HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes TAC 04-21-04
....
i .';!t\ -- :'". .~
CARMEL CLAY
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MINUTES
April 21, 2004
REPRESENTING THE CITY OF CARMEL:
Mike Hollibaugh, Director DOCS Dick Hill, Engineering
Jim Blanchard, BIding and Code Enfrcmt Greg Hoyes, County Surveyor's
Scott Brewer, Urban Forester Gary Hoyt, Fire Department
Steve Broermann, County Highway Jason Kappel, Consult/Spectra Enviro'mntl
Angie Butler, Planning & Zoning Adrienne Keeling, Planning & Zoning
John Dobosiewicz, Planning & Zoning Vic Kelson, Consult!Wittman Hvdro
John Duffy, Utilities Mike McBride, Engineering
Brook Gaiownick, Sheriffs Dept Tim Northam, Consult!Wittman Hydro
Fred Glaser, Engineering Chuck Shupperd, Vectren Energy
Dan Greskamp, Engineering
Dean Groves, Cinergy Attachments: Bill Akers *
Morris Henslev, Utilities Attachments: Jay Alley *
* Via e-mail: Bill Akers, 911 Communications
* Via e-mail: Jay Alley, Clay Township Regional Waste District
Martin Marietta Materials - Mueller Property South - Sand & Gravel Mineral
Extraction (Special Use)
Filed by John Tiberi of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
REPRESENTING THE PETITIONERS:
John Tiberi, Vice President, MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS
Dan Hoskins, Regional Operations, MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS
Wayne phears, PHEARS & MOLDOVAN
ZeffWeiss, ICE MILLER
CITIZEN AUDIT:
Tom Yedlick
Bill McEvoy
Petitioner seeks approval to establish sand and gravel extraction operation on 96.92 H: acres.
The site is located at the southwest comer of the intersection of East 106th Street and Hazel Dell
Parkway. The site is zoned S-l/Residence - Low Density. December 2002 we submitted an
application for this property in respect to this property of discussion, commonly known as the
1
TAC minutes
4/21/04
~ L_ -I
-
"c~
....
Mueller Property South. In an initial meeting of February 13,2003 we submitted an extensive
response to request for information in connection with our Special Use approval. Late yesterday
we received a fax from J. Dobosiewicz and in today's mail we received a letter sent to you by
Mr. Sovas. So I guess, we will respond to those comments today.
DOBOSIEWICZ: Our Department received a copy of the response to the binder provided to
the Department.
TIBERI: Pursuant to the request, we gave handouts to the following:
M. Hollibaugh - 3 Copies of complete Binder
G. Hoyt - SPCC plan
J. Kendall - Erosion & Soil Control Plans
D. Hill - Erosion & Soil Control Plans
J. South - Erosion & Soil Control Plans
J. Chapman - Erosion & Soil Control Plans
S. Brewer - Mining Reclamation and Landscape Plans.
DOBOSIEWICZ:
TIBERI:
HOYES:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
HOYES:
WIESS:
TIBERI:
HOYES:
PHEARS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
HOYES:
TIBERI:
MCBRIDE:
HOSKINS:
TAC minutes
4/21/04
Will you send us that list?
Okay, they were delivered per request March 17, 2004.
We have one comment on the Blue Woods Creek or more
commonly known, Moffitt-Williamson Regulated Drain. Per Maintenance
Agreement you are to maintain the drain as long as you are mining in the
area.
Can you provide a letter with the status of Martin Marietta's procedures
through your office pursuant to our moving forward with action by the
BZA or at what stage during that process you want that approval granted
prior to final action by the BZA or will you address that during or after
that process approval?
Do you have a termination notice from DNR an active permit to
relocate Blue Creek?
Yes.
You have everything you need from Martin Marietta subject to the
Bond and Maintenance Agreement. The plan itself is being reviewed
acceptable and these are some items you have to have in order for us to
physically take action.
The plans have been submitted and we will not approve plans until
we have the Bonds.
