From: Chris Curran, Chester, VT. 05143
January 9, 2007
MUDDLING THE ISSUES IN CHESTER
There are two issues on the table that have been muddled and re-muddled in the Press, Letters and other rhetoric over the past several months. This has caused a great deal of confusion, especially among voters who are not close to the two subjects.
Hopefully you will allow me a few moments to help clarify these issues.
The two separate issues are: 1 - The O'Neill Sand & Gravel (OSG) Gravel pit/Quarry and 2 - The R-40 Zoning and Definition Amendments.
These are distinct separate issues, although the second may have some bearing on the first since it was initiated by the O'Neill's in an aparrent attempt to circumvent the appeals process and to legitimize their case for Sand, Gravel & Aggregate extraction rather than the existing "permitted conditional use" of Soil, Sand & Gravel extraction in the R-40 Districts. The O'Neill's original application as submitted was for "Soil, Sand & Gravel extraction" but was changed during the hearing process to "Sand, Gravel & Aggregate" and was heard by both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
It was ultimately approved (although not unanimously) by the ZBA.
I shall not belabor you with the legal issues involved in the Appeals process or the Act 250 hearing process except to say that the Act 250 District 2 Commission has denied the OSG Quarry application. This is in the hands of the Courts and beyond the scope of the Town Boards. But suffice it to say that a vote in favor of changing the Zoning requirements in the R-40 Districts may be of help to OSG in their attempt to circumvent the appeals process.
This brings us to the issue which is in the hands of the voting Citizens of Chester, the proposed Zoning changes.
The O'Neill's presented a Petition to the Chester Select Board for a Zoning change to the Residential 40,000 (R-40) Districts of Chester which would allow "Quarrying" (by dictionary definition, but carefully not called that) by any means necessary (drilling, jack hammer, blasting etc.) to remove Ledge and Bedrock for crushing into Aggregate. The Zoning change also includes adding Definitions of "Extraction" which are contrary to established Dictionary definitions (and also the U.S. Geological Survey & Vermont State Geologist).
In 1975 when our Zoning Bylaws were written, the Authors in their wisdom provided certain restrictions on the uses in residential districts. The "Permitted" uses and "Permitted Conditional" uses in our Zoning Bylaws might be considered by many of todays standards to be quite liberal already so why loosen them further to expand commercial and industrial uses in R-40 Residential Districts?
Do you live in an R-40 District or in an Aquifer Protection or R-20 District adjacent to an R-40 District? Please check the Chester Zoning Map to be informed if you don't know. Do you feel that Quarrying and Blasting is appropriate in your neighborhood?
Think seriously about the ramifications for the Town of Chester and the impact on your way of life before you vote on January 23rd.
Chester Zoning allows Quarrying in the R-80, CR-80, Forest and Mining Districts which represent 85% of the available land for this use. Why should we vote to disrupt more heavily populated residential districts and the buffer to the Aquifer Protection Districts by expanding Quarrying use in these areas?
And remember, this is your town, you have chosen to live here.
To make a zoning change which only serves the interests of a multi-million dollar enterprise at the expense of the way of life of our private citizens and small businesses just doesn't make sense.
Editor, The Message:
A few thoughts and questions about changing Chester zoning to allow stone quarries in the Residential-40 District:
* Quarrying is allowed in Chester. Over 80% of the land area in town is zoned to allow quarrying, either outright or conditionally. Stone quarrying is not allowed in the R-40 District and several smaller in-town districts. The reason is simple; these are the areas of Chester that contain the highest density of residential, religious, business, historic, educational and municipal properties. The claim by zoning change proponents that they want to "amend" zoning due to the 'advances in engineering' since 1975 belies the fact that quarrying has been allowed in the defined areas of Chester all these years. The original planners of Chester's by-laws were not to allow quarrying in Residential-40 and the small in-town districts.
*A sand and gravel pit is not the same thing as a stone quarry. Sand and gravel pits do not require drilling, blasting and crushing. In recent letters to the editor, zoning change proponents don't mention the words 'quarry,' 'drilling,' 'blasting' or 'crushing.' They are not being forthright with the voters.
