HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence
BOSE
McKINNEY
&EVANSLLP
Bryan H. Babb
Downtown Office
Direct Dial (317) 684-5172
Direct Fax (317) 223-0172
E-Mail: BBabb@boselaw.com
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
April 24, 2007
'Michael Hollibaugh
CITY OF CARMEL
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. City of Carmel, et al.
Dear Mike:
Pursuant to our recent emails, enclosed is a CD containing the Certified Record.
BHB:co
Enclosure
881673/8824.0059
)J^
-
LiJftl
t'.(.- '1,1/ ~
.s HJ4IIJ,
J~
;hf,''!-- h~
V\7
~l
,.-
. ---
:....
~
RECEIVED
APr ~,._,
"DOCS
/
/
I '
',~/ -~~
I .-
,
Downtown . 2700 First Indiana Plaza . 135 North Pennsylvania Street '. Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 . (317) 684-5000 . Fax (317) 684-5173
North Office' 600 East 96th Street. Suite 500 . Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 . (317) 684-5300 . Fax (317) 684-5316
Washington Office . 700 North One Lafayette Centre . 1120 20th Street N.W. . Washington, D.C. 20036 . (209) 973-1229 . Fax (202l 973-1212
www.boselaw.com
City of Carmel/Clay Township
Department of C011Jmunity Services
One Civic Square; Carmel, IN 46032
Planning & Zoning Office: ph. (317) 571-2417 Fax (317) 571-2426
Building & Code Enforcement: Ph. (317) 571-2444 Fax (317) 571-2499
REQUEST FOR RECORDS PURSUANT TO INDIANA ACCESS TO PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT - (I.e. 5-14-3..1, et seq., As Amended).
I, 2 e ~ ~ VV e... i s s , hereby request of the City of
(NAME OPTIONAL - please print)
Carmel, Indiana, the right to inspect and/or copy the following records:
(Please be specific as to what records you are looking for/requesting, and list the correct property information)
V,\Jeo +a.'f-€- /flell d'l~ 200t, ~?A
Date of Request: S - \ \ - 0 )0 Signature:
THE CITY MAY PR.OVIDE ME WITH
CI By telephone at:
(J By facsimile transmission at:
a By mail at:
~ Other: (!rJ..J.A. \ wI w/I/ (? iJe Cr4f'
OFFICE US~:! ,,~
Received by: Lon 111 c: / / 'Lo.! e y Dept: /) 0 ~s
~rint) . :::J
Signature: ~ ~ Date:.5-;;l-tJ,t, Time: ~
Sent to Legal Department by: On:
Received in Legal Department by:
On:
FILLED WITHOUT NOllFlCATION TO LEGAL DEPT.:@ N DATE FILlED: .5-/;)- 0 ~ staff !nIt. (2.){-
S:Fonns I Request for Informatkln Form
City of Carmel/Clay Township
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square; Carmel, IN 46032
Planning & Zoning Office: ph. (317) 571-2417 Fax (317) 571-2426
Building & Code Enforcement: Ph. (317) 571-2444 Fax (317) 571-2499
REQUEST FOR RECORDS PURSUANT TO INDIANA ACCESS TO PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT - (I.C. 5-14-3-1, et seq., As Amended).
I, ZE:FF- A- u.J~IS$. , hereby request of the City of
(NAME OPTIONAL -- please print)
Carmel, Indiana, the right to inspect and/or copy the following records:
(Please be specific as to what records you are looking for/requesting, and list the correct property information)
VJ&lo ~ ~ b:l~ J.fl(, dCJoG ~M j,.p~-
M~~ k1-
Date of Request: ''1 r;2( -0 h
Signature:
~
THE CITY MAY PROVIDE ME WITH ITS
D By telephone at:
D By facsimile transmission at:
D By mail at:
~ Other:
OFFICE USE:
Received by~n VI i e ;;; Ie 'Xj
(print), . (
Signature: ~:, ~~
Sent to Legal Department by:
Dept: Do C S
Date: L/~~/-O~ Time: ~ :Lf~ ~
V
On:
Received in Legal Department by:
04 _I
': J.., c_'! ~ ',) '" _
~_' '.J i \...' _ . --.' -
;\ L \')
FILLED WITHOUT NOTIFICATION TO LEGAL DEPT.: Y I N ATE FIll.. ff l'
..,.,..."...
