling and processing stone on a far more regular basis.

Lastly, many of Ethan's neighbors were disturbed when he and Kingsbury failed to explore their plan through the locally approved town process, but rushed straight into the state Act 250 Hearing. It seems evident to me that this Act 250 application has been a fishing expedition by Kingsbury Construction, and the owners of the property, Amanda and Ethan Bowen. The findings of fact are taking place during the Act 250 process, rather than in the local town planning process, costing both parties thousands of dollars in expert testimony. The application is not complete and should be denied.

The Kingsbury Construction proposal to locate a major rock mining operation in a residential neighborhood in Rochester is misguided and ill-conceived. It seems a desperate effort by a company that lacks the good will of its own community to place such an operation there.

People live and work in Rochester because it is beautiful and peaceful. It is a desirable place to our citizens and to visitors. The economic development statement by our own Town Plan states that, "Fortunately the physical charm and character of the town is very much intact. Our policy is to encourage and support people who want to open small quiet businesses and use the village as the center of such enterprises."

The Kingsbury quarry, with its dynamite, din, dust, and dump trucks is none of these things. It offers nothing to the people of Rochester in the way of benefits, but takes away from the unique peaceful character of our town.

Dean Mendell

Rochester