* The wording of the zoning change as it appears on the ballot was drafted by special interest quarry proponents. I believe the phrase 'processing of construction aggregate" would also allow concrete and asphalt plants near Chester's downtown. At least one town official has publicly expressed concern about the wording of this ballot question. With over twenty-five years of zoning, bylaw experience, I have learned that a special interest zoning change is always a bad zoning change.
*I don't believe 'shurpac' will ever be supplied to the Chester Highway Department cheaper than sand and gravel. Our sand and gravel roads will remain sand and gravel.
*Are local realtors disclosing these proposed zoning changes to potential Chester buyers?
*Zoning change proponents are trying to turn this into a battle of 'hometowners' against everyone else. The fact is quarrying in the R-40 will result in a decline in property values, a reversal of village business growth and a net loss of jobs. Everyone loses.
*A no vote on Tuesday will preserve jobs and home values, maintain a thriving upward business economy and keep Chester moving in the right direction.
Dan Ferguson
Chester
| Watters, Kate | Curran | Ferguson | Caduto | Hildreth | Watters, Lew |
Michael Caduto Letter to Rutland Herald & Message
No Quarries in the R-40
On Tuesday, January 23rd Chester voters will decide on whether to change the zoning in the Residential 40,000 (R-40) District. The R-40 was designed as a protective buffer to separate the types of land use that are compatible with the quality of life in our neighborhoods from those activities that are not. The R-40 zone was created by our own town Boards over the course of several years of hard work and careful consideration and it includes the ideas shared by many of Chester’s residents
The very people who are now arguing to allow quarries in the R-40 zone are the same people who agreed to our current town zoning. It would be unwise to undermine years of work and effort to appease one business, whatever that business is. It would also be inconsiderate to us — the citizens of Chester — who rely on the town to safeguard our collective interests. Our current zoning law already allows quarrying in 85% of Chester’s land area. If passed, this new zoning would raise this total to 93%!
If this zoning change is allowed the residents of Chester will lose money as property values decrease. In Moretown, Vermont, where a quarry has also been proposed and is in the Act 250 process, recent assessments have shown that property values have already dropped 10% to 50%, depending on how close the particular property is to the quarry site.
And the operation that is currently proposed for the R-40 district is, in fact, a quarry. Both the United States Geological Survey and the Vermont Geological Survey clearly distinguish between a “sand and gravel operation” and a “crushed stone quarry.” A sand and gravel operation scoops up material and a crushed stone quarry drills and blasts rock from a cliff face. The proposed quarry next to Green Mountain Union High School will drill into bedrock and blast from a cliff face nearly 100 feet high, producing chunks of bedrock larger than a cubic yard that will then be crushed. The developer’s own sound expert has called the proposed operation a “crushed stone quarry.”
It is clear that quarries don’t belong close to Chester’s schools and at the edge of densely-populated neighborhoods. That is why many of Chester’s residents are against this zoning change, in addition to more than twenty local businesses, the Chester Innkeeper’s Association and the Board of the Green Mountain Union High School, among many others.
If you value health and safety in Chester’s peaceful neighborhoods, the quality of education in our schools, the integrity of our historic structures, the town’s quiet rural character, the vitality of our village center and the stability of our property values, then please vote “no” to the article that asks to re-zone the R-40 district.
Michael J. Caduto
Mary Hildreth Letter to The Message and Citizens of Chester:
Now is the time to think and ask questions. November 7th will be here soon. When a car salesman tries to sell you a car, does he tell you the whole story? Or does he tell you the positive things he wants you to hear and wait for you to come up with more questions?
Let’s think of the process of quarrying and ask some questions—How is aggregate derived from the rock? Will there be explosive sounds? How do the large pieces of rock become small pieces of aggregate? Will there be continual crushing and grinding noises? How will the finished product get off the OSG property? Will filling huge dump trucks with rock sound like the falling snow? Will dust coat our nasal passages and throats as well as those of the High School students and staff? Will the burden of 180 truckloads of heavy crushed stone per day impact our roads and bridges?