taft Init._
S:Forms I Request for Information Form
Q
:.:
ICEt11 LLERLL.P
Q
LEGAL COUNSEL
April 20, 2006
WIU'I'ER'S DIRECT NUMBER: (317) 236-2319
DIRECT FAX: (317) S92-4788
INTERNET: Zetf.Wciss@iccmillcr.com
7i:/\\~ ' ~/;,
/' \ ',' "
VIAE-MAIL /,' ~~' /'\.,
Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals /f . Rt.ct\'@) \\
c/o Department of Community Services ("- " t'J' I)~~~ \ ' ,
I,' ~~~c. c.; ! J
Attn: Mike Hollibaugh, Angelina Conn \','_ f\"~S / j
One Civic Square - vv\J
Carmel, IN 46032 ". ...,?/'
~. ,\ /
RE: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Mueller South - Surface Limestone .~//
Docket No. 0509003 SU
Ladies and Gentlemen:
In furtherance of the Application for a Special Use Permit by Martin Marietta Materials,
Inc. ("Martin Marietta") to permit surface limestone mining on the property commonly known as
Mueller South, please consider the following in connection with your deliberations regarding this
Application. We believe this information summarizes what has been presented by both Martin
Marietta, as applicant, and the remonstrators, as well as the Department of Community Services
in respect of this Application. We believe the following, coupled with the substantive evidence
that was presented at the public hearing in this matter held on March 27, 2006, clearly establishes
the basis for the issuance of the special use permit allowing Martin Marietta to proceed to mine
the limestone resources that exist on the property.
APPROVING THE MARTIN MARlETT A SURFACE MINING APPLICATION IS
GOOD PLANNING, PROMOTES THE GREATER GOOD OF THE CITY OF
CARMEL, AND FOLLOWS THE LAW
Remonstrators have made what can only be fairly described as a campaign to pressure
this Board into doing what is bad planning, bad for the citizens of Carmel/Clay Township as a
whole, unfair to Martin Marietta, and illegal under Indiana law. Martin Marietta's application
should be approved because it is good planning, complies with the ordinance, and complies with
Indiana law.
APPROVAL OF MARTIN MARIETTA'S APPLICATION IS GOOD PLANNING
The property at issue is bordered on the south and west by Martin Marietta's property, on
the north by 106th Street, and on the east by other property belonging to the Mueller
Conservatorship. Across 106lh Street, the property is bordered by other property owned by the
Mueller Conservatorship. No property currently used for residential purposes is adjacent to this
property, and the Kingswood residence nearest to any mining permitted under this application is
some 1800 feet away.
One American Square I Suite 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.icemiller.com
o
u
April 20, 2006
Page 2
Martin Marietta has asked simply to be allowed to mine the one remaining parcel of land
south of 106th Street that wasn't a part of its mining operation before these recent applications. If
that is allowed, a construction material needed by the Carmel/Clay township area day in and day
out will be available from this location for years to come. Martin Marietta will be able to mine it
using the same equipment and employees, process it using the same employees and crushing
plant, stock pile it in the same locations, and ship it out the same entrance as it now uses. The
only difference between what occurs now and what would occur upon approval of this
application is that blasting will occur for a few seconds every week closer to Kingswood than it
does now, but still more than 1800 feet away from the closest Kingswood house, and much
further from any other house. To avoid what even Kingswood only characterizes as a nuisance
for less than a minute a week, it would have some other community host the mining activity.
Virtually every structure, road, driveway and parking lot in the City of Carmel has
construction aggregate in it from Martin Marietta's 96th Street quarry. Indeed, it is a virtual
certainty that every house built in Kingswood has aggregate from this quarry, and the need for
this aggregate won't go away if Martin Marietta's application is denied. But, a denial will
shorten the life of this quarry and mean that a new source will have to be found, or aggregates
will have to be trucked in from a much greater distance, all to satisfy opponents who moved to
the area long after the quarry opened. Even Martin Marietta's opponents do not deny the need
for this essential construction material, but simply want it put in someone else's backyard and
then truck it to Carmel when they need it.
