Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 02-22-06 ",# i-' CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DEPARTMENT REPORT February 22, 2006 }f~~ _ p / y.o 'L~ .I ,~' 13-14. Martin Marietta Materials - Mueller Property South Petitioner seeks special use approvals to establish surface limestone operations & an artificial lake on 96.921:t acres. Docket No. 05090003 SU Chapter 5.02.02 mineral extraction Docket No. 05090004 SU Chapter 5.02.02 artificial lake The site is located at the southwest comer East 106th Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned S- l/Residence - Low Density. Filed by John Tiberi of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. :\i.B .! '= General Info: lJ The petitioner is seeking special use approval for limestone extraction. Also, an artificial lake will be developed after all minerals are extracted, as part of the reclamation plan. The property is zoned S-l/Residence - Low Density and is partially within the Special Flood Hazard .' Area. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates this site as part of a Low- intensity Regional Commercial Employment Area, however, just to the north and northwest of this site are Low Intensity Residential Communities. Chapter 2.6 of the Comprehensive Plan goes into further detail as to what is envisioned for this area and what adjacent uses are acceptable (see attached excerpt). This is a very complex land use request as evidenced by the level of review and input from the public. Please refer to the commitments (see attached Feb. 22, 2006 proposed commitments) prepared by Martin Marietta Materials, where the amended Mining Ordinance, recently approved in April 2005, served as a guide for some of the submittals. Analysis: The responsibility of the Board in a case such as this is to weigh the factual evidence presented to it and to determine whether the proposed land use qualifies for approval under the special use criteria, as established by the Zoning Ordinance. The two key criteria here involve (a) the economic factors (in particular, whether the proposed use may have a negative impact on surrounding property values), and (b) the social/neighborhood factors (in particular, whether the proposed use would be compatible with previously existing residential uses in the vicinity). The major issue of concern to residents who live in the surrounding neighborhoods is air and ground vibrations resulting from blasting of rock. The limestone is mined by blasting benches. The total thickness of the limestone material is approximately 215 ft. There will be no aggregate processing on the subject property. Secondary concerns are noise (from trucks revving engines to beeping while in reverse to materials removal), dust, and truck traffic. Additionally, the remonstrators have raised the issue of negative impact on property values if the mine is allowed to extend northward toward the Kingswood neighborhood. If blasting as proposed is granted, there may eventually be blasting as close to existing residences as the southwest comer of 106th Street & Hazel Dell Parkway. The blasting and vibrations that currently originate from the existing quarry south of the subject premises will continue to creep closer and closer to the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Blasting is allowed in the existing quarry because it constitutes a legal, nonconforming use under Indiana law and pursuant to legal settlement agreements previously entered into between the City and the petitioner. However, the Board is not obligated to treat the existence of the existing quarry and associated mining activities as a precedent that would entitle the petitioner to expand its operations to the subject premises. The Department of Community Services has received many continuing complaints about blasting at the existing quarry over the years, primarily from the homeowners of the Kingswood neighborhood. The 2005 Mining Ordinance (which attempted to regulate all the existing and future mining operations, but has never gone into effect and remains under judicial review) would have required an isoseismic study, which is a high-tech analysis of blasting with subsequent recommendations to mitigate impacts to nearby residents. Martin Marietta did, in fact, undertake an isoseismic study by Vibra Tech to assess current blasting techniques at the existing mine. That document is contained in their November 30, 2005 submission. The study, entitled "Measurement and Analysis of Blast Induced Ground and Air Vibrations," indicated that current blasting techniques resulted in less than optimum levels for frequency and air blasts that could be improved to help mitigate impacts to residents. Two letters dated November 22,2005 and December 9,2005 from the City's mining consultant, Spectra Environmental Group, Inc., outlined the information necessary to make a recommendation to the Carmel Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) on the application. While Vibra Tech's isoseismic study did not include recommendations for improvement, a subsequent letter from Vibra Tech dated February 8, 2006 did, in fact, offer a series of recommendations for improvements in blast design and other techniques. However, while Martin Marietta has indicated informally to Spectra and DOCS that it will accept some of these recommendations if they are not economically unreasonable, the fact is that Spectra has been unable to judge whether performance under the proposed new conditions at the existing mine will result in improvements without some submission of data collected within a set period of time, to verify that the proposed changes are working. Therefore, it is impossible to predict that the changes recommended by Vibra Tech will have any effect on the overall blasting impacts and the continuing complaints from the surrounding neighborhood, including Kingswood. Throughout the Mining Ordinance review process, there was a significant debate about the peak particle velocity level to be adopted. Peak particle velocity is one measure of mining impact and structural damage, but more modem analyses appear to suggest that other parameters may be more important. For your reference, the following table illustrates the peak particle velocity levels (in inches per second) adopted and regulated by other State laws and City ordinances throughout the country: City/County/State Entity Maximum peak particle velocity (PPV) Other PPV Other PPV Indiana Administrative Code Not to exceed 1.0 in/see -Adoption ofNFPA 495 Explosives Materials Code, 2001 edition Illinois General Assembly Not to exceed 1.0 in/see at the location of any protected structure Pennsylvania Code Not to exceed 1.0 in/see at any protected structure btwn 301-5000 ft from blast site Kentucky Legislature Max of 2 in/see for 1 second after the blast, then down to .5 in/sec. Kentucky State Regulations Not to exceed 1.0 in/see at the location of any protected structure between 301-5000 ft from blast site US Dept of the Interior Not to exceed 1.0 in/sec at the location of Office of Surface Mining any protected structure between 301-5000 ft from blast site Ohio Administrative Code Not to exceed 1.0 in/sec at the location of any protected structure between 301-5000 ft from blast site Illinois Administrative Code Not to exceed 1.0 in/sec at the location of < 1.25 in/sec at a < 0.75 in/sec at a any protected structure between 301-5000 protected structure protected structure ft from blast site less than 300 ft greater than 5,000 ft from blast site from blast site Maine Not to exceed 1.0 in/sec at the location of any protected structure between 301-5000 ft from blast site Overland Park, Kansas Not to exceed 1 in/sec at seismic .20 in/sec at .02 in/sec at residential recording site propertv line DroDertv line Tulsa, Oklahoma Not to exceed 1.0 in/sec at the location of any structure County of Santa Clara, Not to exceed 0.5 in/sec California Montgomery Co, Virginia Corresponds with Frequency levels, average ranges from .50 to .75 in/sec Town of Pittsfield, Wisconsin .75 in/sec for modern structures with 2.0 in/sec for all 0.50 in/sec for older drywall interiors at frequencies below structures at freq. homes with plaster on 40Hz above 40Hz wood lath at freq. below 40 Hz Citrus Co, Florida Not to exceed .2 in/sec with frequency !ITeater than 1 Hz Hernando County, Florida 1.0 in/sec at 30 Hz at structure .75 in/sec btwn 4- 12 Hz at structure Woolwich, Maine 1 in/sec at 30- 40 Hz 2 in/sec at > 40 Hz Blasting vibrations are perceptible to humans at low levels, near 0.02 to 0.05 inches/second. The peak particle velocity level of 1.0 in/see was set by most states because it is the maximum level where a nearby home should not be damaged by a blast. Nearby residents have suggested that Martin Marietta should consider proposing blasting limits on the Mueller South Property that are stricter than what were contained in the City's 2005 Mining Ordinance D- 1686-04 (NOTE: the Mining Ordinance's effect has been stayed by the courts). In this mining ordinance, the peak particle velocities for a blast were limited to 0.5 inches per second at the property line where the blast occurred. As of February 22, 2006, Martin Marietta has committed itself to these limits, but not levels lower than .5 in/sec. It should also be noted that there was a May 2000 proposed agreement (see the attached Letter of Interest) between Martin Marietta and Kingswood Subdivision that was never executed, where there would have been a commitment to produce a peak particle velocity yearly average of 0.1 in/see for surface blasts. The Department has received several binders of information for the file on this request including the following: 1.) December 2002: Application for BZA Special Use Approval Request 2.) September 2005: Additional Information for Application for BZA Special Use Approval Request 3.) November 2005: Executive Summary 4.) November 2005: Responses to TAC comments, Draft Commitments, Vibra-Tech Study 5.) December 2005: Responses to TAC comments, Draft Commitments 6.) February 2006: Executive Summary, Responses to T AC comments, Commitments Special Use: Section 21.03 ofthe Zoning Ordinance outlines the Basis of Board Review of a Special Use as follows: The Board, in reviewing the Special Use or Special Exception application, shall give consideration to the particular needs and circumstances of each application and shall examine the following items as they relate to the proposed Special Use or Special Exception: (Please note that these replies may not encompass each and every aspect of each topic below.) 1. Topography: The lay of the land includes Blue Woods Creek, and the parcels are partially within a flood plain. 2. Zoning on site; current zoning is S-I/Residence - Low Intensity & partially zoned SFHA - Special Flood Hazard Area. 3. Surrounding zoning and land Use; the surrounding zoning is S-I/Residence - Low Density comprising of mostly single family homes. 4. Streets. curbs and gutters and sidewalks; No interior street will be needed. The petitioner will be vacating the road right of way for River Rd. which exists in the site. A lO-ft asphalt path is required along both roads, pursuant to the Alternative Transportation Plan. 5. Access to public streets; The site will primarily use existing access to the mine just south of and adjacent to the site. 6. Driveway and curb cut locations in relation to other sites; No new driveways or curb cuts are proposed. 7. General vehicular and pedestrian traffic; Concern of haul trucks on the City roads with possible damage to roads or mudding up roadways. A lO-ft asphalt path is required along both roads, pursuant to the Alternative Transportation Plan. 8. Parking location and arrangement; Parking required is one space per employee. Off-site parking at the North Indianapolis Plant is an option. 9. Number of parking spaces needed for the particular Special Use; This particular use has an off-site parking area where employees arrive at the site and navigate loading trucks to the site. Employee parking is not necessary on site. 10. Internal site circulation; Access to the site will be from the existing mine, just south of and adjacent to this subject parcels. 11. Building height. bulk and setback; No buildings are proposed. A 40-ft front yard setback is required along with a 300-ft setback/open space buffer from all property lines to the north and east. Also, a 15-ft D-buffer yard is required per Chapter 26.04.05 of the Zoning Ordinance. 12. Front. side and rear yards; A 40-ft front yard setback is required along with a 300-ft setback/open space buffer from all property lines to the north and east. However, these setbacks seem to have contemplated sand and gravel extraction operations, and not the mining of hard rock utilizing blasting by explosives. 13. Site coverage by building(s). parking area(s) and other structures; No structure will be on the site. 14. Trash and material storage; Waste oil & gasoline will not be stored on-site; an SPCC (Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures) plan must be approved for this facility. Trash will be placed in on site dumpsters, and trash will be removed periodically. 15. Alleys. service areas and loading bays; Not applicable. 16. Special and general easements for public or private Use; The petitioner has dedicated road right of way for 106th Street. 17. Landscaping and tree masses; The landscape plan must comply with the buffer yard standards of the ordinance, providing a vegetative buffer from the mining use and the residential uses & traveled parkways and arterial roads adjacent to the site. Also, a 15-ft D-buffer yard is required per Chapter 26.04.05 of the Zoning Ordinance. A 300-ft setback/open space buffer is required from all property lines to the north, east, and west. The Urban Forester has approved the final Landscape Plan. 18. Necessary screening and buffering; The petitioner must mitigate the negative effects of blasting. Adequate buffering from vibrations and air blasts may be impracticable for a hard rock mining operation that is located in the vicinity of residential uses. 19. Necessary fencing; Fencing is not necessary or required, but it does add a safety precaution measure. The petitioner will provide a 6-ft tall chain link fence along the north and east perimeters. 20. Necessary exterior lighting; Lighting is not necessary or required, but it does add a safety precaution measure. 21. On-site and off-site. surface and subsurface storm and water drainage; A drainage plan is included in the information binder. 22. On-site and off-site utilities; Only electrical service is needed and will be extended from the south. 23. Dedication of streets and rights-of-way; The 20-yr Thoroughfare Plan calls for 106th Street having a 45-ft half road right of way and Hazel Dell Pkwy to have a 70-ft right of way. The petitioner has dedicated the road right of way. 24. Proposed signage (subject to regulations established by the Sign Ordinance); Signage will not be on this parcel. 25. Protective restrictions and/or covenants. Neither deed restrictions nor subdivision covenants will be submitted, but commitments will (refer to the attached Feb. 22, 2006 commitments). 26. Need for lifeguards and other supervisory personnel. in respect to a private recreational development or facility. Not applicable. 21.04 Basis of Board ADDroval or Rejection. 21.04.01 Special Use Decisions. The Board, in approving or rejecting a Special Use application, shall base its decision upon the following factors as they relate to the above listed items (Section 21.03) concerning the proposed Special Use: 1. The particular physical suitability of the premises in question for the proposed Special Use. The site is partially within the special flood hazard area. The soil composition is that favorable for mining, with high percentages of sand, gravel, limestone. Mining operations are adjacent to this site, or in close proximity. Residential uses are also in close proximity to the site. 2. The economic factors related to the proposed Special Use. such as costlbenefit to the community and its anticipated effect on surrounding property values. The materials mined from the site will be used within the City as well as within the state in a positive manner for construction of homes, roads, etc. However, the existence of a hard rock mining operation that includes blasting may negatively affect nearby residential property values, or may dampen anticipated increases in residential property values, unless blasting operations are severely limited or mitigated. The final man-made lake may, in theory, increase adjacent property values and may be an amenity to the area once mining operations have ceased in the vicinity. However, if not approved pursuant to the Special Use process, mining operations may continue on the premises for 20 or more years. 3. The sociaVneighborhood factors related to the proposed Special Use. such as compatibility with existing uses and those permitted under current zoning: in the vicinity of the premises under consideration and how the proposed Special Use will affect neighborhood integrity. A mineral extraction use including blasting, as long as it mitigates dust, noise, and blasting vibrations from the site and keeps these annoyances to acceptable levels, may constitute a somewhat less ~ intensive use than a factory or industrial use. However, only when the factors that affect quality of life are mitigated can such a use be perceived as compatible with typical uses in a residential zonig district. 