What will happen to our taxes when we must pay for the deteriorization? What will happen to our home values? Who would ever want to move to a neighborhood containing a quarry? Have you ever driven by Cold River Materials in Walpole, NH? Or Lebanon Sand and Gravel on your way to shopping in West Leb? Have you ever wondered why there are very few homes, let alone schools, around these companies? And aren’t they huge? The abutters of the Cold River site are the Town Dump and a graveyard. No complaints there! What’s more important—the business of two graduates of GMUHS, or the lives and learning of hundreds to graduate in the future?
Obviously, some people such as Mr. Scott Allen, have already asked themselves these questions and do not like the answers. The matter is of great importance to him and others who see changes to the R40 designation as a negative influence on our town, our neighborhoods, our way of life, and our pocketbooks.
On the other hand, Leo Graham’s emotional and contradictory letter in the September 27th Message shows that he has yet to ask any relevant questions or think logically about the future. We all must drop the negativity and ask ourselves some important and far-reaching questions.
The vote on November 7th will ask us whether or not to allow changes to the R40 district. These changes will permit blasting and daily rock crushing, and will lead to increased truck traffic, dust, and noise. Up to 90% of material produced on the OSG property will be exported. That will not benefit our town and, over time, more permits could be issued, and more quarries could open.
Do we want Chester to become a mining town to the benefit of a few while the rest of us see our major life investments—our home and property values—diminished?
Chester’s rock and gravel will never be free. Personally, I’d rather truck in the gravel we need and pay a little more than pay a LOT more in taxes, lost peace of mind, and falling home prices.
Chester’s future is at stake here! We must keep our neighborhoods quarry-free. The R40 zone must remain unchanged.
Thank you,
Mary Hildreth
Kate Watters Letter to the Message, January 11, 2007
From Arizona, Urges A No Vote On The Quarry Issue
I grew up in Chester, Vermont, where the color green is positively overpowering, saturating and comforting. This little town in New England is the place I return and measure my own growth, year after year, sleeping in my parent’s house, in the same bed I used to lie awake and dream in as I was growing up. With every visit I am reminded of the person I have become and how I got there from here, this place where I began my journey. For 15 years since I left Chester, very little has changed about the town, which is reassuring. My roots are still intact. This is a stark contrast to the landscape I inhabit out west in Arizona—the fastest growing state in the country, where acres of desert and forest disappear every day to shopping malls and housing developments, and I feel powerless to stop what is happening. When I return to Chester, I am comforted by how the quality of life and character of a town, respect for the land and aesthetics are still sustained.
I am not surprised that Chester has been forced to confront difficult choices like this quarry expansion, as I realize that even Chester is not immune to growth, development and the ever-expanding need for raw materials like gravel. This is not a new story, but rings of a certain truth: that money is all-important, and we cannot put our hearts, our love of place, our sense of community, and our need for quiet, and beauty and undisturbed land in front of that. And there is so little left.
Now I ask, when given the choice, why would you allow a mining operation this close to an educational institution? I graduated from GMUHS in 1989, and I can’t imagine daily studies, lectures, exams, sports activities, and choir rehearsal being interrupted several times a day by the sounds of sirens and subsequent blasts as gravel is extracted from the quarry. I can’t imagine the cross-country team running through the woods near the high school inhaling dust and hearing not the quiet of the forest, as I did in my formative years, but instead, the constant hum of gravel trucks coming and going. I certainly can’t fathom the site of the quarry, the industrial scar of a ravaged mountainside exposed for all of the residents of Green Mountain Turnpike, and the visitors entering our town looking for the “Vermont they were hoping to find.”