This ''Not in my backyard" attitude promotes poor planning and poor environmental
policy. For as long as there has been a Kingswood, all of the land between 96th and 106th Streets,
together with several large tracts of land north of 106th and I 16th Streets, have been used for
mining purposes, save for this one, comparatively small tract known as Mueller South in these
proceedings. Use of the existing quarry, rather than establishing a new mine somewhere else,
will avoid the disruption of land use and traffic patterns elsewhere in Carmel or in another
community. The quarry land use here was established over half a century ago and this area has
grown up around it and adjusted to it quite well. Land values around it are some of the highest in
Carmel. It cannot be fairly said by anyone, least of all the Kingswood opponents, that when all
of the other property between 96th and 106th Streets is used for mining purposes, one small parcel
owned by people who were here long before Kingswood ever existed should be left out and not
used to provide the construction materials a growing community like Carmel needs, and
Kingswood itself was built with.
Moreover, such a result would be bad planning for the Mueller tract because it is adjacent
to, and surrounded by mining property. What use should it be put to? It is not zoned for any
commercial use, and the Kingswood opponents tell us that no resident should have to live within
1800 feet of a mine, much less adjacent toit, ,as the Mueller property is, so surely a residential
use is not appropriate.
Good land use planning calls for a recognition that this quarry produces a necessary
material, that it is expensive and undesirable to transport it a long distance, and that an existing
quarry should be expanded rather than a new one established in someone else's back yard.
u
o
April 20, 2006
Page 3
Martin Marietta's application should be approved because it is good planning and good for all of
the citizens of Cannel and Clay Township.
A DENIAL OF MARTIN MARIETTA'S APPLICATION
IS UNFAIR TO IT AND THE MUELLER CONSERV ATORSIDP
Martin Marietta and the Mueller Conservatorship have played by the rules throughout
this matter and ask only that the zoning ordinance be fairly applied to this application. Martin
Marietta's plans were reviewed extensively by every agency in Cannel and initially, before the
Mayor's intervention, received a recommendation by the staff that its application be considered
by this Board. Indeed, the original staff report stopped just short of recommending approval.
Martin Marietta brought relevant evidence to the hearing, including detailed expert
reports, affidavits, data and other infonnation that addressed the relevant factors under the
ordinance. Kingswood, by comparison, brought much heat, but little light, literally failing ever
to address the criteria in the ordinance, and instead finding it more important to get the Mayor to
pressure this Board..
The zoning ordinance structured by the Cannel City Council has, for many years now
allowed Martin Marietta to expand its surface mine north simply by acquiring a special use
pennit. Indeed, the ordinance has mandated that this Board generally consider such an
application favorably and deny it only based on special and unique circumstances. Martin
Marietta thus had every expectation under the current zoning ordinance that an expansion of its
pit operations to the north, while still keeping them below 106th Street and maintaining an 1800
foot buffer, would be allowed under the ordinance. The Mueller Conservatorship had a similar
right to such an expectation.
It is unfair now to deny approval based neither on the ordinance nor the evidence, but
instead on the political protestations of a group of residents who moved to Cannel knowing that
the quarry occupied virtually every square inch of the land between 106th Street, Hazel Dell
Parkway, Gray Road, and 96th Street. Indeed, not a single person has ever said that they bought
their property knowing that Martin Marietta didn't own the land in this application and would
never be able to mine there. The Martin Marietta quarry was then, and is now, almost certainly
the largest single land use in this area. It could hardly have been overlooked, nor can the
opponents say they had any reasonable expectation that this use would not be allowed to
continue and expand between 96th and 106th Streets under a zoning ordinance expressly directing
that such a use be considered favorably and denied only for unique circumstances.
Approval of Martin Marietta's Application is fair to it and the Mueller Conservatorship,
and good planning.
THE CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE AND INDIANA LAW REQUIRE THE
APPROVAL OF MARTIN MARIETTA'S APPLICATION
All of the Mueller South property is zoned S-I. Under the Cannel/Clay Zoning
Ordinance, mining is a "Special Use" in this district and the ordinance directs that:
o
o
April 20,2006
Page 4
"Special uses shall generally be considered favorably by the Board, except in
cases where the Board finds the proposed Special Use obviously inappropriate as
a result of the special and unique conditions detennined as a result of the review
procedure established herein." (Emphasis added.)
No one has identified anything unique to this application that would warrant denial.
Blasting can't be unique because it has been an integral part of mining in Carmel for as long as
this special use provision has existed. When Carmel annexed the existing quarry, at which it
knew blasting occurred, the City Council zoned the property S-l, an undeniable conclusion the
S-1 district encompassed blasting. There is thus no basis for anyone to claim that blasting,
especially blasting in compliance with the regulations established by the Indiana Department of
Homeland Security--not to mention those set out in Carmel's own mining ordinance--can be a
basis for denial of this application.