4. The adequacy and availability of water. sewage and storm drainage facilities and police and fire protection. The mine does not require water or sewer facilities. A drainage plan has been submitted. Police & Fire services will be used minimally, if at all. However, public safety officials will need to monitor blasting levels for compliance with the petitioner's commitments. Also public safety officials will need to monitor the underground water quality near this site. 5. The effects of the proposed Special Use on vehicular and pedestrian traffic in and around the premises upon which the Special Use is proposed. There will be minimal vehicular or pedestrian impact, as long as the haul trucks use the mine to the south of the property for ingress/egress. The installation of the pedestrian paths along 106th & Hazel Dell will be a positive impact for pedestrian access along these roads. Public pedestrian & vehicular access will not be allowed within the site, for safety reasons. Recommendation: The department recommends negative consideration of Docket No. 05090003 SU for limestone extraction: When mining and associated mining activities include blasting, they are so similar to an industrial operation that they are not truly compatible with nearby residential uses, where the vast majority of dwellings were in place long before the petitioner acquired a leasehold interest in the subject preffilses. Additionally, blasting at the existing quarry has been problematic as evidenced by the complaints from the surrounding neighborhoods, including Kingswood. While the petitioner has indicated that it may implement some of the recommendations of its blasting consultant to improve the blasting impacts, staff cannot recommend, at this time, the approval of a land use that may further exacerbate the blasting impacts as the mining moves closer to the residents. Furthermore, the petitioner's proposed mining use, so long as it includes the continuation of blasting operations, may be expected to have long-term negative impacts on the appreciation of residential property values in the vicinity of the use as stated by the remonstrators. The department recommends positive consideration of Docket No. 05090004 SU for an artificial lake, if Docket No. 05090003 is approved. The Department also recommends the Board consider the following excerpts of Findings of Fact, as submitted by the Kingswood neighborhood in their Statement of Remonstrance, submitted December 2, 2005: "The proposed Special Use is not consistent with the character and permitted land use of the S- l/Residence district and the Carmel/Clay Comprehensive Plan because it is neither residential nor low intensity commercial; rather, it is incompatible with residential housing, does not conform to applicable development standards, and is of a high-intensity industrial nature." and "The Special Use will injuriously and adversely effect the adjacent land or property values and the use/enjoyment of properties because of the following impacts to occur for a period of twenty-five years or more: (a) the seismic and airblast impacts of MM's conducting of blasting operations in an area substantially closer to residential and associated property uses than at MM's existing mine, (b) increased noise from rock loading and transport; (c) increased lime dust from blasting; (d) increased risk of subsidence and the catastrophic losses of value in the affected homes and all those that might be affected. . ." Comprehensive Plan (excerpts) 1.4 LOW-INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA POLICIES 1.4.1 Cluster style development in low-intensity residential areas is encouraged when: . traditional single lot platting results in the destruction or modification of a major environmental feature such as a hillside, significant stand of trees or creek bank, and . the increased intensity in a particular area of the site in the cluster area has a compatible transition with adjacent traditional low-intensity areas, and . a homeowners association is established to be responsible for common areas, or . The overall density of the cluster development, including its undeveloped or common areas, should not exceed the permitted density of the underlying zoning. 1.4.2 Low-intensity neighborhoods should be served by and be accessible to: . neighborhood commercial centers . parks or playgrounds and . schools . bicycle and/ or pedestrian trails . fire, police, public safety 2.6 LOW-INTENSITY COMMUNITYIREGIONAL EMPLOYMENT AREA POLICIES 2.6.1 Low-rise garden office and community-serving retail shall be encouraged to locate in low- intensity community/regional areas 2.6.2 Low-intensity commercial areas should only be located where regional access is available; including, the intersection of at least a principal arterial, or parkway, and secondary arterial or parkway. 2.6.3 Direct area access from regional thoroughfare systems must be available on a major throughway and must not have to pass through residential community areas on minor streets. 2.6.4 Low-intensity commercial developments should be buffered from residential communities through the existence of at least one of the following: " . a divided secondary thoroughfare . public and institutional buildings . open space · scale of design 2.6.5 Medium- and high-intensity commercial developments should only be permitted in low-intensity Community /Regional Employment areas when the following characteristics exist: . regional access consists of at least direct access from the site to an expressway. . the high- and medium-intensity development site is adequately buffered 2.6.6 Industries, warehouses and commercial uses necessary to support such areas shall be located within low intensity community/regional employment areas. Office support facilities for such developments shall be considered a secondary use. 2.6.7 The community should encourage the concentration of industrial warehouse developments in low intensity community / regional employment areas through: . zoning decisions; and . concentrated economic development Comprehensive Plan Figure 1 Carmel Clay Township Proposed Growth Policies ResidentiaVCommunity Areas INTENSITY CHARACTER AREA ADJACENCY REGIONAL SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSITION TO LEVEL DESIGNATION ACCESS CIRCULATION SUPPORT REGlCOMM EMP AREAS Neighborhood Nbhd. scale retail. Center Residential Community or Site could be within Site is at intersection of Site has direct access to reg Water, sewer, drainage Buffered from adjacent res. devel by Commercial is 100k sq. ft. max on 10 Regional/Community residential comm areas. principal arteriai or access without any traffic adequately in place or all of the following: or less acres Employment Area Design is compatible, parkway and collector intrusion into adj nbhds. planned as part of - scale of bldg design buffering adj. prop is development - landscaping of adj properties, mandatorv loadino High Intensity Greater than 5 d.u.s per Residential Community or Could serve as a Site is adjacent to at Access to site directly from Water, sewer, drainage Buffered from any ReglComm Emp. acre. Typically of a Regional/Community transition use between least a secondary arterial regional access. adquately in place or planned areas by at least one: townhouse or multi- Employment Area ReglComm Emp Area or secondary parkway as part of development - arterial or parkway family building form. and medium or low - publiclinst. bldg. intensity residential areas . dedicated open space - transition density - scale of desion Medium Intensity Moderately dense single Residential Community Could serve as transition Site is adjacent to at Access to site directly form Water, sewer, drainage Buffered from iower intensity family detached building use between low density ieast a collector road. regionai access adequately in place or ReglComm areas by at least one: form between 3 and comm/CBD/nbhd comm planned as part of - collector 5d.u.s per acre uses and low or very low development - publiclinst. bldg. density single family - dedicated open space - transition density . scale of desion Low Intensity Low density single family Residential Community Could serve as No regional accessibility Standard hierarchy of Water, sewer, drainage Buffered from CBD or Nbhd comm detached building form transition usa between required access necessary to serve adequately in place or areas by at least one: between 1.3 and 3.0 medium intensity development planned as part of - collector d.u's per acre residential and very development - publiclinst. bldg. low intensity res. or as - dedicated open space buffer between low int - transition density rea emD.. nbhd comm, - scale of design CBD and very low intensitv residential Very Low Intensity Low density single family Residentiai Community Never adjacent to any No regional accessibility Standard hierarchy of Water, sewer, drainage Buffered from Nbhd comm areas by detached building form Regional/ Community required access necessary to serve adequately in place or at least one: between 1.0 and 1.3 Employment areas development planned as part of - collector d.u's per acre development - publiclinst. bldg. . dedicated open space - transition density - scale of desion Rural Residential Estate type housing on Residential Community Never adjacent to any No regional accessibility Standard hierarchy of No central water or sewer Never adjacent 10 ReglComm Emp lots with at least one acre Regional/ Community required access necessary to serve required areas of land Emolovment areas development Comprehensive Plan Figure 2 Carmel/Clay Township Proposed Growth Policies Regional/Community Employment Areas INTENSITY CHARACTER AREA ADJACENCY REGIONAL SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSITION TO RESIDENTIAL LEVEL DESIGNATION ACCESS CIRCULATION SUPPORT COMMUNITIES U.S. 31 Corridor Offices greater than 5 Regional/Community Not adjacent to low Site is adjacent to Access to site directly Water, sewer, drainage Buffered from residential commercial by at least one: fl Eg. Thomson Elec., Employment Area density residential expressway and from regional access. adequate to serve site . expressway/principal arterials principal arterial or . pUbliclinstitutional building principal parkway . dedicated open space . transition densitv . . High Intensity Regional Retail Regional/Community Not adjacent to low Site is adjacent to Access to site directly Water, sewer, drainage Buffered from residential commercial by at least one: greater than 250k sq. Employment Area density residential expressway and from regional access. adequate to serve site . expressway/principal arterials ft , intense principal arterial or . publiclinstitutional building commercial principal parkway . dedicated open space . transition densitv' Medium Intensity Community retail Regional/Community Could be adjacent to Site is adjacent to Access to site is Water, sewer, drainage Buffered from residential commercial by at least one: greater than 100k sq. Employment Area low density expressway and directly from regional adequate to serve site - expressway/principal arterials. ft. residential if secondary arterial access. - publiclinstitutional building Low to mid rise office adequate buffer, or secondary - dedicated open space 3- 51100rs transition parkway - transition density Eg. Meridian Villages, - scale of bldg design Graves Office Bldq. Low Intensity One to two story Regional/Community Could be edjacent Site is adjacent to Access to site directly Water, sewer, drainage Buffered from residential commercial by at least one: offices Employment Area to low density principal arterial or from regional access adequately in place or - prine. arterial/pkwy Office/showroom flex residential if parkway and planned as part of - publiclinsbtutional building space, industry adequate buffer, secondary arterial development - dedicated open space Warehouse transition or parkway . transition density Eg. Carmel Science . scale of bldg design and T echnoloav Park Central Bus. District Downtown area of Regional/Community Is adjacent to Sites have access Access to site could be Water, sewer, drainage Buffered from residential commercial by at least one: Carmel in vicinity of Employment Area residential. to Rangeline or from collector adequately in place or - scale of bldg. design Rangeline and Main Development should MainSt. connecting into planned as part of - landscaping of rear parking St. be pedestrian scale. Rangeline or Main development Building frontage to street Neighborhood Nbhd. Scale retail. Residential Community Site is within resid. Site is at Site has direct access Water, sewer, drainage Buffered from adjacent residential commercial by all of Commercial Center is 1 OOk sq. ft. Area comm areas. Design Intersection of to regional access adequately in place or the following: max on 10 or less is compatible with principal arterial or without any traffic planned as part of - scale of bldg. design acres adjacent scale. parkway and intrusion into adjacent development -landscaping of rear parking. loading Buffering of rear lot collector nbhds. line with adjacent res. is mandatorv .' ~ ., .- V~ I ~'I ~vu\O MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS. INC. MUELLER PROPERTY SOUTH SURFACE LIMESTONE MINING SPECIAL USE APPLICATION Docket No. 05090003 SU STATEMENT OF COMMITMENTS COMMITMENTS CONCERNING THE USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF REAL ESTATE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH PETITION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. ("Martin Marietta") makes the following COMMITMENTS concerning the use and development of that parcel of real estate located near the southwest comer of the intersection of 106th Street and Hazel Dell Parkway, in the City of Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana, which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Real Estate"). These commitments apply only to the described Real Estate and to no other property owned or controlled by Martin Marietta. Statement of COMMITMENTS: I. General Operational Commitments. A. Martin Marietta will develop an open pit, surface mining operation on the Real Estate in accordance with the plans and submittals identified herein and the commitments made herein. B. The maps, submittals, and undertakings in the T AC responses shall be deemed the application documents and shall bind Martin Marietta. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a master list of the maps and submittals governing the application and this approval. In the event of a conflict between maps or submittals, the most recent submittal shall be deemed to supersede all prior maps or submittals and to be binding on Martin Marietta. C. Prior to commencement of any work on the Real Estate, Martin Marietta shall provide copies of approvals and permits from every governmental agency having jurisdiction over the Real Estate and/or activities of Martin Marietta on the Real Estate, including all submittals to such governmental agencies, and shall include all specifications and restrictions contained in such submittals and approvals. D. Overburden removal shall be completed during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. between the months of November through March (except as necessary to construct visual and noise barriers) and only on days other than Saturday, Sunday, or State of Indiana holidays. Martin Marietta shall conduct all operations, including overburden removal, in a manner so as to reasonably minimize noise, dust, and light impact on surrounding properties. INDY 1622966v.5 E. Martin Marietta's acceptance of the hours of operation set forth above is based on the specific nature of the particular activities and site regulated by such hours and shall not be deemed to establish a precedent or suggest that such hours are reasonable for any other operations or any other site. F. Martin Marietta shall use the existing entrance on 96th Street for haul trucks and other heavy equipment accessing the Real Estate (except as it may be necessary to access the Real Estate from 106th Street and Hazel Dell Parkway for berm construction). G. The berm specified along the perimeter of the property as identified on the Mine Plan map shall be substantially complete within one hundred eighty (180) days of the commencement of the removal of overburden from the Real Estate. Completion shall include, but not be limited to, landscaping installation and seeding. The Director is authorized to allow landscaping and seeding to be deferred up to six (6) months to allow planting to be done at an appropriate time seasonally. H. Chain link type fences at least six (6) feet in height shall be required on the perimeter of the Real Estate at a point not closer than the right-of-way line of any street bordering the Real Estate where it is not contiguous to existing mine property. Martin Marietta shall submit the proposed location and type of fence to the Director for approval. The fence shall be maintained in a constant state of good repair. I. Any lights used for exterior illumination shall be directed away from adjoining public and private property. II. Blasting Practices. A. General Requirements. 1. Martin Marietta shall comply with all applicable state and federal regulations as they relate to blasting on the Real Estate. 2. All surface blasting on the Real Estate shall be limited to the period from 11 :00 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m. on weekdays (except on holidays recognized by the State of Indiana when no surface blasting shall be allowed). . 3. Martin Marietta shall endeavor in good faith to schedule surface blasts on the Real Estate at the same approximate time of day. 4. Explosives used in a surface blast on the Real Estate shall not be detonated at other times, except when necessary to detonate a loaded shot that could not be detonated because of adverse weather or other conditions that could not be reasonably foreseen by Martin Marietta, to maintain blasting safety, or as required to comply with applicable governmental requirements. 2 INDY I 622966v.5 5. Martin Marietta shall notify the Director of the Department of Community Services ("DOCS") of any surface blast that occurs outside the prescribed times of day on the Real Estate within 24 hours of such event. 6. Individuals trained and experienced in the design and safe use of surface blasting systems and licensed by the State of Indiana shall conduct all surface blasting on the Real Estate. 