At that point the plans would be approved?
Do you feel comfortable proceeding before that occurs? Ifwe can get that
in writing?
When the plans are made we would need the amount of the bond
for reconstruction.
We need a copy of the correspondence.
Is there an existing Outlet Permit for Blue Creek into the Legal Drain?
We do have a discharge permit.
2
_ _.-'__1.
';Ii
HOYES:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
HOLLffiAUGH:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
WEISS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
WEISS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
PHEARS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
WEISS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
PHEARS:
KAPPEL:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
WEISS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
PHEARS:
HOLLffiAUGH:
WIESS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
T AC minutes
4/21/04
You may have a separate permit.
With the State not the Surveyor's Office.
No comments.
J. Kappel can we go through your letter point by point and address those
items?
What is Spectra's role through TAC and do we need to respond to
his letter forwarded to us by you?
Since we are not professionals in this area we hired a consultant who is to
review this matter and by forwarding their concerns request responses
from you regarding the findings, which allows us to make informed
recommendations to the BZA.
He addresses things outside your Ordinance. Will you sift through those?
You can raise the question when you feel the ordinance is not set up in a
manor which grants us the ability to make that decisively then I will
follow up with our legal council to make sure we are comfortable with
proceeding with and continuing that route.
We might be able to expedite things, the second item was resolved
and the first we can resolve quickly.
Okay, in addition to what we area going to discuss today can we get a
written response 15 days before the BZA meeting date.
What are the meeting dates?
May 24, 2004 and to stick with that date I would need it no later than May
7, 2004. Go ahead and send your notice. Use that meeting date we want
your notice and your certified letters to say that.
Do you have a copy ofthe City's Noise Standards? J. Kappel do
you know what they are?
They are available on the Carmel's Web site.
So you need a copy?
Yes, we need a copy.
We will get you a copy.
Is it attached to the Mining Ordinance?
Yes.
Can someone from the City explain it us? I want to make sure of
what we have to meet.
If it is your feeling that we do not have a definitive standard regard to
noise then my response would be from an industry standard for the
operation in mining what is an acceptable level that is seen to protect the
public interest in other communities. So we are not generating something
in the absence of good information. Ifwe do not have one provide us with
something we could feel comfortable going to the BZA and saying we do
not have this Standard in place that really addresses fully the mining
activity but Martin Marietta has provided us Standards in other areas of
operation seen as appropriate. We need to see that you have a plan in
place to protect the public with issue to noise.
3
J _ _1_
,.
WIESS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
KAPPEL:
PHEARS:
KAPPEL:
TIBERI:
PHEARS:
KAPPEL:
PHEARS:
KAPPEL:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
WEISS:
KAPPEL:
TAC minutes
4/21/04
I believe our material says that we will comply with the City's
Noise Ordinance or Standards. I suppose we can look at the Industries
Standards.
In absence ofthe standard that specifically regulates your type of usage.
April 21, 2003 a letter from Mr. Tiberi says the City will receive
Ambient Noise Data. We have never received that.
Is there an Industry Standard in New York.
There are multiple guidelines in New York. What Spectra is
looking for is to understand what your current noise propagations are and
the impact to the residents as you move closer to residential areas.
Existing ambience can be collected rather easily with variance differences
from mobile machinery to fix machinery and projections can be made
toward residential properties. We cannot assess without understanding the
existing ambiences within the community and ambiences from within the
operations. There are companies that specialize in these studies.
On 303: there is a discrepancy. Martin Marietta is willing
to discuss hours of operations. Moving overburdened is limited to daylight
hours yet the sand and gravel operation will go until 10:00 p.m. at night.
Sand and gravel is overburdened material it is not consolidated drop.
Mobile sources which DBA loaders at fifty feet to 10:00 p.m. at night can
be a concern to residential properties.
What is the distance?
One thousand feet (1,000'), from the property line. We view
overburdened as waste material, squall material, not sand and gravel. We
are not playing wordsmith with the application.