Indiana law makes clear that this Board's job under the zoning ordinance isn't to decide
whether it is good policy or bad policy to allow mining in an 8-1 district-the City Council has
already done that-but rather to apply the rules set down by the City Council in the zoning
ordinance to this particular application. After all, under Indiana law, a special use is simply a use
permitted upon a showing that the conditions specified in the ordinance for the issuance of a
permit have been met. Town of Merrillville Bd. of Zoning Aooeals v. Public Storage. Inc.(1991)
Ind. App.. 568 N.E.2d 1092. 1095. trans. denied. A board hearing a special use application is
thus obligated to apply the criteria established in the ordinance for the issuance of the permit, and
does not have discretion to apply different, or, indeed, even additional, criteria from those set
forth in the ordinance. Town of Merrillville. .
The Board's decision must also be based on evidence taken at a quasi-judicial hearing.
Network Towers. LLC v. Board of Zoning Appeals of LaPorte County. 770 N.E.2d 837 (Ct.
App. Ind. 2002). Unlike the free-for-all of a zoning hearing, at a quasi-judicial hearing,
evidence, not opinions, governs. Generalized fears or expressions of concern are not evidence
on which the Board can rely. In the end, the Board's decision must be based on evidence
relevant to the criteria in the ordinance, bearing in mind the ordinance's requirement that special
uses shall "generally be considered favorably" and denied only where "obviously
inappropriate as a result of special and unique conditions. . . ." The burden to establish this latter
exception is, of course, on those opposed to the special use permit.
The rationale underlying special uses is that the legislative body, in this case, the City
Council, has determined that the "prescribed use is one which is in harmony with the other uses
permitted in the district. . .." Boffo v. Boone County Board of Zoning Appeals, 421 N.E.2d
1119 (Ct. App. Ind. 1991). Thus, "the standards for a special, or conditional, use pennit are less
stringent than those for a variance, because the fonner enjoys legislative sanction while the latter
does not." Network Towers. LLC v. Board of Zoning Aooeals of LaPorte County. 770 N.E.2d
837 (Ct. App. Ind. 2002).
Here, of course, the Carmel City council is the legislative body that "sanctioned" this
special use on 8-1, that zoned this property S-I, and that directed this Board to consider mining
''favorably as a special use" on this property. And, in authorizing this use, the City Council is
o
o
April 20, 2006
Page 5
deemed to have already been taken into account the characteristics of the use, so the fact that the
use may have some characteristics inconsistent with the area in which it is located is not
sufficient to deny the special use. Instead, it is presumed that the legislative body took those
characteristics into account in enacting the ordinance, and directing that a special use "shall
generally be considered favorably" unless it is "obviously inappropriate as a result of special and
unique conditions." Those characteristics normal to the use would obviously be neither special
nor unique.
Martin Marietta has put in ample evidence that it meets the criteria of the ordinance,
while its opponents have offered political pressure and unsubstantiated rhetoric. Indeed, the
findings submitted by the Remonstrators fail to address any of the criteria, instead focusing on
irrelevant considerations like how many people signed petitions. This Board should do what is
good planning, good for all of the citizens of Carmel/Clay Township, fair to all parties---Martin
Marietta included--and complies with Indiana law, and grant the special use requested by Martin
Marietta.
Respectfully submitted,
..
PHEARS & MOLDOVAN
fl. f)~ ~
H. Wayne Phears
ZAW:sd
cc: John Tiberi, Regional Vice President
INDY 1724051v.2
.i.
'. Message
//
'"
o
-
U
Page 1 of2
Conn, Angelina V
From: Weiss, Zeff A. [Zeff.Weiss@icemiller.com]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 200612:20 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V; Larry Kane
Subject: RE: Additional Martin Marietta documents relating to Limestone petition
Angie,
For the record, these materials were submitted to the BZA at the hearing on March 27, 2006. We provided
duplicate copies to your office on March 31, 2006 to make sure that DOCS has a copies as well. We left Mike
with copies of these same documents at hearing as well, but we simply wanted to confirm that these materials
were in the record as of the date of the last hearing. Please let me know if you have any questions in this regard.
Thanks.