7. Surface blasting on the Real Estate shall occur no closer than one thousand eight hundred (1800) feet (measured horizontally) to any currently existing occupied, single-family residential structure (excluding those situated on the so-called "Mueller Property North" and "Mueller Property South"), or within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, of any underground pipeline, unless the pipeline company authorizes, or confirms in writing to the Director, a lesser distance, provided that such distance shall in no event be less than twenty-five (25) feet. 8. Explosives shall not be stored on the Real Estate. Martin Marietta shall use best practices when loading explosives on the Real Estate, and the amount of explosives loaded into each hole shall be monitored to avoid overloading a blast. 9. Fly rock from the Real Estate shall not leave the property owned or controlled by Martin Marietta. 10. Martin Marietta shall monitor drilling to avoid overdrilling. If overdrilling occurs, a crushed stone filler, either fine or coarse aggregate as appropriate, shall be used. Stemming shall generally be done to a level and in the manner recommended by Vibra- Tech in its letter of Feb. 8, 2006, in consultation with the blaster. MM shall keep such drilling and blasting records as will permit the review of its drilling and stemming at the annual review specified herein. 11. Martin Marietta MM shall use blast designs intended to increase frequency levels above 20 hz. Blast design shall generally conform to the recommendations of Vibra-Tech in its letter of Feb. 8, 2006, in consultation with the blaster. Frequency levels and the achievement of frequencies above 20 hz shall be one of the review criteria for the annual review of Martin Marietta's practices specified herein. 12. The commitment herein to any blast design, drilling, or stemming recommendation is made expressly subject to the legal right and the duty of the blaster to vary the design to account for the circumstances of each individual blast and shall not be deemed to restrict or interfere with the exercise of the blaster's judgment and discretion, nor to relieve the blaster of responsibility for the safe use of explosives. B. Vibration and Air Overpressure Limits. 3 INDY 1622966v.5 1. The maximum peak particle velocities for any blast on the Real Estate shall comply with: (1) the requirements of the rules and regulations of the Indiana Department of Homeland Security, generally consistent with Indiana Code 22-11-14, and the regulations promulgated thereunder pursuant to 675 IAC 26; and (2) the frequency and vibration criteria referenced in the former U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations (RI) 8507, Structural Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibration from Surface Mine blasting (Siskind 1980), including the frequency and vibration curve therein commonly referred to as the Siskind Curve; and (3) shall not exceed .5 inches per second peak particle velocity when measured at any existing single family residential structure not owned by Martin Marietta. 2. The maximum air overpressure limits from blasting on the Real Estate shall comply with the requirements of the rules and regulations of the Indiana Department of Homeland Security, generally consistent with Indiana Code 22-11-14, and the regulations promulgated thereunder pursuant to 675 IAC 26, which are generally patterned upon the criteria referenced in the former U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8485, Structure Response and Damage Produced by Airblast from Surface Mining (Siskind 1980), as shown in the table below: 0.1 Hz high-pass system 134 dB 2 Hz high pass system 133 dB 5 or 6 Hz high pass system 129 dB C-slow (events not exceeding 2 sec. duration) 105 dB C. Monitoring Guidelines. 1. All overpressure on the Real Estate shall be monitored by Vibra- Tech Engineering, Inc. ("Vibra- Tech"), who shall be responsible for reviewing and analyzing the data. Provided, however, that if Martin Marietta demonstrates compliance for a period of three years, it shall be entitled to submit a plan for self-monitoring and the Director is authorized to approve such plan if it contains substantially the same monitoring specified herein. 2. All blasts on the Real Estate shall be monitored by no less than six properly calibrated seismographs recording horizontal and vertical ground vibrations and air overpressure. The location of the monitoring stations shall be acceptable to the Director. All equipment for the monitoring of blasts will be maintained and calibrated by the monitoring company exclusively. 3. The Director may require that additional monitoring stations be located, or that existing monitoring stations be relocated to or from certain sites; provided, however, that Martin Marietta shall not be required to provide more than two additional monitoring locations at any given point in time. 4 INDY 1622966v.5 4. Records shall be kept by Martin Marietta for each surface blast on the Real Estate and shall include the following: a. the date, time and specific location of each blast; b. the weather conditions including: 1. air temperature; 11. wind speed and direction; and 111. . cloud cover. c. identification of the closest residential structure, and approximate distance from the blast; d. the name and license number of the person conducting the blast; and e. the number of holes, diameter and depth of holes, the delay pattern and design, and number of detonators used. 5. Martin Marietta shall maintain all records of blasting on the Real Estate for a period not less than three (3) years. 6. Annually, within thirty (30) days of the anniversary of the issuance of this permit, Martin Marietta shall provide a report of blasting on the Real Estate to the Director for the preceding year. The blasting report shall contain the date, time, total explosives, pounds per delay, and systems used for each blast, together with a statement that the blasting complied with all applicable laws and regulations. D. Reportable Events. 1. Martin Marietta shall report to the DOCS any blast that exceeds .5 inches per second, or otherwise does not comply with the Bureau of Mines Siskind curve with respect to a combination of frequency and peak particle velocity at any monitor adjacent to the Kingswood Neighborhood (such blasts are hereafter referred to as "Reportable Events"). The report to DOCS shall contain complete information with respect to such Reportable Events, including blast layout and design, together with all seismic, decibel, weather and other data gathered as part of Martin Marietta's monitoring. 2. If three (3) or more peak particle velocity Reportable Events occur in any calendar year, within ten (10) days of the third event Martin Marietta shall submit all information on such Reportable Events to Vibra- Tech Inc. for its review and analysis. Within twenty (20) days after such data is 5 INDY 1622966v.5 INDY 1622966v.5 submitted to Vibra- Tech, or at such time as is agreed to by DOCS, Martin Marietta and Vibra- Tech shall meet with DOCS to discuss the Reportable Events and any recommendations by Vibra- Tech with respect to blasting patterns or practices to minimize Reportable Events. It shall not be presumed that a change in blasting patterns or practices is necessary merely because of such Reportable Events, but if Vibra- Tech reasonably believes that a change is necessary to prevent frequent Reportable Events, it shall recommend such changes in blasting practices, as it deems necessary. These recommendations shall be discussed at the meeting with DOCS, and Martin Marietta shall be entitled to suggest changes or modifications to the recommendations that would make them less onerous or more acceptable, and Vibra-Tech shall consider Martin Marietta's comments in that regard. Within ten (10) days after the meeting, however, Vibra- Tech shall finalize its recommendation and Martin Marietta agrees to implement such commercially reasonable recommendations as expeditiously as is commercially practicable, given the nature of the recommendations. 3. Martin Marietta further agrees to grant Vibra- Tech access to its records upon request by the DOCS for the purpose of Vi bra-Tech auditing them to determine that Martin Marietta is complying with the reporting obligations with respect to Reportable Events contained herein. Any audit report by Vibra- Tech shall report only whether Martin Marietta has complied with its reporting obligations herein and, if it has not, the instances and manner in which it has not complied, including the information and data required to be submitted by Martin Marietta for any Reportable Event. 4. In January of each year, Vibra-Tech shall review Martin Marietta's blasting records and blasting programs for the prior year for the purpose of making such recommendations as Vibra- Tech believes may reasonably be necessary to reflect changes in the state of blasting technology that have become commercially practicable. Martin Marietta agrees to consider the recommended changes in good faith, and to implement those that do not unreasonably interfere with its operations and are commercially practicable, but otherwise shall be under no obligation to implement them so long as it has less than three Reportable Events during the previous calendar year. 5. An air overpressure measurement in excess of 120dB shall also be deemed a Reportable Event and the occurrence of three such air overpressure Reportable Events in a one hundred twenty day (120) period shall trigger the requirements set forth above in subparagraph (2) above. Air overpressure and vibration Reportable Events shall not be combined to trigger the requirements of subparagraph (2) above. 6. In the event Vibra- Tech is unable to serve in the capacity described hereinabove, Martin Marietta shall propose to DOCS another nationally 6 recognized engineer with experience in mining activities such as those undertaken by Martin Marietta on the Real Estate. Such replacement shall be reasonably acceptable to DOCS. 7. These specific blasting conditions in this Section II are intended to and do constitute all of the commitments made by Martin Marietta with respect to blasting and supersede all other provisions of these conditions with respect to blasting. III. Studies and Monitoring. If the Director determines that additional study or monitoring of off-site impacts from operations on the Real Estate is necessary, he or she shall notify Martin Marietta of the particular matter needing study. Martin Marietta shall then present the Director with a proposal to address the matter raised by the Director, at Martin Marietta's expense, within forty-five (45) days. If the Director agrees with the proposal, Martin Marietta shall cause the study or monitoring to be performed at its expense in the time frame set forth in the proposal and shall provide a report of the results to the Director. If the Director does not agree with Martin Marietta's proposal, he or she shall modify it or present Martin Marietta with his or her own proposal and Martin Marietta shall pay the cost of such studies. N. Water Monitoring. Martin Marietta will cooperate with the City Utilities Department (the "Department") in the development of a water quality monitoring program acceptable to the Department to monitor potential impacts from open pit mining on the Real Estate. Martin Marietta recognizes that this may require different or additional wells or monitoring protocols than those currently called for and agrees to pay for those that are made necessary by the mining approved herein, as determined in the Department's reasonable judgment. Martin Marietta recognizes that the Department may wish to conduct additional monitoring at its own expense and agrees to cooperate with the Department to permit such additional monitoring. Further, Martin Marietta shall grant the Department access to the monitoring points, flow meters, and related areas at all reasonable times, subject to compliance with MSHA regulations. The Department shall also have access to monitoring locations on an as needed basis for emergency purposes. Additionally, Martin Marietta will notify the Department as to the date of the annual training as prescribed by the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan dated April 2003 such that a Department representative can attend and/or participate in the training. v. Buffers and Screening. A. A buffer area of approximately 330 feet in width will be maintained from the property line of the Real Estate on the south side of 106th Street as shown on the Mine Plan. Berms or other activities allowed under previous permits in this area continue to be allowed. 7 INDY 1622966v.5 B. All landscaping specified in any plans will be completed and maintained consistent with the Landscaping Plan Map, a copy of which is on file in the Office of DOCS, except as modified herein. VI. Environmental. A. All operations shall be conducted in conformance with the Federal Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and applicable statutes and regulations implemented by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. B. Martin Marietta shall maintain an approved Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan for this facility, a copy of which is on file with the Carmel Fire Department, Carmel Utilities and in the Office of DOCS. C. Martin Marietta will maintain an approved Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Report for this facility, a copy of which is on file in the Office of DOCS. VII. Periodic Reports. Martin Marietta shall submit a report (the "Report") within thirty (30) days of the five (5) year anniversary date of this permit. The Report shall contain the following information with respect to the Real Estate: A. A Mine Plan for operations on the Real Estate consisting of: 1. an Operations Plan; 2. a Mine Plan map; and 3. a Reclamation Plan. B. The Operations Plan for the Real Estate shall include the following: 1. the general geographic location of the current mining activity; 2. a description of the existing condition of the surface at the Mine, including areas already mined or disturbed by mining, the existence of structures, vegetation, and ground cover; 3. a description of the method of mining showing the method of extraction, the sequence of mining, the disposition of materials on the Real Estate, the use of haul routes, ingress and egress from public streets, and an updated Blasting Plan including the following information: a. monitoring locations; 8 INDY 1622966v.5 b. anticipated frequency of surface mine blasting; c. anticipated range of blast sizes (in tons); d. pre-blast notification (as requested by any interested parties within a one mile radius of the operation); and e. other general blast related information. 4. a description of the expected general direction of mining during the next five (5) year period, along with the overall development ofthe mine. C. The Operations Plan shall also include a description of the methods used or to be used for preventing pollution from mining on the Real Estate, including but not limited to air pollution, water pollution and noise pollution. If such methods are contained in applications and/or permits issued to Martin Marietta, the submission of such applications and permits to the Director shall satisfy this requirement. If not, Martin Marietta shall provide the following: 1. current and future drainage and water controls, including discharge volumes, water quantity and quality monitoring locations, monitoring wells, and similar water quality and quantity matters; 2. air quality and dust control plans; 3. a complete Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan, updated as necessary, to insure adequate response to potential fuel spills and releases from mining equipment; 4. emergency response measures in the event of a release that could impact water quality; 5. a description of the employee training for response to spill and release emergencies; and 6. a listing of all chemicals, quantities and storage locations for the facility. 