Overburdened is considered what is above the consolidated
material. Are you saying Topsoil or Clearing and Grubbing?
I am saying that is how we viewed it not how you viewed it. We
viewed it as the material stripped to get to the sand and gravel.
Then you are talking Clearing and Grubbing. But similar
equipment is used for both applications and we still have the noise issue.
Then you should provide us a clear definition of work to be done on the
issue of hours of operation and then I do not want to enforce an approval
by the BZA that says daylight hours. Because I will spend the rest of my
time explaining what daylight hours mean. I think BZA will have
problems with that too.
Sunrise to sunset and it is published in the paper everyday it should
not be hard to understand
This actually wraps back to 301 if we could go back there. Martin
Marietta in the original application stated mobile equipment would be
used infrequently. Sand and gravel is dry operation that necessitates the
4
i'
WEISS:
KAPPEL:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
HASKINS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
PHEARS:
KAPPEL:
PHEARS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
PHEARS:
HOSKINS:
KAPPEL:
PHEARS:
KAPPEL:
PHEARS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
PHEARS:
KAPPEL:
TAC minutes
4/21/04
use of mobile equipment and ifthere could be an explanation of what
"infrequently" means and how that relates to mobile equipment use to
excavate sand and gravel.
We will respond to that with a letter.
And with the last point about noise if operations are going to occur
a 10:00 p.m. at night we would want to know specifically noise
propagation at night and nighttime ambiance and they relate to noise
propagation within the facility.
Just so I understand everything is limited to 7:00a.m. - 1O:0Op.m.
We impose upon ourselves the schedule that our neighbors could
understand and so have a split schedule in the summer time starting half
hour before sunrise and ending at half hour after or at sunset.
From my experience, the BZA would spend hours in that interpretation
when I would rather see it in a simple page spelled out.
We will write it out.
401 has been addressed.
Section 501: Is an observation, Head Data from February 10,2003, which
was just submitted the request for information for inclusion of Data to the
Wittman Model. If the data existed and a request for information was
made in order to help the City in a working partnership to include them in
the City's Consultant's Model what was the reason for lack of information
or presentation.
We were in litigation at that time with the City. We did provide J.
Wittman as much information as we had.
Can we move forward then on 501 since it is just an observation?
You just wanted to take the time to beat us up on the lack of
response? If you need additional information we can talk about that. The
comment ofthe Lake Elevation is unfair to us we did not know there was
a lake.
We do not have a lake application.
On the reclamation for Mueller South as you read on, ground water
measurements and borings for the relocation of Blue/Williams Creek show
ground water higher than the floor, the pit on Mueller South. How does
the reclamation Mueller South square with areas to the north?
Just tell us what you want us to submit. We know there are
differences over the floors and in fact an issue brought to our attention at
the first TAC meeting. As far as additional data what is it you need?
Will the pit be dry on the bottom floor? You have this as a dry
reclamation. Is it?
Does the City want it to be?
I believe that is your decision.
As long as you do not say later that it is.
We do not have that option. The ground water table will make it a
lake or dry.
5
'.
PHEARS:
KAPPEL:
PHEARS:
KAPPEL:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
PHEARS:
KAPPEL:
PHEARS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
WEISS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
KELSON:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
PHEARS:
DUFFY:
KAPPLE:
PHEARS:
KAPPEL:
HOSKINS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
PHEARS:
KAPPEL:
TAC minutes
4/21/04
Our Engineers say that we can.
What is their mechanism?
Channels, sumps. It is outlined in the Plan.
Sumps that are control mechanically for final reclamation?
I think the question the BZA will ask is does it make sense to
professionally operate pumps to keep it dry.
So then are you recommending a wet reclamation?
No. It has been presented as open space dry reclamation. The
ground water head levels in the borings conducted during the relocation of
Blue/Williams Creek which indicate the ground water table is higher than
the pit floor so therefore you will get water which makes it a wet
reclamation.
Where is the City's authority in the Ordinance?