Regards,
Zeff
Zeff A. Weiss
Ice Miller LLP
One American Square
Suite 3100
Indianapolis, IN 46282-0200
{317} 236-2319 {direct dial}
{317} 592-4788 {direct fax}
?:~ff-,-w.~i~$@~~IJljU~LGQm
-----Original Message-----
From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn@carmel.in.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:05 PM
To: Weiss, Zeff A.; Larry Kane
Subject: FW: Additional Martin Marietta documents relating to Limestone petition
FYI
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Division of Planning & Zoning
Dept. of Community Services
City of Carmel
p. 317-571-2417 f. 317-571-2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:04 PM
To: 'Alan Potasnik'; 'Earlene Plavchak'; Plavchak, Earlene; Hawkins, James R; Jim Hawkins; Torres,
Madeleine; Madeleine Torres
Cc: Leo Dierckman ; Leo Dierckman; 'John Molitor'; Haney, Douglas C; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Kent Broach;
Tingley, Connie 5; Broach, Kent
Subject: Additional Martin Marietta documents relating to Limestone petition
BZA members:
I hate to present you with even more reading material, but attached are additional Martin Marietta
documents relating to the Martin Marietta Limestone petition, submitted by Zeff Weiss' office on March 31,
4/1 0/2006
....
. ~ Message
o
u
Page 2 of2
~
~
2006. These are mostly affidavits, a Kingswood neighborhood analysis, the original and amended mining
ordinances, and testimony from Carmel's blasting consultant, as were referred to by the petitioner at the
past meeting of March 27, 2006.
Paper copies will be in the file.
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Division of Planning & Zoning
Dept. of Community Services
City of Carmel
p. 317-571-2417 ~ 317-571-2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
********************************************************************
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with recently-enacted U.S. Treasury
Department Regulations, we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated,
any federal tax advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, is not intended or
written by us to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties
that may be imposed by the federal government or for promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This E-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not
the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this E-mail or any
attachment is prohibited. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify us immediately by
returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you.
ICE MILLER LLP
********************************************************************
4/1 0/2006
u
u
Page 1 of 1
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Monday, April 10, 200612:04 PM
To: 'Alan Potasnik'; 'Earlene Plavchak'; Plavchak, Earlene; Hawkins, James R; Jim Hawkins; Torres,
Madeleine; Madeleine Torres
Cc: Leo Dierckman ; Leo Dierckman; 'John Molitor'; Haney, Douglas C; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Kent
Broach; Tingley, Connie S; Broach, Kent
Subject: Additional Martin Marietta documents relating to Limestone petition
BZA members:
I hate to present you with even more reading material, but attached are additional Martin Marietta documents
relating to the Martin Marietta Limestone petition, submitted by Zeff Weiss' office on March 31, 2006. These are
mostly affidavits, a Kingswood neighborhood analysis, the original and amended mining ordinances, and
testimony from Carmel's blasting consultant, as were referred to by the petitioner at the past meeting of March 27,
2006.
Paper copies will be in the file.
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Division of Planning & Zoning
Dept. of Community Services
City of Carmel
p.317-571-2417 f.317-571-2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
4/13/2006
. ..
I
j
03/21/2008 13:40 FAX
-0
ICE~ILLERu.p
u
!ill 00%/005
LEBAL COUNSEL
March 21~ 2006
\VJmla'anm.:r"-:o l7)Df.5132
IlNcr PAX: (lI17)SJ:a.t....
r.n-:~illdalqicleniDer_
n. Htut4 DellNlJ' By Prv1ce86 S...
Jemey L. Hudson
1112S Saint Charles Pl.
Carmel, IN 46033..5945
BE: MtIItba MIIlWtttl MtlI4rItIb. II,,:.
DepMtitJ" ", JeJfrq L. H.."
Dear Mr. Hudson:
P1easo find enclosed a copy of the Notice of Deposition of JefJiey L. Hudson, Subpoena
Duces Tecum aod our check in die amount of $30.00 for ~ expcD5e8 ill regard to }01JI'
deposition. Please do aot hesitate to contact me if your have my questions regardiDg )'OUI'
deposition.
Very truly}'O~
;riA~
TEM:mecJ
EneloSUR
cc: 101m R. Molitor
Larry J. Kane
(with enclosun:)
INDY 17010Uv.l
One AMr.rian 5qUIJe 15u~ 31GO 'lIldi8l1l1PG11-. IN 46282-0200 I P 317..236-2100 'F 317..2360-2219
INDWWOUS I CHItAGO I JW8MLl,E I WASltlNGmN D.c.