9 INDY 1622966v.5 D. The Mine Plan map shall be presented on a base map stamped by a professional licensed in Indiana and shall include the following: 1. a map of the location of the mine on the Real Estate including boundaries of the Real Estate controlled by Martin Marietta; 2. a schematic outline and legal description of the Real Estate proposed for mining for the life of the mine; 3. topographic contours, at two-foot intervals; 4. all areas of excavation, and, if applicable, all blasting areas on the Real Estate; 5. all processing plant areas on the Real Estate; 6. all drainage features, water courses, water discharge points, water impoundments, and ground water monitoring locations; 7. the name and address ofthe mining operation; 8. the mine manager's name and contact information; 9. the scale, a north arrow and a reference datum; 10. the name of the individual responsible for the preparation of the maps and/or photographs; and 11. the date of preparation, and the record of work and/or revisions. E. The Report shall also include: .1. a written description detailing any reclamation accomplished on the Real Estate during the prior period; 2. results of studies or monitoring required by the Director or any other city, county, state or federal agency to insure that the requirements of this permit have been, are being, and will be satisfied; and 3. a certification by Martin Marietta that all mining, processing or reclamation conducted during the reporting period was in conformance with the permit and the approved plans, and that Martin Marietta is in compliance with these commitments. VIII. Reclamation. Unless an alternative reclamation plan is approved, Martin Marietta shall reclaim the 10 INDY 1622966v.5 Real Estate as a lake. The Reclamation Plan shall consist of a graphic and written description of the proposed Reclamation and shall: A. include maps and cross sections that illustrate the final physical state of the reclaimed land; B. include a description of the manner in which the land is to be reclaimed, including the disposition of topsoil, and a schedule for performing any reclamation and planting and seeding plans that will commence during the next five year period; C. comply generally with the version of the Guiding Principles of the Environmental Stewardship Council for reclamation, grading and re-vegetation in effect at the time the reclamation plan is submitted; and D. provide a reclamation bond payable to the City in an appropriate and reasonable amount that, in the Director's discretion, is sufficient to assure reclamation as described in the application for Special Use. This bond will be kept in full force until Martin Marietta completes the reclamation of the Real Estate, and shall be subject to amendment from time to time as deemed necessary by the Director to assure completion ofthe reclamation. IX. Binding Effect. These Commitments are binding on Martin Marietta as the current lessee and E. & H. Mueller Development, LLC ("Mueller") as the current owner of the Real Estate, each subsequent lessee and owner thereof, and each person acquiring an interest therein, unless modified or terminated by the BZAor its successor pursuant to this paragraph. These Commitments may be modified or terminated only upon (a) petition by Martin Marietta or its successor, and (b) approval by the BZA after notice and hearing pursuant to the BZA's Rules of Procedure. Until they expire or are modified or terminated pursuant to this paragraph, these Commitments shall be enforceable by the City of Carmel or the BZA by injunctive relief, denial of building permits or approvals in respect of the Real Estate, or other appropriate administrative or judicial remedy, provided that any such relief, denial or other remedy is related to the Real Estate and to some effects or harm from a breach or violation of these Commitments by Martin Marietta or Mueller. These COMMITMENTS may be enforced jointly or severally by the Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals and/or the City of Carmel Department of Community Services, but shall create no private right of action. In any proceedings to modify or terminate these Commitments, notice of hearing shall be given to the owners of property as required by the Carmel Zoning Ordinance and the BZA's Rules of Procedure. X. General. A. In all matters where a representative of the City is given discretion to order studies or take action, such representative shall do so reasonably and shall not require the doing of any act or the expenditure of money for arbitrary or capnclOus reasons. 11 INDY 1622966v.5 B. The approval under Approval Docket No. 05090003 SU is specific to the Martin Marietta proposal for the surface mining of limestone on the Real Estate, and in no way implies that the BZA has reviewed, condoned, or approved any aspect of any other pending application for mining. C. The denial of a future or other pending application to mine on the Real Estate shall not be deemed a taking based on any theory that the Real Estate has become unusable for any purpose other than mining by virtue of the grant of this Special Use permit. Martin Marietta retains its right to challenge the denial of any future application on any other ground or theory, including a taking theory not based on the grant of the permit herein, whether based on state or federal laws or constitutions, board rules, local ordinances, or otherwise. D. Martin Marietta shall provide access to DOCS and the Department's employees and its consultants, at all reasonable times, for purposes of monitoring compliance with these commitments and any other responsibilities derived there from. E. Unless expressly specified herein, nothing in these commitments shall supersede, suspend, or otherwise modify any commitment or obligation undertaken by Martin Marietta in any other proceeding or docket. F. Whenever the term Martin Marietta is used herein it shall be deemed to refer to the applicant herein and to any successor in interest to the Applicant. COMMITMENTS contained in this instrument shall be effective upon the adoption of Approval Docket No. 05090003 SU by the Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals and shall continue in effect for as long as the above-described parcel of Real Estate remains the subject ofthe Special Use Permit issued in said Approval Docket No. 05090003 SU or until such other time as may be specified herein. The undersigned hereby authorizes the City of Carmel Department of Community Services to record this Statement of Commitments in the Office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana, upon final approval of Docket No. 05090003 SUo IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Martin Marietta has caused the execution of this instrument this day of February 2006. MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC. By: John J. Tiberi Regional Vice President/General Manager MidAmerica Region 12 INDY 1622966v.5 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) SS: COUNTY OF MARION ) Before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared John J. Tiberi, the Regional Vice President/General Manager, MidAmerica Region, of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., who acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument and who, having been duly sworn, stated that any representations therein contained are true. WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal this day of February 2006. Signature Printed NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: County of Residence: 13 INDY 1622966v.5 E. & H. MUELLER DEVELOPMENT, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company By: Signature Its: Printed Name and Title STATE OF INDIANA ) ) SS: COUNTY OF ) Before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared , the Managing Member, authorized agent of E. & H. Mueller Development, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company, who acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument and who, having been duly sworn, stated that any representations therein contained are true. WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal this day of February 2006. Signature Printed NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: County of Residence: This instrument was prepared by and after recordation should be returned to Zeff A. Weiss, Ice Miller, One American Square, Box 82001, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46282-0200, Telephone (317) 236-2319. 14 INDY 1622966v.5 EXHIBIT A REAL ESTATE DESCRIPTION Part of the North Half of Section 9, Township 17 North, Range 4 East of the Second Principal Meridian in Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana, described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest comer of Section 9, Township 17 North, Range 4 East of the Second Principal Meridian in Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana; thence South 89 degrees 55 minutes 56 seconds East (assumed bearing) on the North line of said Section 9, a distance of 1,336.18 feet to the Northwest comer of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 9, said comer being the PLACE OF BEGINNING of the within described real estate; thence South 00 degrees 11 minutes 12 seconds West on the West line of said East Half 1,716.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 55 minutes 56 seconds East parallel with the North line of said Section 9, a distance of 1,336.01 feet to the West line of the East Half of said Section 9; thence South 00 degrees 11 minutes 33 seconds West on the West line of said East Half 156.75 feet; thence South 89 degrees 55 minutes 56 seconds East parallel with the North line of said Section 9, a distance of 919.68 feet to the Westerly line of real estate conveyed to the City of Carmel, Indiana, by a documented titled "Certification of Clerk" recorded in the Office of the Recorder at Hamilton County, Indiana, as Instrument Number 9709754848 (the following eight courses being on the Westerly line of said real estate); 1.) thence North 08 degrees 36 minutes 31 seconds East 885.22 feet; 2.) thence North 02 degrees 53 minutes 53 seconds East 201.00 feet; 3.) thence North 08 degrees 36 minutes 31 seconds East 660.61 feet; 4.) thence North 29 degrees 48 minutes 29 seconds West 55.59 feet; 5.) thence North 80 degrees 51 minutes 37 seconds West 303.34 feet; 6.) thence North 89 degrees 03 minutes 10 seconds West 148.00 feet; 7.) thence North 60 degrees 14 minutes 56 seconds West 57.55 feet; 8.) thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 04 seconds East 16.50 feet to the North line of said Section 9, said point being 3,302.24 feet South 89 degrees 55 minutes 56 seconds East of the Southwest comer of said Section 9; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 56 seconds West on said North line 1,966.06 feet to the place of beginning, containing 96.921 acres, more or less. INDY 1622966v.5 EXHIBIT B MASTER LIST OF MAPS AND SUBMITTALS . Area Map . Zoning Map . Mine Plan Map . Reclamation Plan Map . Landscaping Plan Map . Cross Section Map . Erosion and Sediment Control Report . Sound Level Assessment . Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan . Measurement and Analysis of Blast Induced Ground and Air Vibrations INDY 1622966v.5 (Dated September 6,2005) (Dated September 6,2005) (Dated November 28, 2005) (Dated November 28, 2005) (Dated November 28,2005) (Dated November 28,2005) (Dated September 2005) (Dated September 2005) (Dated April 2003) (Dated November 30,2005) . June 23, 2000 'I1'"J' "'.~\J' .f~~~ Letter of Interest Martin Marietta Materials ("MMM") and Kingswood Homeowners Association ("KHA"), are desirous of reaching a definitive agreement whereby MMM may obtain benefit of the minerals on certain real estate depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Mueller Property"), and KHA will support MMM's request for a Special Use for the Mueller Property. This letter of interest will serve as the basis on which MMM will cause a definitive agreement to be prepared for review and approval by KHA. MMM recognizes that KHA is willing to support a request for special use under the Carmel Clay Zoning Ordinance ifMMM complies with the provisions of the definitive agreement. It is further recognized by MMM that the expansion of mining related activities on the MMM and/or Mueller property south of 106th Street may have yet undeterminable negative consequences on members of the KHA. It is in the best interest ofMMM and KHA to define activities in advance so as to avoid any future negative consequences. Therefore MMM and KHA are prepared to move forward with KHA supporting MMM use of the Mueller property for mining as defined below. 1. Processing Plant. MMM has agreed to move the processing plant located on Hazel Dell. Subject to approval by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources ("DNR"), the plant will be moved during the winter of 200112002. Specifically, MMM will start the move on or before January, 2002, and all current processing operations on this site will stop after such time. The plant will be moved to the area east of Hazel Dell and just north of 106th Street. The existing tree buffer on Hazel Dell wi II be maintained. This location will be further from any home in Kingswood than at present and will have less of a noise impact on Kingswood. MMM will continue the same type of noise abatement that is on the existing plant, including the use of on site berms and the use of strobe lights at night (subject to approval by the proper governmental authorities) instead of audible backup signals. This Letter of Interest is entirely conditioned upon approval by the DNR of the relocation of the plant as described above. 2. Surface Mining North of l06th Street. All surface mining north of 106lh Street will be sand and gravel only and will be a dredge operation. The overburden removal operation will be controlled to occur only during daylight hours. The overburden removal, both south and north of 106lh Street will be scheduled by MMM to occur during the months of November through March and no overburden removal will occur on Saturday or Sunday. MMM agrees to first begin and complete, including reclamation, the dredge operation on the ground nearest to the Kingswood adjacent property owners. I eb: martinmariella:APOletler6212000:6123/00] 1 3. Activity South of l06lh Street. MMM and KHA both recognize the importance of reaching an agreement that provides a global, long-term resolution to the tension created by conducting a mining operation in close proximity to a residential area. Furthermore MMM recognizes that these concerns include noise emissions and blasting vibrations from its operations north of 96th Street. In recognition of the above, MMM agrees that no more than two of the asphalt plants south of 961h Street will be relocated north of 96th Street, and such plants will be relocated at the two northeast locations on MMM owned land (as shown on Exhibit A). Sound buffering sufficiently adequate so that sound levels at the southern boundary of Kingswood as measured by a noise level study to be conducted by MMM in the summer of 2000 at MMM expense will be no greater after the asphalt plant relocation. MMM will cause a twenty (20) foot high tree topped berm to be constructed along the south side of 106th Street. This berm will be constructed between November 2000 and March 2001. In addition, irrespective of any agreement with the City, MMM will not allow any asphalt plant to be located on the Mueller Property and/or MMM owned land north of the current Blue Woods Creek location. MMM will insure that any development on the Mueller Property and/or MMM owned land South of 106th Street and North of the current Blue Woods Creek location will have minimal adverse noise, dust, odor, or smoke impact on Kingswood subdivision. MMM is going to request zoning approval to build a contractors office and shop on eight (8) acres in the southeast comer of the intersection of Gray Road and 106th Street. KHA agrees to support this request, subject to review of the plans; said support will not unreasonably be withheld. MMM agrees that it will require all trucks entering or exiting public streets from its lands to have covered beds by January, 2001. 4. Non mineral extraction Activities. MMM will not engage in any non mineral extraction activities, including but not limited to asphalt plants, ready-mix concrete plants, or any other non mineral operation on the Mueller Property, either north or south of 106th Street. The dredge operation is not considered a processing operation. MMM will not engage in or permit the establishment of any new non mineral extraction activities, as described above, on MMM owned land unless such activities are first duly approved under the Carmel Clay Zoning Ordinance. For example, MMM agrees that if in the future any additional asphalt plant is proposed to be located on MMM owned land, a petition for special use or other zoning approval must be submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Carmel and/or Clay Township before such use may be established. MMM will take all necessary and reasonable steps to mitigate the creation of dust and mud on Gray Road at the entrance to its land between 96th and 106th Streets, which may include, among other options, paving portions of the access road or adding acceleration and deceleration lanes to Gray Road. (eb: martinmarictta:APOletter62 I 2000:6/23/00 J 2 5. Blasting Practice of Martin Marietta Materials. Q. MMM will commit to minimize the detrimental impact of blasting on the Kingswood neighborhood by holding surface and underground blasting under certain limits. The actual limits are as follows: The average blast readings from a calendar year will not exceed the average from calendar year 1999. The average readings for 1999 were 110 dB and 0.10 in/sec. for surface shots and were 92dB and 0.08 in/see for underground shots. Separate averages will be kept for underground and for surface shotS'. The results of any given year will be presented to the KHA Board of Directors in January of the following year and a representative of Martin Marietta Materials will attend an annual meeting of the KHA to answer questions ifrequested. If Martin Marietta Materials is over any of the averages at the end of the year, then Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) will be paid to the KHA. In addition the ground vibration from all blasts will be held under 25% of the Government Frequency chart as measured at the to-be-determined monitoring station in Kingswood.(see Exhibit A). The maximum airblast reading will be no greater than 125dB as measured at the monitoring station. If either of these levels is breached MMM will pay Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) to KHA for each incident. Blasting Limits Chart Yearly Average (subject to further definition in the definitive agreement) Any Blast Pet. Of Blasts Maximum Above Avg. Surface Blasts Ground Vibration 0.1 in/sec. Air Blast 110dBL 25% of Chart 125dBI 25% 25% Underground Blasts Ground Vibration 0.08 in.lsec. Air Blast 92dBL 25% of Chart 125dBI 25% 25% These limits have been established to reduce the environmental impact on Kingswood residents while allowing efficient operation of MMM's mining operation. If MMM operates with tighter standards in these areas anywhere in the United States, these tighter standards will be adopted at this Carmel operating location. A. Underground mining north of 106th Street will be no closer than 500 ft to any house in Kingswood. Underground mining north of 106lh Street will not start before 2025. B. MMM will blast both surface and underground between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. The only exception to this practice would be related to safety concerns. C. MMM will arrange for a monitor to be placed m Kingswood. This machine or a replacement will be operating for all blasts. (eb: martinmarietta:APOletter6212000:6123/00 ] 3 D. MMM will arrange for an inspection by an engineer of each KHA member's home that requests such inspection. This will occur within six (6) months of the signing of the definitive agreement. The purpose of this inspection is to provide a reference point to determine if future blasting by MMM causes any damage to such homes. The terms of paragraph 5 shall be further reviewed and are subject to approval by the entire KHA Board of Directors before a definitive agreement is executed. 