Based on what you told us it is supposed to be dry and if you are telling
us you will pump it and our consultant is telling us it is not practical to
pump it into perpetuity. Our consultant is telling us that your proposal to
make it dry might have some problems in it. He is just advising us ofthat.
We will think about this.
If you think it will be practical to pump it for long term, we do not, and
have the Board make a decision based on that.
Weare looking for the original field operations used to calibrate
the model. We would like those. I believe he asked for those before and
did not get a response.
Can you get us a letter before May 24, 2004 of the status of the sand and
gravel information request and its relevancy to the overall study?
Can we get the model/study that the City has?
I do not believe J. Wittman has completed the model.
503: Deals more in depth with what we have been discussing and
lays out in detail some elevations reserved in Martin Marietta's data
presented to date with comparison to the Mueller south floor of 720. This
gets to the heart of this conversation. We have elevations as high as 732
and floor at 720. Are we going to be wet or dry? We need to understand
which one.
From an engineering point would wet work there?
With proper consideration wet is done all the time but you want it
to be a decent water body and not a stagnant pond. The last point for 503
is a letter sent to Mr. Tiberi, April 23, 2004 that Martin Marietta will
complete a Hydro-study with information recently obtained from the City:
Weare looking for an update.
It is not complete.
Again how critical is the completion of this study for this activity?
It is my understanding that the Sand and Gravel Application was
not significant to the water issues.
504: Just making sure we all have the same records. Details on
6
I !
.' ,
DOBOSIEWICZ:
HASKINS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
KAPPEL:
HASKINS:
KAPPEL:
HASKINS:
KAPPEL:
WEISS:
KAPPEL:
WEISS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
HASKINS:
KAPPEL:
HASKINS:
KAPPEL:
HOSKINS:
KAPPEL:
HASKINS:
KAPPEL:
WEISS:
KAPPEL:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
T AC minutes
4/21/04
BluelWilliams Creek have been submitted.
We cannot find record in our file of the referenced transmittal dated
February 25,2003.
We will get you a copy.
Of everything sent on that date.
601: Is a more definitive reclamation outline regarding such as,
topsoil for plantings if it is a dry reclamation etc.
I guess if there is need for topsoil we will bring it in.
If you can state that it the reclamation.
I believe we did.
602: Getting back into dry or wet we will look at that issue.
Do I sense correctly that you believe the water body is a better
reclamation plan because of your belief of the water table?
No. According to the data of the surrounding head it appears now
that it will be wet.
Do you and your staff have a problem with it being wet?
No.
In an existing operation channels would be drained back to our
North Indianapolis site.
During operations not reclamation?
On the Reclamation Plan the channels or conveyances would be
made such that it would drain back to our facility.
During mining operations?
If you review the Erosion, Sediment Control Plan it addresses the
two alternatives as we are mining in relation to the BluelWilliams Creek
with specific information and once we are in decline then there will be
necessary channels or conveyances to correct any type of water into our
existing operation.
So it would be a wet condition and you will maintain it dry by
these conveyances? What happens when you are finished and the channels
fill up and no longer convey water?
Then it will be a lake.
Then this is your plan?
We will address it through a letter.
603: general statements about these conveyances but no detailed
analysis. How much groundwater will be intercepted, will the
conveyances be sized properly.
604: Is a contradictory statement. It reads, "The property will become a
water impoundment or vegetated open space."
What I would like to do for the BZA is ultimately said from a reclamation
standpoint we are satisfied and our Consultant is satisfied that the plan
Martin Marietta has is satisfactory. The BZA will not want to hash
through what we had to over the past few years. The Martin Marietta's
proposal is for a wet or dry detention area and depending on one of those
7
I !
"
PHEARS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
KAPPEL:
PHEARS:
KAPPEL:
PHEARS:
KAPPEL:
PHEARS:
DUFFY:
KAPPEL:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
WEISS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
PHEARS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
PHEARS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
TAC minutes
4/21/04
scenarios they are proceeding in a manner found acceptable by our
department.