_.ICllllillH._
aod
€f,Sl-&f,B-l.I€
we4s~"'~ "'O~~10W
Wd€l:a SODa aa ...ew
CI
u
u
EL
JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR
March 7, 2006
Zeff A. Weiss
Box 82001
IndianapolislIndiana46260
RE: Your Written Document Request
Dear Mr. Weiss:
I represent the City of Carmel, Indiana: 1Jhis letter serves as the City's response to your referenced
request.
'",. 0.':',<11<
Your Request:
"A copy of the video of the February 27,2006 BZA hearing of the Martin Marrietta Application Docket No. 05090003
sun
Response:
Your request is granted. You may review a copy of this video tape in my Office during regular
business hours or purchase a copy for $15.00, cash only. If you have any questions, please contact
me directly.
Very truly yours,
IJ
Douglas C. Haney
Carmel City Attorney
DCH/eb
Cc: Public Access Counselor, via facsimile transmission to (317) 233-3091
OFFICE OF THE CIIT ArrORNEY - DOUGLAS C. HANEY, ESQ.
ONE CMC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2472, FAX 317.571-2484
[Z'~_WElSS .M.u<iDMariotta....,31712OO6] EMAIL dhaney@cLcarme1.in.us
ICEMILL~L.LP
"
o
March 1, 2006
Y/. . .-'-...-,~ '
/" .." '<.... ..
&2 .
/ ~ ~ <8
~c..\~
~ v-
~~~
~
WRITER'S DIRECf NUMBBR: (317) 236-5832
DIRECT FAX: (317) 5924708
INTBRNBT: Thomas.Mixdorf@icemiller.com
LEGAL COUNSEL
/'
"'-~~i_~. .,..,..,"
Via Facsimile and First Class Mail
Michael P. Hollibaugh
Director
City of Carmel
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
City of Carmel/Clay Township Board of Zoning Appeals
Department of County Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
RE: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Dear Mike:
I write on behalf of my client Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. regarding its applications
for special use approvals, Docket Nos. 05090003 SU and 05090004 SU ("Applications"),
currently pending before the City of Carmel Clay Township Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA").
Pursuant to the Indiana Access to Public Records Act (IC ~ 5-14-3), we would like to
inspect and copy the following public records related to the Applications:
1. All documents received by the Department of Community Services ("DOCS")
relating to the Applications.
2. All documents comprising or reflecting communications with DOCS,
including but not limited to communications to and from the Mayor of the City
of Carmel, relating to the December 12, 2005, staff report regarding the
Applications.
3. All documents comprising or reflecting communications with DOCS,
including but not limited to communications to and from the Mayor of the City
of Carmel, regarding its February 22,2006 staff report to the BZA.
4 All documents comprising or reflecting communications with the BZA
regarding the Applications received by the BZA prior to and including
February 27,2006.
One American Square I Suite 3100 I Indianapolis. IN 46282-0200 I P 317-236-2100 IF 317-236-2219
INDIANAPOLIS I CHICAGO I NAPERVILLE I WASHINGTON D.C.
www.icemiller.com
o
o
March 1, 2006
Page 2
Please take note that this request specifically includes emails, voice mails and all other
forms of electronic communication in addition to hard copies of documents.
Further, we hereby request that the City maintain, and not destroy, any and all records
that may be within the scope of this request.
I understand there may be a copying fee associated with the above described request.
Please enclose an invoice with the requested documents and a check will be mailed to DOCS
promptly.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Very truly yours,
ICE MILLER LLP
~~
Thomas E. Mixdorf
TEM:med
Enclosures
cc: John Molitor
John Tiberi (via email)
Yvonne Bailey (via email)
INDY 1697450v.l
JAMES BRALI\{ARD, 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 of the December 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 addtessed 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 Marietta timely provided the City with previously
requested data and a plan for blasting, it was possible that a favorable reconimendation 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, Your claim thatMartin Marietta has attempted to respond to all
inquiries by DOCS and Spectra, is, at best, partly true, as you fail to mention the timelin.ess or
quality of those responses, nor do you mention the piecemeal fashiOn in which Mamn
Marietta has built their submittals, that req~ed the City to respond with more questions, in an
effort to construct a complete record of u.nd~tandi1ig of the, overall proj eel.