6. Successors. MMM understands that all' parts of any agreement with the KHA will be binding on Martin Marietta Materials and any assignment ofMMM rights as a result of a sale or other transfer of interest or assignment and will be binding on the new operator. Said definitive agreement shall be verified and filed with the Hamilton County Recorder. 7. Final Plans and Reclamation. MMM will reclaim the Mueller Property north of 1061h Street as a lake with the following: (a) slopes of no more than three (3) to one (1); (b) a minimum distance of 150 ft from the property line of Kingswood; and, (c) domestic grasses will be established with no less than 80% coverage of any square yard. At a completion of mining in this area, MMM will convey to each adjacent property owner good and marketable title to the buffer (from back property line of such owner to the waterline of the lake) free and clear of all liens, easements, encumbrances or other restrictions to be deeded to the owner at a cost not to exceed One Hundred Dollars ($100.00). MMM will cause a right-of-way to be deeded to the county along the northern edge of 106th Street to be large enough to allow for a walkway from Hazel Dell Parkway to connect to the park south of Kingswood. All reclamation will comply with the recent guidelines adopted by the Indiana Mineral Aggregates Association. MMM recognizes that there are two different areas, the land on the east of Kingswood and the land on the south of Kingswood. On the East Side, Martin Marietta Materials will remove the berm and reclaim this property within six (6) months of moving the processing plant. As soon as possible. but no longer than twelve (12) months after the completion of the berm removal, fence removal, and land reclamation, MMM will deed the buffer area behind the adjacent property owners' lots to these owners. On the south side, Martin Marietta Materials will erect a black vinyl coated chain link fence which will not include a barbwire or similar barrier 50-ft from the property line. At the end of mining, the fence will be removed and the land will be reclaimed to the above standards. Martin Marietta Materials, during this reclamation, will not disturb the 50-ft area north of the fence. Within twelve (12) months following the completion of reclamation, MMM will deed the buffer area behind those owners' lots to those owners. MMM will grant an easement to each such owner to use and improve the 50-ft area during the mining ofthe property. MMM will supply an Exhibit C to be attached to each final agreement that will show the land to be deeded to each adjacent property owner. 8. Site Plans. In addition, MMM will provide a site plan, which will indicate the equipment and structures which will be located on the Mueller Property during the sand and gravel mining operation. MMM will also provide a site plan showing the expected condition and appearance of the Mueller Property after reclamation; said site plan shall be attached to the definitive agreement. 9. Lake accesses. In the event part or all of the lakes created adjacent to Kingswood become available to the general public, then the adjacent property owners will be granted private access. MMM agrees [eb:martinmarietta:APOIetter62 J 2ooo:6123/ooJ 4 to provide access to the public, to the waterline of the. lake, from the public park site to the western portion of the Mueller Property. 10. Lake. MMM will not undertake any actions to drain the lake created, nor to reduce the water level. 11. Funding. Martin Marietta Materials will pay to each adjacent property owner the sum of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) per year for ten (to) years. This money is to be used for maintenance purposes on the ground to be deeded to such owner at the discretion of the owner. 12. Environmental Remediation. With respect to the Operations, MMM shall be responsible for all environmental matters arising therefrom and shall indemnify and hold harmless KHA and all adjacent property owners with respect to any losses, claims or costs arising therefrom. 13. Pending Litigation. Upon execution of a definitive agreement, KHA agrees to dismiss, with prejudice, against both MMM and the City of Carmel, Indiana, the cause currently pending in the Hamilton Superior Court No.3, Cause No. 29D03-0005-CP-334. 14. Attorneys Fees. MMM shall reimburse KHA up to Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) for its attorney fees incurred in negotiating this Letter and Agreement. 15. Roundabout. MMM agrees that it shall donate to the City of Carmel, Indiana, sufficient right-of- way, generally on the south side of the intersection at 106th Street and Gray Road, to permit the construction of a roundabout at such intersection. 16. This letter of interest shall be null and void and the parties shall cease their work on a definitive agreement if any of the following events occur: a) KHA fails to approve the provisions of Section three (3) hereinabove within ten (10) days of the date of this Letter of Interest: b) KHA fails to approve the provisions of the blasting practices outlined in Section 5 hereinabove. or alternatively, parties fail to reach agreement on alternative blasting practices within ten (10) days of the date of this Letter of Interest; and c) The parties fail to execute a definitive agreement on or before August 23,2000. 17. Prior to July 31, 2000, the site plans described in Section Eight (8) shall be provided by MMM to KHA. 18. The parties must reach agreement on the current noise level from the two (2) asphalt plants prior to execution of a . . iVe a eement or this Letter of Interest is null and void. ' By: Printed Name: Date: By: obert Fur ong Vice President - General Manager Indian~iS~ t--r\ Date: t '-:;; V ~ By: 5 I cb: maninmarictla:A I'Oletler6212000:6/23/00) CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA ~ ~. <- By: ~ I James Brainard, Mayor Date: " '"2 ~. 0-6 Printed Name: Date: .. ~ :~~t~~N ~. &a.J{fN Date: ~ - 2 3 -ct) :;;~~Ri/t+~ Date: C. -.J-.:3 - Oft MUELLER REPRESENTATIVE By: Printed Name: Date: I eb:martinmariella:APOlellcr62I 2000:6i23/00j 6 IUlLruTRA ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC. ENGINEERING. ARCHITECTURE & SURVEYING, P,C. November 22, 2005 Mr. Michael Hollibaugh Director Division of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 046032 Re: Comments to Department of Community Services, City of Cannel Regarding Review of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., Response to T AC Comments Dated November 9, 2005 Dear Mr. ~, This letter summarizes Spectra's technical comments regarding our continuing review of Martin Marietta's Mueller Property South Surface Limestone Operation submittals. The following comments and questions were generated after our review of Martin Marietta's November 9,2005 response to the September 26, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee meeting (T AC) comments. Comment 1: The response to Spectra's TAC Comment 1 regarding the SPCC Plan update is sufficient Comment 2: The response to Spectra's TAC Comment 2 regarding the spec Plan update log page is sufficient Comment 3: As explained in the November 9, 2005 submittal, the Additional Information for the Mueller Property South Surface Limestone Operation and Artificial Lake submittal expands upon the original application materials submitted in 2002. The response goes on to state in a detailed list how the additional information modifies the original application and how the two submittals are related. The text offered explaining how the two submittals are related appears sufficient to tie the two plans together. However, Spectra reserves its final recommendation to the City of Carmel Division of Community Services (DOCS) regarding the continuity of the two submittals until such time that a revised Additional Information submittal containing all of the modified text and plan updates is provided for review and comment Comment 4: The map updates and addition to the Notes portion of each map are sufficient to convey to the reader that the existing North Indianapolis limestone excavation area will move north toward and will eventually include the Mueller south property. CORPORATE OFFICE: 19 BRITISH AMERICAN BLVD. . LATHAM, NY 12110.518 782..{)882. FAX: 518 782-0973 POUGHKEEPSIE OFFICE: ONE CIVIC CENTER PlAZA . SUITE 401 . POUG~~EPs~E; N~"12601 . 845454-9440 . FAX: 845 454-9206 SYRACUSE OFFICE: 307 S. TOWNSEND STREET. SYRACUSE, NY 13202. 315 4n2101 . FAX: 315471-2111 UTICA OFACE: 100 Lamond Court. UTICA. NY 13502. 315266-0129. FAX: 315 266-0192 WWW.SPECTRAENV.COM Mr. Michael Hollibaugh November 22, 2005 Page 2 Comment 5: Spectra's TAC comments state that, "The method of mining, particularly blasting and advancement of surface limestone benches on the Mueller South property, is not described in the Additional Information sublnittal. Similarly, the original application materials, dated 2002, merely state that blasting will occur on the site. Neither document describes how blasting will be conducted in a manner protective of community character and adjacent properties." Blasting Study Martin Marietta's response to TAC comments explains that Vibra~Tech, a blasting and vibration consulting firm, has completed a detailed vibration study/analysis for the North Indianapolis facility, and that the study shows that Martin Marietta can develop the Mueller Property South as proposed while remaining below all applicable blasting limits. The response document goes On to state Martin Marietta will propose a blasting limit that meets all blasting requirements as part of their application approval commitments. Additionally, Martin Marietta states that they will propose an extensive monitoring and reporting system for ground vibration and air blast in the application approval commitments. It is unclear whether MM has undertaken this study and an additional isoseismic study on the entire MM operation including mining properties not subject to BZA approval. If that isoseismic study were done, it would include recommendations on improvements in blasting and blast design to lessen the impact upon the neighboring residents, specifically Kingswood, who have registered numerous complaints with the DOCS. Therefore, it is critical to an assessment of future impact upon Kingswood and other residential properties that MMis following the recommendations of its own blasting consultants. Assessment of Blasting Impacts Given the concerns of the community over the potential impacts of surface mine blasting on community character and property, it is critical that Martin Marietta describe how the existing surface limestone operation will be expanded into Mueller South while at the same time protecting community character and the integrity of adjacent properties. As all submittals currently stand, (original application, additional information, and response to TAC comments); there is no specific, detailed discussion of blasting~related topics. There needs to be an assessment of how MM will mitigate impacts (vibration and air blast) to residents as MM progresses north from their current location into Mueller South. Furthelmore, MM needs to explain what will be different in the future while mining Mueller South that will not cause continuing complaints from Kingswood and other residential developments. MM needs to project and discuss peak particle velocities and air blast levels that they propose at the Kingswood property line that will mitigate impacts. Blasting Plan While not technically called a Blasting Plan, we believe that it is important for MM to educate and to explain to DOCS, BZA, and the public, the basic components of their approach to blasting at Mueller South. Such a basic plan should include the following: - vibration and air blast threshold limits monitoring locations anticipated frequency of surface mine blasting anticipated range of blast sizes (in tons) pre-blast notification Mr. Michael Hollibaugh November 22, 2005 Page 3 Specific blast-related information must be part of the Mine Plail for the Mueller Property South. To summarize, the application needs to be supplemented with additional infonnation on blasting and blasting issues. Blasting is the primary focus of public concern and complaints. To adequately assess whether there will be any detrimental impacts to the residents of Carmel as mining progresses into Mueller South, MM should provide the following: (I) all blasting studies including any isoseismic studies as noted above that would support this application, (2) an assessment of blasting impacts, and (3) and basic information that we refer to as a blasting plan. Without such information the application does not contain sufficient information to make a recommendation to the DOCS for either approval or denial of the application for a special use vanance. Comment 6: To reiterate, Spectra's original comment at T AC was, "The Erosion and Sediment Control Report, dated September, 2005, is in-part entitled "Surface Limestone Operation." Section 6.1 of the report; however, where sedimentation controls are described, discusses primarily sedimentation controls in the sand and gravel operation and not the limestone operation. In fact, Section 6.1 of the Surface Limestone Operation Report is almost word-for-word identical to Section 6.1 of the June 2005, Sediment and Erosion Control Report submitted in support of the Mueller South Sand and Gravel application. The applicability of the September 2005 Erosion and Sediment Control Report to the limestone operation is not clear. The report discusses almost exclusively various sand and gravel operating scenarios with little or no mention of the development of a limestone operation on the Mueller South property. Since the approved sand and gravel operation is already supported by an Erosion and Sediment Control Report, the most recent Erosion and Sediment Control Report should be tailored specifically to the limestone operation." Martin Marietta's response is that the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the sand and gravel and limestone operations are very similar because both operations are occurring at the same time on the same tract of land. Where this is true, the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan should say as much. As it stands now, the Erosion Plan for the limestone operation barely mentions the limestone operation. Spectra recommends that the entire response provided by Martin Marietta in the response T AC comments document be included at the beginning of Section 6.1 in a revised Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the Mueller Property South Limestone Operation. Comment 7: Martin Marietta's response states that the Mueller Property South Sand and Gravel approval does not prevent Martin Marietta from mining below the water table. Where this statement mayor may not be true, the approved mine plan calls for drainage swales to convey groundwater and storm water runoff from the Mueller South property into the North Indianapolis facility. The purpose of these drainage structures is to create dry working conditions for excavation equipment like front-end loaders and haul trucks, and to allow for the proposed "dry" reclamation of the site. Mining below the water table in an artificially created waterbody is not Mr. Michael Hollibaugh November 22, 2005 Page 4 part of the Mueller South Sand and Gravel approval. For example, the Sound Level Study supporting the Mueller South Sand and Gravel Operation models noise projections only for excavation equipment that operate in dry working conditions (e.g. haul trucks, front-end loaders, etc.). Equipment that can excavate material from below the water table in wet conditions (e.g. clam shell excavators, suction dredges, etc.) is not modeled in the Sound Level Study for the Mueller South Sand and Gravel Operation. To reiterate, the Mueller South Sand and Gravel Operation has been approved as a "Dry" sand and gravel operation, where storm water runoff and groundwater discharge is to drain into the existing North Indianapolis Limestone Operation and/or Blue Woods Creek. In order to ensure that the Mueller South Sand and Gravel Operation is conducted in accordance with the current approval for the excavation activity, Martin Marietta should commit to maintaining a five (5) foot separation from the water table (i.e. five (5) feet above the water table) in all excavation areas prior to the relocation of Blue Woods Creek. Comment 8: The response concerning the need for a NPDES permit is sufficient. Comment 9: Regardless of Martin Marietta's involvement with the City of Carmel Utilities Department regarding water supply issues, the reclamation issue raised by Spectra needs to be discussed and understoo.d prior to Spectra presenting its recommendations to DOCS. Specifically, the issue is whether or not the development of the surface limestone operation south of 106th street will adversely impact the anticipated reclamation lake proposed for the Mueller North Sand and Gravel Operation. Given the proximity of the reclamation lake to the Kingswood neighborhood, the integrity of the reclamation lake is of critical importance in the review of the current application. As it stands now, Martin Marietta has not answered this question. It is also inappropriate, as Martin Marietta states, that, "Martin Marietta.. .anticipates that the Department [the City Utilities Depaltment] will advise Martin Marietta or the Department of Community Services if additional information is