How will you, the residents of Chester, Vermont explain to your children why this mining operation is right next to their high school and at the entrance to the town they are growing up in? Surely you realize this is an enormous loss. Should a mining operation really be allowed within the town limits, next to residential areas and a high school? You have been offered a second chance to make the right choice. What is the benefit to the residents, or to the town of Chester? We know that this quarry will bring the sound of blasting, increased industrial traffic through the middle of town, dust and leave a permanent eyesore. Once you go there, there is no going back. Please think long and hard before you cast a yes vote and consider Chester’s future.
Kate Watters
Flagstaff, AZ 86004
Open Letter to the Editor October 27, 2006
Message for the Week
197 Elm St PO Box 759
Chester, VT 05143
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
I live on Route 103N in Chester with my wife Bonnie, the town’s resident doll maker. Our historic stone house is located in the Stone Village in Chester Depot. We have lived here for 32 years and raised three daughters who all attended our public schools. You might say we have a vested interest in Chester. Those who know us well would also say we love our community. Indeed, we have invested our time and talents in the Chester Art Guild, the Chester Chamber, Saint Luke’s Church, the Chester Historical Society, and of course the schools.
We are strongly opposed to any change in the R-40 Zoning Regulations for the town of Chester, so much so that we are parties in the forthcoming ACT 250 hearings on the O’Neil Sand and Gravel Application.
Here is why we have concern. Our neighborhood on route 103 N contains 10 stone structures. We live in the 1844 stone house diagonally opposite the stone Universalist Church, which are all included in the National Historic Register of Historic Districts. The criteria for such designation is “that [it] embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that [it] represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction… possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association…”
I personally am very versed on the significance and value of historic places, especially where there is a distinct “landscape.” For six delightful years I was a park ranger at Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site in Cornish, NH, paid to interpret the art, history and landscape. The park draws tens of thousands of visitors annually from all over the world. We enjoy the same kind of appeal here in Chester and the surrounding area. Every major travel magazine and guidebook lists our stone village as well as our town green. Not a day goes by without an out of state car stopping to view, enjoy and often photograph our unique cluster of stone buildings. In the heavy fall foliage tourist season, bike tours and buses can be seen stopped in front of the Universalist Church as well as on our village green.
I am horrified to learn that our historic districts could be subject to a significant increase in daily heavy truck traffic loaded with aggregate from the proposed site next to Green Mountain Union high school. One can stand in my driveway or in front of the Universalist Church right now and hear the impact, the windows shake as well as feel the shock. With each passing heavy vehicle, the damage increases. This is causing a steady deterioration to my foundation and the surrounding stone structures, which are all situated very close to the highway. According to the Vermont Department of Transportation, the volume of traffic on 103N now averages nearly 4,700 vehicles daily (one every 3.26 minutes). The additional passing of trucks from the rock mining site every few minutes, for 6 days each week, will aggravate and intensify damage to my house and our priceless stone structures.
How do we residents put a value on a place, a landscape, a district? A large part of the attraction of Cornish, NH was a group of artists who gathered there beginning with Augustus Saint-Gaudens in 1885 and continuing up until the death of Maxfield Parrish in 1966. Included in that group was one of the most famous and successful American Impressionists of the early twentieth century, Willard Leroy Metcalf. He is famous for his plein-air paintings of the New England landscape, especially Cornish and Plainfield in New Hampshire, and yes, Chester, Vermont. Metcalf’s eye for a pastoral outdoor scene, especially in winter, has earned him a place in major museum collections in the US and abroad. The scenes he painted here in the 1920’s along the Williams River (now paralleled by route 103 north) are virtually unchanged.
Can we afford to destroy our quaint village scenes that have drawn tourists and artists to our area for decades? Should we not be preserving the vanishing New England countryside for future generations to enjoy?
Bonnie and I don’t really own our 1844 stone house. We are just temporary residents, stewards really, who are entrusted with preserving it. If you agree with us about preservation, be sure to vote on Tuesday, Nov. 7th, and vote no to amending the R-40 zoning regulations on the town ballot.
Very sincerely,
Lew and Bonnie Watters
250 North Street
Stone Village
Chester, VT 05143