Regardless of your insistence the City has no jurisdiction regarding blasting, the City will not
cease to ask questions about potential impacts from blasting 011 nearby resid(n1tial 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 laqd use th~t includes
blasting which will occur near to single-family residences, and to. ensure the appropriateness
of that proposed land use. With()ut a full undersfundingofwhat 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
DI!PARTMENTOF COMMUNITY SERVICES
ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 PHONE 317.571.2417, FAX 317.571.2426
MICHAEl P HOLLIBAUGH, DIRECTOR
February 27,2006
Page 2 of2
possible for the Board to make an informed decision, especially one with such known interest
by nearby homeowners who already experience blasting impacts from the nearby 96th Street
operation? . .
The initial submittal from Martin Marietta to mine Mueller soufu through the use of
explosives, contained but one small paragraph on blasting, casuaUystating it would have no
negative impact onnearby residences. However, data eventually provided by Martin Marietta
in response to the Spectra letters indicates that adjustments in blasting practices will result in
reduced impacts on nearby residential areas.
The adjustments to Peak Particle Velo<?ity (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 simplification 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 fot various mining special use
requests, many of the ideas a11d recommendations from Spectra to improve the operation and
minimi2;ellegative impacts to the nearby established residential neighborhoods have been
proven appropriate and correCt by Martin Marietta, much to their advantage.
I believe the Dep<U1ment of O.muuunity Services has consistently worked with you. to develop
a petition technically sufficient for BZA consideration, by asking pertinent questions and
requesting applicable data. We have dedicated many hours of staff time and spent thousands
of dollars on consulting in order to gain a better understandin$ of the ijnportant 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 treatment by DOGS~ when coml>41ed with YO\11" attempt to.embeUish
Martin Marietta's record on this petition, appea1'$ 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 Sovas
John Tiberi
BZA file
..1
~a
U
:v::
ICEt1ILLERLLP
'/'0:-;;:ry/~, I
/{./\-~,,<<., .
/ REC~IVED \.1
i\ \" fEll 23 2006 ~
\\. DOCS /1
,~.. ~ ~DI~=~~:i~~~~:
'~(~~~:Zeff.WCISS@ICCmillcr.com
~~~
-
(:~
LEGAL COUNSEL
February 22, 2006
VIA E-MAIL: mhoIlibaugh@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.
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/sec 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 advised 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 unarticulated level.
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
One American Square I Suite 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.icemiller.com
,..
,.
o
u
-(" ...;:'
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 andlor
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 1693733vJ
~ 0
ICE~ILLERLLP
u
LEGAL COUNSEL
February 20, 2006
WRITER'S DIRECT NUMBER: (317) 236-2319
DIRECT FAX: (317) 592-4788
lNrERNET: Zeff.Weiss@icemiller.com
City of Carmel
Attn: Connie
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
RE: Martin Marietta Mueller South Limestone
Dear Connie:
Per our telephone conversation on Friday, enclosed IS our check m the amount of
$1,260.00 to cover the filing fee for the binders.
Very truly yours,
ICE MILLER LLP
~
Susan A. Dunlap
Assistant to Zeff A. Weiss
ZAW:sd
Enclosure
One American Square I Suite 3100 I Indianapolis, IN 46282-0200 I P 317-236-2100 IF 317-236-2219
INDIANAPOLIS I CHICAGO I NAPERVILLE I WASHINGTON D.C.
www.icemiller.com
Martin Marietta Aggregates
~;(j3-'W~
Indiana District Office
1 980 East 11 6th Street
Suite 200
Carmel, IN 46032
Telephone (317) 573-4460
Fax (317) 573-5975
February 16, 2006
./0l~~
/!7 ti;'".'
"'''7 '
f' '/ RECENt\) \\
! ~ :i rEB \ \) i
\\, DOCS )!
\" '", /
" '~'--r""'-< I
'~~_.!_..".:,~.-:.
Mr. Michael Hollibaugh
Director, Department of Community Services
City of Carmel, City Hall
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
RE: Executive Summary of Application for Board of Zoning Appeals Action Special Use
Approval Request - Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Mueller Property South Surface
Limestone Operation
Dear Mr. Hollibaugh:
The attached Executive Summary is intended to summarize and in some cases clarify information
previously submitted by Martin Marietta in its application and subsequent information booklets and should
be read in conjunction with such previously submitted materials. The intent of this Executive Summary is
not to supersede the previous submittals, the provisions of which shall continue to control and be a part of
this application except where inconsistent with any supplemental information herein. In the event of any
inconsistency, the provisions of the most recently dated submittals shall be controlling.