needed." It is not the province of the Department of Utilities to discuss and review mine plan and reclamation plan issues. Spectra is the City's mining consultant, and as such, it is our responsibility to review all aspects of mining- related applications; A critical part of the review process is an assessment of the efficacy of proposed reclamation plans, as well as how the development and/or change in use of an adjacent facility will influence an approved reclamation plan (e.g. the Mueller North reclamation lake). Martin Marietta states that through the course of two previous applications they have worked with the City Utilities Department to develop groundwater models designed to show the impact of the development of both the Mueller South and Mueller North Sand and Gravel Operations. This statement implies that all potential impacts and changes to the aquifer have already been assessed by virtue of the previous modeling efforts. While the applicability of the previous modeling efforts to the current application is questionable, there is no discussion in the limestone application referencing it to the previous groundwater models. Because the limestone application is devoid of references to hydrogeology, reviewers of the limestone operation application have no basis for understanding that hydrogeology-related issues Mr. Michael Hollibaugh November 22, 2005 Page 5 may have been addressed in application materials for the Mueller North/South Sand and Gravel Operations. If previous modeling efforts are germane to the current application, then Martin Marietta should provide text in the mine plan that summarizes the previous groundwater modeling efforts, and explain how the results of the previous models are applicable to the current application. Summary We have provided a number of comments to help improve the application, and we believe that MM can amend or supplement their application so that you and the BZA can make an informed decision as to the special use variance. However, we repeat our earlier comments pertaining to Comment 5: In 'summary, the application needs to be supplemented with additional information on blasting and blasting issues. Blasting is the primary focus of public concern and complaints. To adequately assess whether there will be any detrimental impacts to the residents of Carmel as mining progresses into Mueller South, MM should provide the following: (I) all blasting studies including any isoseismic studies as noted above that would support this application, (2) an assessment of blasting impacts, and (3) and basic information that we refer to as a blasting plan. Without such information the application does not contain sufficient information to make a recommendation to the DOCS for either approval or denial of the application for a special use variance. Weare available to discuss our comments with you at your convenience. As always, we appreciate working with the City of Carmel on these important issues. Sincerely, SPECTRA ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC. rego . Sovas, P.E. Vice President of Governmental Affairs JCK/fc 0:\2001\0 1233\Applications\Muellersoulhlimestone I.doc .' I//II~ ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC. ENGINEERING. ARCHITECTURE & SURVEYING.P.C. December 9, 2005 Mr. Michael Hollibaugh Director Division of Community Services City of Carmel, City Hall One Civic Square Carmel, IN 046032 Re: Presentation of Department of Community Services Comments Regarding Review of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MM), Mueller Property South Surface Limestone Operation and Artificial Lake Application To the BZA, December 12, 2005 Dear Mr. ~ This letter summarizes Spectra Environmental Group, Inc. 's (Spectra) technical comments to the City of Carmel Department of Community Services (DOCS) during the December 12, 2005 Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meeting. Spectra's comments will provide to the BZA a sUl1uuary of our review of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., Mueller Property South Surface Limestone Operation and Artificial Lake application documents. For ease of understanding, our format will include the original comments, MM's response, and our assessment of that response. Where possible, multiple comments have been grouped into a single category for discussion. Spectra's summary is as follows: 1. Comments Regarding the Spill.Prevention. Control. and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC); Original Comments.: The SPCC Plan did not specifically mention that it covers and is. the cOlltrolling document over excavation activities on Mueller Property South. The plan also did not state whether or not it is the Mueller South sand and gravel operation that is covered by the SPCC plan or the Mueller South Limestone operation. The Updates portion of the plan was also not complete. i I I I I Response: The SPCC Plan has been appropriately updated. There are no additional concems or comments. 2. Comments Regarding Continuity of the Application Materials. Including Maps and Plans: Original Comments: The Additional Infonnation submittal for the Mueller Property South Surface Limestone Operation and Artificial Lake, dated. September 2005, is intended to ..-..'" CORPORATE OFfICE: 19 BRITISH AMERICAN BLVD. . LATHAM, NY 12110.518782.0882. FAX:518782-0973 . ...--."..--.- . "POUGHKEEPSIE OFFICE: ONE CIVIC CENTER PLAZA. SUITE 401 . POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 126lJ]-'645 454.9440. FAX: 845454-9206 --'SYRACUSE OFFICE: 307 S:'iOWNSENP STREET. SYRACUSE.Ny'fj2Q2;'j"i' 5471-2101 . FAX: 315471-2111 '-"'-. ::~___..__.____.UTlCA OFFICE, 100 LOrTlond Court. UTICA. NY 13502. 315266-0129~,,~~~.: 315 266.0192 WWW.sPtCTRAENV.COM Mr. Michael Hollibaugh December 9, 2005 Page 2 expand upon the original application materials submitted in 2002. The Additional Information, however, does not reference the original 2002 application materials or explain in any way how the current information expands on or modifies the original application. There needs to be better continuity between the two submittals. Furthermore, the Additional Information submittal explains that the existing surface limestone operation will be extended to the north to encompass Mueller Property South without providing any maps or plans to show the expansion. All plans, cross-sections and plates should indicate that that existing operation will be extended to the north to incorporate Mueller Property South. Response: Martin Marietta's response states in a detailed list how the additional information modifies the original application and how the twC) submittals are related. The text offered explaining how the two submittals are related appears sufficient to tie the two plans together. The map updates and. addition to the Notes portion of each map are sufficient to convey to the reader that the existing North Indianapolis limestone excavation area will move north toward and will eventually include the Mueller South property. 3. Comments Regarding the Erosion and Sediment Control Report. September 2005: Original Comments: The report discusses almOSt exclusively various sand and gravel operating scenarios with little or no mention of the development of a limestone operation on the Mueller South property. Since the approved sand and gravel operation is already supported by Erosion and Sediment Control Report, the most recent Erosion and Sediment Control Report should be tailored specifically to the limestone operation. The Sediment and Erosiot'l. Control Plan included with the Additional Infonnation submittal describes a mining scenario,prior to the relocation of Blue Woods Creeks, where storm water and groundwater drainage into the existing limestone operation is not yet possible (due to the presence of Blue Woods Creek). As a result, a series of sediment basins and sumps will be constructed as sediment control devices. From the proposed grades of these sediment basins, sand and gravel excavation in the northwestern portion of the Mueller South property will occur at elevations below the inverts of the sediment basins. Developing the site in this maimer may create a situation where stoOO Water collects in low areas of the excavation, which then will have to be pumped into the sediment basins. While this operating scenario may be manageable for precipitation events, the operating scenario becomes unmanageable once the excavation is lowered to the water and below. Once the water table is encountered, there will either be continuous pumping of groundwater into the sedimentation basins to maintain dry excavation conditions, or material will have to be excavated from below the water table. Operating the sand and gravel operation in this manner is not permitted under the current approval. The Mueller South sand and gravel operation has been approved as a "Dry" sand and gravel operation, where storm water runoff and groundwater discharge is to drain into the existing limestone operation. Mining below the Water table in an artificially created waterbody is not part of the Mueller South Sand and Gravel approval. For example, the Sound Level Study supporting the Mr. Michael Hollibaugh December 9, 2005 Page 3 Mueller South Sand and Gravel Operation models noise projections only for excavation equipment that operate in dry working conditions (e.g. haul trucks, front-end loaders, etc.). Equipment that can excavate material from below the water table in wet conditions (e.g. clam shell excavators, suction dredges, etc.) is not modeled in the Sound Level Study for the Mueller South Sand and Gravel Operation. Spectra recommends to DOCS that to ensure the Mueller South sand and gravel operation is conducted in accordance with the current approval for the excavation activity, Martin Marietta must commit to maintain a five (5) foot separation from the water table (i.e. five (5) feet above the water table) in all excavation areas prior to the relocation of Blue Woods Creek. Response: Martin Marietta has committed to keep all Mueller Property South excavations north of Blue Woods Creek five (5) feet above the water table until Blue Woods Creek is relocated. Spectra has informed DOCS that this commitment satisfies our concerns. 4. Comments Related to Hydrogeology: Original Comments: The question of whether or not the development of the surface limestone operation south of 1061h Street will adversely impact the anticipated reclamation lake proposed for the Mueller North Sand and Gravel Operation was asked during Spectra '8 review. Given the proximity of the reclamation lake to the Kingswood neighborhood, the integrity of the reclamation lake is of critical importance. Martin Marietta stateS thatthrough the course of two previous applications, they have worked with the City Utilities Department to develop groundwater models designed to show the impact of the development of hoth the Mueller South and Mueller North Sand and Gravel Operations. This statement implies that all potential impacts and changes to the aquifer have already been assessed by virtue of the previous modeling efforts. While the applicability of the previous modeling efforts to the current application is questionable, there is no discussion in the limestone application referencing it to the previous groundwater models. Because the limestone application is devoid of references to hydrogeology, reviewers of the limestone operation application have no basis for understanding that hydrogeology-related issues may have been addressed in application materials for the Mueller North/South Sand and Gravel Operations. If previous modeling efforts are germane to the current application, then Martin Marietta should provide text in the mine plan that summarizes the previous groundwater modeling efforts, and explain how the results of the previous models are applicable to the current application. Response: Martin Marietta provided a summary of an analysis conducted by their hydrogeologist, Dr. David R. Buss, to address the comments above. The response satisfies our concern. Mr. Michael Hollibaugh December 9, 2005 Page 4 5. Comments on Blasting. Induced Vibration and Air Ovetpressure: Original Conlments: With regard to blasting issues, Spectra stated that the application needed to be supplemented with additional information on blasting and blasting impacts because blasting.is the primary focus of public concern and complaints. More specifically, Spectra requested the following: To adequately assess whether there will be any detrimental impacts to the residents of Carmel as mining progresses into Mueller South, MM should provide the following: (1) all blasting studies including any isoseismic studies as noted above that w<??ld support this application, (2) an assessment of blasting impacts, and (3) and basic information that wecreferto as a blasting plan. Response: To accomplish its review and comment on the submission of new materials in advance ef the BZA meeting on December 12, Spectra requested that any additional information be sent at least one week before. Unfortunately, the materials sent by Martin Marietta on blasting were not sent in time for a comprehensive review even though the fi.eld work for the isoseismic study by Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc. occurred in May 2005. Therefore, our comments on the blasting studies and information submitted should be considered as preliminary. Comments On Blasting Study Martin Marietta submitted a Vibra-Tech isoseismic study dated November 30, 2005. The study explained that 151 digital seismographs were utilized for the study with the field work being done in May 2005. Although four blasts were conducted, results were given for only three of the blasts: (1) one hole signature blast ~ Signature Blast 1, (2) muJtiple~hole production blast - Production Blast 1, and (3) antindergrouhd blast - Production Blast 2. The study raises a number of concerns and questions: 1. In the first instance, the figures in Appendix A, Isoseismic Study Maps and Results, are unreadable (too small). 2. There is no key to show the locations of the seismographs with the data collected. This issue is especially important in the review of the Air Overpressure Levels (Figure A-9). 3. The Signature Blast (Figure A-6) shows that 25% of the frequency readings are below 10 hz and over 50% below 20 hz, yet there is no discussion of the relevance of this fact and its impact upon residential structures. Pages 8-12 discuss natural frequencies of structures in this range. 4. With regard to Production Blast 1, most of the readings are at 20 hz or below. There is no discussion of the relevance ofthi5 fact (9 below 10 Hz). Mr. Michael Hollibaugh December 9, 2005 Page 5 5. With regard to Air Overpressure Levels from Production Blast 1 (Figure A-9), as indicated above, there is no way to read and understand the locations of the seismographs without a key. However, assuming that the left side of the chart are locations in and along the property line of the quarry, there are still a number of readings above 120 dB, a level that will generate complaints. It is also a level that Vibra-Tech has indicated in previous technical papers where efforts should be lTIade to reduce air overpressure to no more than 120 dB. Assessment of Blasting Impacts The report does conclude on page 18 that blasting at Mueller South will not exceed 0.5 in/sec. However, the report makes .no assessment for improvement of blasting impacts except to conclude that all ground vibrations and air overpressure values were within the USBM recommended limits. Please note that blasting standards are designed to eliminate sttuctural damage. Spectra has contended that blasting standards alone will not mitigate blasting complaints from Carmel residents because of the interrelationship of ground vibration and the frequency ofthe blasts as well as air overpressure. Therefore, there needs to be a discussion of the blasting impacts, the relevance of the results noted above, and the improvements to the blasting design program. In other isoseismic studies where we have been involved, there have been recommendations on the blasting design, particularly the timing of delays, to increase desttuctive interference of frequencies and avoid the natural resonance frequencies of most structures. There is no discussion whatsoever of projected improvements of surface production blasting with millisecond delays although there is a reference on page 18 that implies that a different delay was employed in the underground Production Blast 2 (the majority of the frequency data fell above 30 hz) in comparison to the Signature Blast. Blasting Plan Spectra has indicated that basic information on blasting and Martin Marietta's intentions with regard to blasting are needed to help the public understand the issues. Some basic information on the location of seismographs, timing and frequency, and size of blasts would be helpful. We could not find this information as requested, although we consider this infonnation not critical to making a recommendation to the BZA. Summary and Conclusions While Spectra appreciates the efforts of Martin Marietta, we continue to have conCems on substantive issues including blasting and. its impacts. Spectra cannot support the current application without additional information, as noted above, to mitigate impacts upon the residents of Carmel. Simply assigning a maximum peak particle velocity threshold will not eliminate blasting complaints. The Signature Blast in the isoseismic study indicates that the rock responds to induced vibration in a frequency centered on 10Hz. With no information to the contrary, we conclude that all efforts should be made to increase the frequency of the production blast-induced vibrations above the natural frequency of residential structures. I ".1 Mr. Michael Hollibaugh December 9, 2005 Page 6 If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me or Jason Kappel at (518) 782- 0882. Sincerely, SPECTRA ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC. I. ..