That sounds good.
For the record, I am not pushing one way or another.
701: This ties into the same time frame as the information for the
Wittman model, is it the same answer?
Yes, we were in litigation.
703: Again there was several questions submit by a Utilities
Consultant, Mr. Wittman that were not addressed particularly questions
four and five but also your response 703 did not cover the comments
regarding dewatering.
In what why?
In general terms. An elaborate question about dewatering and
impact to aquifers and the response was (interrupted)...
Maybe we should have J. Duffy respond to that.
I will when you get to me.
Okay, and our final two comments, number one was addressed,
dissemination of information and number two, understanding all three
applications.
Z. Weiss and I discussed having some dialogue for the need of the three
applications in a comprehensive format.
We understand your desire to look at them together but our need to
look at them one at a time for purposes pursuant to the BZA and their
rules.
I believe we cannot ignore them because all three applications are filed
and docked. Give us a scenario of how to proceed with the other
applications.
We have a practical need to get the sand and gravel supply in there
from an operating standpoint. The other applications have something
associated with it this does not. Blasting being the primary and simplest of
the applications. The others are much more complicated from a ground
water standpoint. It is very important to us to get this straightforward and
uncomplicated in order to get it approved.
Can you provide Spectra with information that would make them feel
comfortable with the point you are at now and what those future scenarios
might be?
It seems to me the only interrelation we have identified today is
reclamation. Future ground water issues will be modeled. There is not
interaction between sand and gravel and subsurface mining. I am not sure
what the difference is?
A better question might be if you get approval from the BZA and
withdrawal the other two is Spectra comfortable were that sits and are they
comfortable with you moving forward on the surface limestone and
underground with the ability to add them to this analysis?
8
.,:
KAPPEL:
PHEARS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
(Interruptions) ...
HOLLIBAUGH:
WEISS:
HOLLIBAUGH:
DUFFY:
PHEARS:
DUFFY:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
DUFFY:
PHEARS:
DUFFY:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
DUFFY:
HENSLEY:
GRESKAMP:
KEELING:
GLASER:
BREWER:
HASKINS:
TAC minutes
4/21/04
We would have to lay groundwork for future studies. The Wittman
Model has shown that most of the water handled comes from the sand and
gravel we cannot divorce ourselves from understanding the hydrogeology
of the sand and gravel.
We will provide that information on the hydrogeology.
Can you give them the whole story on all three applications?
Weare ready to move ahead with the review of the other two applications
through TAC so expect more review letters from us. How you respond to
that process of review will determine how quickly you get before the
BZA.
Two south?
Yes.
We have not received the Sand and Gravel Operation Book or the
recent ground water map. I would like those complete copies. We did have
a good meeting last year and our consultants did trade information. There
were legal issues at the time the information was lean but came around to
a point of understanding the general feeling we were going to be okay.
Having said that, we do not have all the information. We do not have this
recent application. Jack Wittman is not present, we do not have the map
and we still have questions, I believe we need another meeting before the
BZA meets. I propose we offer those questions to you prior to the
meeting, share with us all of your data for example your hydraulic model.
I agree but Jack and Dave have been exchanging information...
and they have but before the BZA meets I have to have a certain
comfort level. That is why I want another meeting we are not going to get
there today.
Sand and gravel south?
Yes.
We need Jack Wittman back for this meeting?
Yes, he will be back next Wednesday.
J. Duffy your review and your consultant's review are relative to all the
applications that Martin Marietta filed. I need at some point your
segmentation from your consultant and your concerns as we step down
through this process.
I understand. We will be in touch with you guys and then we will meet.
No comments.
No comments.
No comments.
No comments.
On the reclamation plan you have five species of trees for diversity
purposes I would like eight. Two more shade trees and one ornamental
tree.
We followed the guidelines you sent us.
9
I !