~ I Gre ory H. Sovas, P .E. Vice President of Governmental Affairs A.1:::!:: Hydrogeologist GHS/JCK/fc 0:\2001 \0 1233\Applicatiolls\MuellersoulhlimestoneBZA- final.doc The Vibration Monitoring Experts 109 E. First Street, P.o. Box 577, Hazleton, PA 18201 570-455-5861 FAX 570-455-0626 February 8, 2006 Mr. Gregory H. Sovas Spectra Environmental Group, Inc. 19 British American Blvd. Latham, NY 12110 Re: Response to Spectra Comments on Martin Marietta application Dear Greg: The intent of this letter is to respond to questions and comments in Spectra's Dec. 9,2005 letter to Mike Hollibaugh. As you know, we have been working with the Martin Marietta North Indianapolis facility on 96th St. in Carmel, In. on blasting issues for some time now and, as a result, have extensive knowledge of both its blasting practices and the recorded impacts from them. We have found Martin Marietta to be in compliance with all applicable blasting standards by a wide margin, and its current blasting practices to be better than most operations that I have been involved with. Thus, in terms of compliance, we did not find any areas where Martin Marietta needed to change its blasting practices either to comply with the law or to meet industry standards. Marietta asked us, however, to go beyond the legal requirements and industry norms and see if we could identify any changes that could be made to its blasting practices that would improve them and further minimize any potential impacts on surrounding properties. Additionally, we have been asked to respond to specific questions in your letter of Dec. 9, 2005. Our recommendations, and our responses to your letter, are as follows: Air Overpressure Based on our review of blasting records at Martin Marietta's North Indianapolis facility, air overpressure measurements were in compliance with Bureau of Mines and other regulatory criteria and at a level that would not be damaging to any property. Neighbors often confuse air overpressure with ground vibration, however, and it thus affects their perception of the severity of a blast. As a result, when air overpressure is greater they tend to think that the blast is more severe, even though its overall effect may be less severe than another blast. Your letter suggests that it is desirable to keep air overpressure below 120 dB, and, as a general proposition, Vi bra-Tech always counsels our clients that this is a good target. It must be recognized, however, that air overpressure is not entirely within the operator's control and thus this target level cannot always be achieved. We were asked by Martin Marietta to review its blasting practices to make recommendations on how this target level could generally be met and have done so. In our experience, air overpressure levels can often be reduced by minimizing the venting of stemming material in the shot, which can likely be accomplished by increasing the amount of stemming material utilized. Appendix A contains our calculations and recommendations in that regard. From our review of Martin Marietta's blasting, we learned that the contract driller sometimes over drills holes by 5 to 8 feet. The holes are then back filled with fines to the correct depth. The consequence of this procedure is that when explosives are loaded into the hole this material may compact. This excessive subdrill can lead to uneven floors, increased vibration, and more fractured rock in the top part of the bench to follow. This more fractured rock can lead to oversize as well as increased potential for venting of the shot into the atmosphere, thus increasing air overpressure readings. Better control on borehole depth and inclination will help to reduce ground vibration and air overpressure effects for future blasts. We recommend that Martin Marietta require the driller to maintain tighter control on the overdrill, log the actual depth of the hole prior to backfilling and then backfill with crushed stone (not fines) if necessary. Air overpressure effects can also be affected by atmospheric conditions, such as increased wind speeds in the direction of residential neighborhoods. In addition, thermal inversions can cause air overpressure energy to be reflected back into the community at greater distances. Although we know Martin Marietta personnel already take account of weather conditions in connection with blasting, it may be useful to monitor the wind speed and direction for correlation with air overpressure effects to help identify adverse conditions for blasting. If, for example, a certain wind direction is consistently associated with higher overpressure readings that would be instructive. In addition, there are weather forecasting services available for predicting unfavorable conditions such as thermal inversions. Vibra- Tech has provided information on monitoring wind speed and direction, as well as the weather forecasting to Martin Marietta. Results of this effort will most likely be realized over time as data is collected and trends or tendencies are identified, reviewed, and new procedures implemented. Ground Vibration Freauencies Some areas in the surrounding communities exhibit lower frequency ground vibrations than others. These lower frequencies can contribute to elevated structural response if the amplitude is high enough and the ground vibration frequency matches the natural frequency of the structure. Additionally, lower frequencies may contribute to the perception that a given blast is more severe than others. As a result, it is generally desirable to increase the frequency of the wave generated by blasting. As your letter correctly notes, delay times can be used to increase destructive interference, and our recommendations in that regard are given in Appendix B. This appendix also contains our recommendations for delay design to minimize the overall effects of surface blasting. Martin Marietta may also want to consider the use of electronic detonators if it has difficulty getting the blasts to detonate as designed, but as you know from past experiences they are not absolutely necessary. We do understand, however, that Martin Marietta is already testing electronic detonators to see if they can be utilized to minimize impacts from blasting at the North Indianapolis facility . Monitorine: Locations Monitoring of the air overpressure and ground vibrations will be a necessary part of understanding the effects of on-going blasting operations, as well as community relations and compliance. The enclosed map in Appendix C shows our recommended locations for remote seismic monitors. Vibra-Tech has already installed these monitors and currently downloads and reviews the data on a shot by shot basis. I hope that this additional information answers many of the questions Spectra had in Dec. 9, 2005 letter to Mike Hollibaugh. Respectfully submitted, VIBRA- TECH ENGINEERS, INC. ~~ Douglas Rudenko, P G Vice President Appendix A Stemming Recommendations The Vibration Monitoring Experts 109 E. First S.treet, P.o. Box 577, Hazleton, PA 18201 570-455-5861 FAX 570-455-0626 Martin Marietta Aggregates, Inc. Indianapolis Operation January 12,2006 SCALED DEPTH OF BURIAL CALCULATIONS Explosive Type: Apex Gold Explosive Density (d): 1.25 glee Explosive Diameter (De): 5.5 in. Typical Stemming Heights: 8 to 15 ft. A length of 10 explosive diameters = (5.5"/12") x 10 = 4.58 ft. Weight of explosive per foot of borehole = 0.34 x (Dei X d = 0.34 x (5.5i x 1.25 = 12.85 Iblft Weight of explosive in 10 diameters (W) = 4.58 ft x 12.85 Iblft = 58.85 Ibs W1I3 = 58.851/3 = 3.881b1l3 D = distance from surface to center of defined charge = Stemming + ~(4.58) = 8 + 2.29 = 10.29 ft. Scaled Depth of Burial (SO) = D/W1I3 = 10.29/3.88 = 2.65 (Review Figure A2) Suppose we want a Scaled Depth of Burial = 4.0 (for airblast suppression) SO = D/W1/3 ~ D = SO X W1I3 = (4) x (3.88) = 15.52 ft - 2.29 ft. = 13.2 ft. of stemming A Stone Currently hold 8.5 to 9 feet of stemming with plug, 10 to 12 feet on front row. 13 ft. of stemming would be the minimum suggested stemming height for all holes. At the blaster's discretion more could be utilized if conditions encountered during drilling warrant more for a particular hole Stemming heights should be increased 25 to 30% for wet holes. D Stone Currently hold 16+ feet of stemming. This is amount is adequate. Will monitor and advise. Appendix B Vibra-Map Recommendations Vibra-Map Technique Theory of Technique Research conducted by the USBM, foreign groups, and individual scientists has shown that low frequency vibrations have the most potential for causing structural response and therefore typically generate the most complaints. Field blasting seismology has shown that sites producing low frequency vibrations are commonly associated with thick soil overburdens or thick sequences of rock having low seismic velocity. In addition, ground vibrations may be multiply reflected by subsurface interfaces between geologic strata, including a shallow water table or fault planes. These reflections often result in low frequency vibrations. It is an intuitive fact that the geology of a site directly affects the characteristic of the seismic signal. In October of 1983 Vibra- Tech Engineers, Inc. was awarded a mining research contract by the USBM to study the effects of geology on surface mine blasting. The research was completed in 1985 and is detailed in a Mining Research Contract Report entitled "Geologic Factors Affecting Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting". Research conducted during this study shows that the seismic signal from a single-hole blast recorded in the near field (< 100 feet) is an impulsive spike. But as the source signal moves away from the blast site, it is transformed by the geology along the travel path. A seismometer in the far field (> 300 feet) would measure how the geology has transformed the impulse spike. Figure 1 below shows how the geologic transformation function operates. NEAR FIELD 100 FT. FAR FIELD 1000 FT. GEOLOGY ~ INPUT GEOLOGIC Y RESPONSE .. OUTPUT Figure 1. Geologic Transformation of Impulse Spike The study further showed that two identical single hole blasts would produce reproducible time histories and frequency spectra for a specific seismometer location. Since a single hole waveform is a reproducible event, it is reasonable that the seismic signature from a multi-hole production blast can be predicted by summing a series of single hole waveforms that have been time-lagged at intervals corresponding to delay times from the production blast. Figure 2 below shows how a synthetic seismogram for an 8-hole production blast can be created using this technique. I' -~""--::'''-P,,-~,::::7"''-C::;'- ,__ j,~~'--.;;,-:;---r-'-.~ -.-..r.-.------r- -,-.-.------, ----I --....----"'p-.=..-.;...~r,.-~.~.~:O"""'_~.--r__....-_----I......-. ---r-- - ...+-- -- '1- __ - I '-' __ ~ L..- _..... I _ _; --~"t-_.-.-. -"'-1 ---t--'~---"-""1_""~~....:..r----~-..:::>t""~~-~'_'_____r- ._---t-'~ - . -t-.-- - I -.n.t- ..-.... +- - .---+----:.-,....-I""-~-:;.,,.,.:-:'.......1_-~.;.T~~-.......,....;:r4..-..::.--"'_-.-t-,_;-____ --r---..--. t----- '--1""--- ---..j ,. - -r_ - 1~._ oj. - I - nlle SHFT -. - -t--.- --t-----T- -. ----1--A....~-'i.,. =~ .... ;", r-~l......~--""-<..~---=--.~.....--.--.~.--,-..._.. 1- - -t t------t-- -" ;-----~....-=:-..._;_~~"'="F-....~----..l.;-_...::;.:.-_t_---~-..-~----_1 RESULTANT a.HOU! SYNTHETIC ~MOGRAM I r "\.1 '\Jr-""Iv-'f',./~^\..J"""""',...J'--""'\./'-""".........../I',-,-.......--_ .1 41 ~1 ~2 ~3 ~4 0.5 O~ Q7 TIME, see 4- 0.8 0.9 Figure 2. Creation of Synthetic Seismogram from Time Lagged Single-Hole Waveforms The predicted waveforms were compared to measured waveforms. The comparisons showed that the character (frequency content & duration) of the waveforms was similar. Since manipulation of blast delay times proved to be successful, it is possible to choose optimal blast delay times that produce minimal adverse vibrations. An optimum delay time would be one that creates destructive (out-of-phase) interference between the seismic signals from adjacent blast holes. A signal processing technique known as autocorrelation determines the correlation of a time lagged version of the original signal with the signal itself. The autocorrelation function can be used to calculate a lag (delay) time when adjacent single holes would be out-of-phase (minimum correlation) or in- phase (maximum correlation). The Figure 3 below illustrates this concept. AUTOCORRELA TlON OF SINGLE HOLE 61 PEAK CONTSTRUCTlVE INTERFERENCE ~~-----=~~~ ~-'---- -......-- ,~ I 31 PEAK DESTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 TIME, see Figure 3. Autocorrelation Function Used to Calculate Lag Time It can be seen from the figure above that a 61 ms delay interval between holes in a production blast would produce in-phase or constructive vibrations. Conversely, 31 ms delay between holes would create out-of-phase or destructive interference. TheVibra-Map technique is a powerful, site specific method developed by Vibra-Tech to show the effect of various delay intervals on the predicted frequency spectra for a production blast. The technique convolutes a single hole frequency spectrum with the delay-time frequency spectrum. The result ofthis convolution is a Fourier spectrum of a synthetic waveform created by a constant delay interval. The Fourier spectrum for the waveform is plotted horizontally across the page. The delay interval is then incremented by 4 ms, a new synthetic waveform is created, and the Fourier spectrum of this new waveform is plotted horizontally across the page on the next line down. This process is repeated for an entire range of delay intervals. The horizontal axis of these plots represents vibration frequency, the vertical axis is delay interval, and the relative intensity of the color is proportional to the amplitude of the spectrum with the warmer colors (red- yellow) corresponding to maximum Fourier amplitudes, and cooler colors (blue - white) corresponding to minimum Fourier amplitudes. This procedure is repeated in trial and error computer simulation of the ground vibration characteristics at each of the seismometer locations of concern for each desired blast configuration. Blast timing patterns which enhance the ground's low natural frequency vibration can produce geologic resonance. This resonance can increase ground peak particle velocity, vibration duration, and predicted structUral response. Proper selection of delay intervals in the production blasting can minimize the energy at or .rtear these natural frequencies of the ground, reducing ground vibration duration, peak particle velocity, . and structural. response. The final Vibra-Map. recommendations represent the singular :result of optimizing the vibration effects for all locations simultaneously. The ultimate goal of a vibration control program is to avoid ground vibrations that closely ma.tch the natural frequency of nearby structures. By avoiding constructive interference at the resonant frequency of each particular location, vibration amplitude and duration may be reduced. In this way, the Vibra-Map addresses all three contributors to structural response: ground vibration frequency, amplitude, and duration. Discussion of Vibra-Map Analysis One single hole blast was detonated on the Northeast wall of the A-Stone bench of the North Indianapolis Quarry on May 20, 2005; Since the Vibra-Map calculations are dependent on the source:-receiver path, the placement of the single hole charge is an important parameter. The placement of the single hole charge was determined by Martin Marietta Aggregates personnel in consultation with Vibra-Tech, so as to optimize the coverage for current and future quarrying operations. The exact location of the single hole charge was determined by Vibra-Tech Engineers personnel using a Garmin GPS-12. The blast location is shown on the most recent high altitude photograph of the region, which has been geo-referenced to Indiana State Plane, East Zone, NAD27 and is included as Figure A-I of Appendix A of the IsoSeismic report. The location of the single hole signature blast of May 20, 2005 is given according to the coordinates in Table I. Vibra- Tech has performed the Vibra-Map calculations for the signature blast at the request of Martin Marietta Aggregates. The data will be stored by Vibra-Tech for use in Vibra-Map calculations of other blast designs in the future if desired. T bl I E L fS. BI F. d M 20 2005 a e . xact ocatlOn 0 Ignature ast Ire on ay , Signature Shot Location Northing Easting Blast No. 1 NE Wall, Bench Level A 887129.19 383983.02 Recommendations In making the Vibra-Map calculations we have assumed that blast designs will accommodate a desire to maximize the tonnage fragmented during each production blast. Each hole will contain two loaded decks with bench heights at 90 feet, and a hole diameter of 5 ~ inches. Blast hole spacing and burden for production blasting is 12 feet by 12 feet. These designs also assume that electronic detonators will be used to detonate the explosives as currently used by the explosive contractor. Because Vibra-Map employs destructive interference between individual blasthole vibrations, better results may often be achieved by increasing the number of holes in a row. The Vibra-Map calculations are intended to reduce not only structural response but also geological response. As such, the duration of the ground vibrations will not necessarily increase when the duration of the blast increases. For the Signature Blast detonation, the Vibra-Map plots indicate that a delay interval of either 16 ms, 12 ms, or 24 ms between 2 decks per hole (please refer to Appendix B for the recommended firing times) would significantly reduce the high Fourier amplitudes at the low frequencies. The Vibra-Map builds upon these findings to determine the optimum row delay interval to minimize the Fourier amplitudes in the frequency range that residential structures vibrate, and at the frequencies that the site vibrates. The corresponding best inter-hole delay times for a production blast with holes delayed as listed are 52 ms, 52 ms, and 32 ms. It was also determined from the Vibra-Map plots that the best inter-row delay intervals are 80 ms, 80 ms, and 84 ms. A table listing the Vibra- Map recommended firing times for the single hole shot is given on the following page. Also attached to the end of this appendix are shot timing diagrams for the recommended delay times. MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES - 96TH ST. NORTH INDIANAPOLIS QUARRY SIGNATURE SHOT VIBRA-MAP~ RECOMMENDATIONS*, ** ELECTRONIC DELAY TIMES Signature Blast from May 20, 2005 Number of Explosive Decks Number of Blastholes per Row Number of Rows in Shot per Hole Recommended Delay Interval Recommended Delay Recommended Delaylnterval Interval 2 Decks @ 16ms 12 Holes @ 52ms 2 Rows @ 80ms 2 Decks @ 12ms 12 Holes @ 52ms 2 Rows @ 80ms 2 Decks @ 24ms** 12 Holes @ 32ms** 2 Rows@ 84ms** *When more than one set of delays is given for a signature blast, the order in which they are presented is the order ofpreference. ** These delay time sets result in 2 decks per delay As blasting progresses away from the test areas, seismograph recordings of the ground vibration must be analyzed to verify the effectiveness of the Vibra-Map recommendations. Should the effectiveness of the Vibra-Map delays be compromised by moving too far from the original test locations, new signature blasts may be required. Similarly, if new benches or faces are opened, the vibration signatures at the locations around the quarry may change. Only by firing and recording a new signature blast in the new material may this effect be evaluated. The Vibra-Map recommended firing times may lose their effectiveness if the blasthole pattern deviates from that used in the Vibra-Map calculations. Thorough planning prior to drilling blast patterns is required to fully utilize the vibration control provided by the Vibra-Map service. Assumptions and Definitions The following are the assumptions and definitions that the Vi bra-map technique uses. Weare clarifying them here so that there is no misunderstanding about the application of the method. . The method assumes that delays remain constant during the shot. At present we cannot determine the optimum delays for shots with variable delay times, such as may be achieved with some of the more recent initiation systems. . The calculations assume the same number of columns in each hole and the same number of holes in each row. Small changes in the basic pattern will make little difference; however, an extremely irregular shot may generate different vibration than that produced by the designs recommended in this report. Large blasts (many holes) are more tolerant of small deviations in blast pattern; smaller blasts require care and planning to adhere to the Vibra-Map recommendations and optimize results. . Multiples of a particular delay interval are not equivalent to that delay interval. For example, if we recommend 25 ms between holes in a row, 50 ms initiators should not be used in their place. Multiples of a recommended delay interval are often much worse than the suggested interval. . The calculations assume equal charge weight per delay. Small differences (10 to 15 percent) will have little effect on the results. However, if substantial differences are made between column charges, that information will be needed for the calculations. . We recommend that an accurate initiation system which is consistent with other blasting requirements should be used. Standard accuracy delay detonators can have ranges of firing times of approximately ::1:.7 percent compared with high accuracy detonators which have a range of::1:.2 percent. This means that a 500 ms standard delay detonator could fire anywhere between 465 to 535 ms, whereas a high accuracy delay detonator could fire anywhere between 490 to 510 ms. Electronic detonators have even a much higher degree of accuracy. Predictable vibrations are only achieved through more accurate firing times. Thus, an increase in the accuracy of the firing times yields an increase in profitability of the Vibra-Map technique. .,.. .'.. Disclaimers . The recommendations regarding blast delays are based upon a superposition of vibration waves generated by individual charge detonations and filtered through the geologic medium. The recommended delays do not account for changes in burden, spacing, depth, powder factor, etc., that may be necessary to accommodate these delay intervals. Failure to properly adjust these other variables may totally negate the advantage of using the recommended charge delays. . The blast design which incorporates these recommendations remains the responsibility of the blasting contractor. All aspects of the blast design, including burden, spacing, geometry, and delays, as well as consideration for geological variations, are the responsibility of the blaster-in-charge and explosives contractor. In the event that the blasting contractor has any reservations regarding the incorporation these delays in his blasting plan, Vibra- Tech disavows the recommendation of these delays and advises using the blaster's professional judgment. . Although we have recommended delays which we feel are consistent with good production practice, we will neither take credit for improvements, nor accept blame for decreases in productivity. . Due to the hundreds of variables for which only the blaster has control, Vibra- Tech cannot, and will not, assume responsibility for the results ofthe blasting. Vibra-Tech has recommended charge delays for use by the blaster only if these recommendations fit within the parameters he sees necessary for proper and safe blasting. Signature Shot: Example layout - 16 ms between 2 decks, 52ms between 12 holes, and 80 ms between 2 rows. 08 I l 6 - 88 20 --- 72 - - 24- 6 )88 ~96 6-- 4B- 00- 52- 04- 56- 08-- 60- 12-- 64-- -'-6 - 68- Signature Shot: Example layout - 12 IDS between 2 decks, 52ms between 12 holes, and 80 IDS between 2 rows. -< P ~2 04 56 008 760 312 364 416 468 ~20 572 H'2- 64 .'6- -6.8- ?20- - 772 ~24 376 428 480 532 584 I I SO n32 84 ?36 288 340 r392 444 ~96 548 600 1)52 ~-2 n44- .S6---b48 -300 ~52 ~O4 456 p08 560 ~12 S64 Signature Shot: Example layout - 24 ms between 2 decks, 32ms between 12 holes, and 84 IDS between 2 rows. 4 8 20 52 84 16 48 "80-- T2-lf4-. 76- -og- 40- 72- -04- -3-6-$8--. -OO-J2- ~64-'-----SB--28- --s'o-- I I Appendix C Recommendations for Seismic Monitors :.:: ICEt1ILLERLLP LEGAL COUNSel February 22, 2006 WRl1'ER's DIRECI'NUMIlER: (317)236-2319 DIRECT FAX: (317) 592-4788 INTERNET: Zeff.Wciss@icemiller.com VIA E-MAIL: mhoIlibaugb@carmel.in.gov- Mr. Michael Hollibaugh, Director Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 RE: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Application for Special Exception Your Docket No. 05090003 SU Dear Mike: This is in follow up to our conferences held in your office yesterday morning in respect of the above referenced Application. As you know, DOCS issued its staff report on this Application just prior to the hearing scheduled for December 12,2005. That staff report was favorable and indicated that Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. ("Martin Marietta"), as "Applicant", had satisfied all issues raised by DOCS in respect of its application, other than with respect to blasting. As you know from our previous discussions, it is the position of Martin Marietta that the City 'of Carmel and DOCS are preempted in respect of the regulation of blasting as blasting is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Indiana Department of Homeland Security. We previously provided you correspondence in this respect from Mara Snyder. the Director of Legal and Code Services of the Indiana Department of Homeland Security. I I. I I I I I I I I , I I I I j I I I i I ! I Notwithstanding the fact that the issue of blasting is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Indiana Department of Homeland Security, Martin Marietta has worked diligently since well before December of 2005 to provide voluntary commitments to address the various issues and concerns about blasting raised by DOCS and its consultant, Spectra Environmental. Martin Marietta has attempted to respond to all inquiries of DOCS and Spectra, as more. particularly articulated in Spectra's letters dated November 22 and December 9,2005. Martin Marietta has also provided additional information from its consultant, Vibra-Tech. as most recently updated pursuant to Vibra-Tech's letter dated February 8. 2006. Today, Martin Marietta committed to adopt the.5 ppv level in your own ordinance, which, of course, was half the original level of 1.0 inches/see that Spectra had found acceptable. Yesterday morning we were advised by DOCS and Spectra that it was unwilling to articulate any objective standard by which Martin Marietta's blasting practices could be measured or otherwise deemed acceptable. Rather. DOCS and Spectra adviseq that it would be necessary to show that the implementation of the recommendations made by Vibra- Tech had lowered blasting impacts. even though the current level of impacts complies with all applicable blasting regulations, including those in the City's now enjoined Mining Regulation Ordinance. Further, Spectra could not tell us what that lower level is, other than to say it needs to be less than some un articulated level. One American Square I Suile 3100 I Indianapolis, IN 46282.0200 I P 317.236.2100 I F 317-236-2219 INDIANAPOLIS I CHICAGO I NAPERVILLE I WASHINGTON D.C. www.icemilJer.com I 1 i I I , I ! , As we advised you, we believe this to be inappropriate and ill advised, and likely contrary to law. This standard effectively penalizes a company that has done a good job, requiring it to adhere to a lower February 22, 2006 Page 2 of2 standard than a company that has done a worse job and caused greater impacts. Further, it has become clear that DOCS, together with its consultant, Spectra, has adopted, as the lower standard, some subjective, presently unknown standard promulgated by the representatives of the Kingswood Subdivision Mining Task Force. Although it is unclear, it appears nothing will be acceptable unless Martin Marietta can demonstrate that the impacts from blasting will improve over those which are presently perceived by persons in the Kingswood Subdivision. Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to standards, in the plural, because there is no one standard, but rather a near endless choice depending on which Kingwood resident's perception is the guiding light on any given day. This subjective approach ignores several principals. First, Martin Marietta's performance should be measured against applicable law, which would include state law as well as any applicable local regulation. Further, the same should be considered in the context of the existing lawful activities of Martin Marietta adjacent to the property which is the subject of this Application, as well as industry standards. Martin Marietta meets or exceeds these requirements by any reasonable measure. Specifically, the existing operations of Martin Marietta, as well as those proposed in the subject Application, meet or exceed the standards articulated by the Carmel City Council in its most recently adopted Mining Regulation Ordinance. This is an expression by the applicable legislative body as to what it deems to be reasonable standards. These standards have been voluntarily adopted by Martin Marietta in its proposed Statement of Commitments submitted in respect of this Application. We believe that the position of DOCS to the effect that Martin Marietta must demonstrate a lowering of its already lawful blasting impacts, as opposed to evaluating the Application in the context of the applicable law and ordinance, constitutes an abuse of discretion. Regulation and implementation of laws by government should be clear and objectively applied. The inability or unwillingness of DOCS to articulate acceptable blasting standards or limits in connection with this Application fails to meet that requirement. Thus, we believe the actions of DOCS in this regard to be inappropriate and unlawful as applied. Mike, we don't write this letter just to complain. Government has a duty to both sides of a matter such as this. Martin Marietta, not just Kingswood, deserves fair treatment at the hands of the government. We have never been intransigent, and have instead worked diligently to address all of the concerns raised by Spectra and DOCS, only to have an unknown and unknowable standard thrown up that Martin Marietta must somehow meet. This is fundamentally unfair and we hereby respectfully request that DOCS reconsider its decision to cease trying to develop an acceptable set of commitments and/or standards. Very truly yours, ZAW/sd cc: John Tiberi (via e-mail) Yvonne Bailey (via e-mail) Wayne Phears (via e-mail) John Molitor (via e-mail) INDY 1693733v.l I. i I i JAIViR'l BRAINARD, MAYOR February 27,2006 Mr. ZeffWeiss ICE MILLER One American Square Indianapolis, IN 46282 RE: Docket No. 05090003 SU - Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Dear Zeff: I am writing in response to your letter dated February 22, 2006, which was, in effect, an attempt at revisionist history that needs to be clarified for the record. Let me start by attempting to address your characterization qfthe DecOO1ber 12; 2005 Department Report. Please recall there were a number of unresolved issues in the Martin Marietta petition that were raised by the Department of Community Services'mining consultant, Spectra Environmental Group, in their November 22, 2005, and December 9, 2005 letters. The "favorable" indication you suggest would only come if all outstanding issues, especially including blasting impacts, were satisfactorily addressed to ensure negative impacts to nearby residential areas would not be increased. if the mine were allowed to expand by moving closer to them. Had Martin Mariettatirnely provided the City with previously requested data and a plan for blasting, it was possible that a favotablerecommendation would be forthcoming from the Department. The 2005 Spectra letters raised important issues and asked questions of basic and advanced mining operational issues necessary to help the City understand potential negative impacts on nearby residential areas. Y OlJt claim that Martin Marietta has attempted to respond to all inquiries by DOCS and Spectra, is, at best, partly true, as you fail to mention the timeliness or quality of those responses, nor do you mention the piecemeal fashion in which Martin Marietta has built their submittals, that required the City to respond with more questions, in an effort to construct a complete record of understanding of the overall project. Regardless of your insistence the City has no jurisdiction regarding blasting, the City Will not cease to ask questions about potential impacts from blasting on nearby residential areas. Our attempts to obtain data from Martin Marietta regarding this petition have not been an attempt to regulate blasting, but merely to better understand a proposal for a land use that includes blasting which will occur near to single-family residences, and to ensure the appropriateness of that proposed land use. Without a full understanding of what Martin Marietta is proposing, how is it possible for the Department to make a favorable recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals? Without a full understanding of blasting impacts, how is it DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 PHONE 317.571.2417, FAX 317.571.2426 MrCHAl'L p, HOUJBAUGH, DmECTOR '. February 27,2006 Page 2 of2 possible for the Board to make an infonned decision, especially one with such known interest by nearby homeowners who alrea.dy experience blasting impacts from the nearby 96th Street operation? ' The initial submittal from Martin Marietta to mine Mueller south through the use of explosives, contained but one small paragraph on blasting, casually stating it would have no negative impact on nearby residences. However, data eventually provided by Martin Marietta in response to the Spectra letters indicates that adjustments in bhlstingpmctices will result in reduced itnpacts on nearby residential areas. . The adjustments to Peak Particle Velodty (PPV) suggested by Martin Marietta represent a fraction of the equation for reducing the negative impacts on nearby residences. By focusing on this one issue, PPV, it is an over sitnplification of the issues and a piecemeal response characteristic of Martin Marietta in this process. The City hired Spectra in 2001 to assist in our review and understanding of the Martin Marietta operation and to bring knowledge of mining best practices to the expansion discussion. Since that time, through three BZA petitions for various mining special use requests, many of the ideas and recommendations from. Spectra to improve the operation and minimize negative impacts to the nearby established residential neighborhoods have been proven appropriate and correct by Martin Marietta, much to their advantage. I belit;we the Department of Community Services has consistently worked with you to develop a petition technically sufficient for BZA consideration, by asking .pertinent questions and requestmgapplicable data. We have dedicated many hours of staff time and spent thousands of dollars on consulting morder to gain a better understandillg ofthe important issues associated with your request. We have been accessible to meet with you on very short time frames in order to work through issues on this and the other Martin Marietta petitions. Your complaint of 'Unfair treatmentby DOCS, when combined with your attempt to embellish Martin Marietta's record on this petition, appears to be more an effort to intimidate the Department into a position more favorable to your world view, with little regard for being a good neighbor. Yours truly, ~./ Michael Hollibaugh Copy: Mayor Jim Brainard Greg SOV3$ John Tiberi BZA file