"
BREWER:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
BREWER:
MCBRIDE:
HASKINS:
MCBRIDE:
PHEARS:
MCBRIDE:
HASKINS:
MCBRIDE:
PHEARS:
MCBRIDE:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
HASKINS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
HASKINS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
MRBRIDE:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
MCBRIDE:
HASKINS:
MCBRIDE:
TAC minutes
4/21/04
On the application north of 106th Street you have nine species of
trees and I am asking for eight. Because of the length of the segments and
the lack of diversity you increase the chances of disease.
and your comments are regarding the Sand and Gravel application today.
Yes.
New requirements State Rule 13 is now in effect and we are
sharing in the permit process with the County for our Rule 13 Storm
Water Quality Permit. We will be interested to see what program Martin
Marietta has in place to monitor contaminates in the dewatering operation
like mineral deposits, sediment and other elements considered
contaminates by the State. Some of those could be addressed by your
NPDES permit.
We have also voiced concern repeatedly about the dewatering conduits
under Gray Road. We have a road project planned for widening and
improving Gray Road taking place this year and replacing what is now
culvert pipes with a bridge structure. At the point we will ask Martin
Marietta to make funds available to install separate conduit under Gray
Road to accommodate any dewatering equipment.
We put in additional pipes under Gray Road.
It is all going to come out.
The work that we finished last year at the City's request will have
to be removed?
This water has been pumped to the west side of Gray Road only to
flow back across and flood Gray Road we have concerns about that. Is
there any way to move that dewater operation further downstream?
I do not agree that we are the total cause of the flooding.
I did not say that. It is from the lake and creek.
Which lake?
Southwest comer of Gray Road and 106th Street. These are long
standing concerns we would like to get addressed.
Would Martin Marietta be willing to memorialize those agreements in
writing?
No I believe we should continue to meet and discuss.
Just make sure you follow up. Has Martin Marietta proposed any right-of-
way as part of this request?
We did a draft dedication in the packet of information.
Then is the Engineering Department comfortable with that forty-five feet
half?
The dedication on I06th?
Yes. Are we going to look for installation of Asphalt Path pursuant to the
Thoroughfare Plan?
Yes.
The installation or show the area?
Typically in development, which we are, viewing this in a broad
10
~
WEISS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
WEISS:
MCBRIDE:
HOYT:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
HOYT:
HASKINS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
DUFFY:
NORTHAM:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
WEISS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
WEISS:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
PHEARS:
HOYES:
HASKINS:
HOYES:
DOBOSIEWICZ:
TAC minutes
4/21/04
scheme land use approval I would include the construction of the path.
We understand. Let me talk with them and get back to you on both.
Those are two things we would ask the BZA to require as a condition as
part of the approval. Weare going to recommend that they approve the
petition subject to certain things.
We will consider your request.
Lastly I would like a full submittal for review.
Thank you for sending me the SPCC documentation. I would also
request Martin Marietta that if you update this information please send us
a copy as soon as possible. We treat that document special and it is on
board our HAZMA T Vehic1e.
Will you get me a letter that says you received it?
My copy is date last year.
April 1, 2003 is the most recent.
G. Hoyt if you will provide me with a letter that says you are square.
No further.
No comments.
We need to meet outside T AC.
Ifwe could recap, a response to your letter no later than May 7,
2004. Provide full copies of the submittals to John Duffy. Can we deliver
them to one point or individually.
Deliver them individually. I would contact individual TAC members to
see what they need and fax me that information.
Request for full copy is Duffy, McBride, and Hoyt.
I would like both sides to summarize and compare notes. I want the BZA
to know we met all that was discussed at T AC.
We will send you an e-mail.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources Permit FW21136 would
be for the reconstruction of Blue/Williams Creek although I do not have
an Official Termination Permit says if the work is not initiated by January
30 2004 the permit shall become void and another needed.
We have started work and have documentation of that.
Weare acceptable to that as long as the DNR is acceptable with it.
I need a copy of your permit approval.
END OF TRANSMISSION.
11
I i