If you require additional information, feel free to contact me at 317-573-4460.
Sincerely,
DH/JT/pkc
enclosures (including eight additional copies)
cc: Y. Bailey (w/o enc.)
W. Phears (w/o enc.)
Z. Weiss (w/o enc.)
Spectra Environmental (w/enc.)
".t-
...ri.:
o
YIBRAJECH
u
109 E. First Street, P.O. Box 577, Hazleton, PA 18201
570-455-5861 FAX 570-455-0626
The Vibration Monitoring Experts
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 applicatio
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 ofthe 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, Vibra-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
(.)
o
. ~ --- -.. -,
and have done so. In our expenence, a~s;,overpressure levels caI1.Eft~nrbe reduced by
minimizing::the venting Q.f ~steh'1mi.!)g material in the shot, whi~h___can likely be
a~cf..o_mp.li.sh~d by increasing the" amouQt .of .stemmipg material utilize-d. Appendix A
contains our calculations and recommendations in that regard.
.From our review of Martin Marietta's blasting, we learned that the ~n.1ract_ <!riller
sometimes~over drills holes by 5 to 8 feet. The holes are then back filled with finesto
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 drille~ to_maintain~tighter control on the overdrill,)og th~ actual
depth.oCthe hole prior to backfilling and then backfill with crushed stone (nqt fines)
if necessary.
Air overpressure effects can also be affected by atmospheri,e congitions, 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 th~ 'Yind 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 Frequencies
.
Some areas in the surrounding communities exhibit lower frequency. ground
C.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. .t..s 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
"
, ,
, i'
i'
o
o
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 oDhe air overpressure ana_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
u
u
-, ,
Appendix A
Stemming Recommendations
. .
o
109 E. First S.treet, P.O. Box 577, Hazleton, PA 18201
The Vibration Monitoring Experts
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 (De)2 x d = 0.34 x (5.5i x 1.25 = 12.85
lb/ft
Weight of explosive in 10 diameters (W) = 4.58 ft x 12.85 lb/ft = 58.85 lbs
W1/3 = 58.851/3 = 3.88 Ib1/3
D = distance from surface to center of defined charge = Stemming + ~(4.58) = 8 + 2.29 =
10.29 ft.
Scaled Depth of Burial (SD) = DIW1/3 = 10.29/3.88 = 2.65 (Review Figure A2)
Suppose we want a Scaled Depth of Burial = 4.0 (for airblast suppression)
SD = D/WI/3 --+ D = SD X W1/3 = (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.
o
o
Appendix B
Vibra-Map Recommendations
. j
,.
o
Q
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
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.
o
o
.......,
-'" -' ..(-
-~ "
'--.-
_[ _..",,--=-~._ ..n ,,'~'__
'-j--_, ------=--=t-
1OfllSIHll'T
--r"
1- -"' . ~-_
I..
tM_.......
,-
- ,
.--1 . ~ -L-"-
'Uta.......
-1
_ r-
.1...'- -1--__.
"'......,
--- .---.r .'-'. -.-1 '-. -_J.
~. ~ .' .--ro- ' _ -I .'
"'.......
,
-,
-",
-,
RDULTNff........e:SYJnMaTICses_RM1
I r i /1\_ ,"--- " -f
-0.1 0.1 " " 0.2
, ,.1/-'-' l , . .OJ' .~
0.3 0.4" 0.5
TIME, ...
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.
AUTOCORRELATION OF SINGLE HOLE
61 PEAK CONTSTRUCTlVE INTERFERENCE
I
31 PEAK DESTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE
o
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
TIME, see
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
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.
"
o
o
The Vibra-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 of this 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 near 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
match 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 ofthe 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.
o
Q
"
The location of the single hole signature blast of May 20, 2005 is given according to the
coordinates in Table 1. 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.
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 producti<;>n 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.
'j
o
o
MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES - 96TH ST. NORTH INDIANAPOLIS
QUARRY
SIGNATURE SHOT
VIBRA-MAP@ RECOMMENDA TIONS*, **
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 Delav Interval 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 of preference.
** 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.
o
o
"
Assumptions and Definitions
The following are the assumptions and definitions that the Vibra-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 Vi bra-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 :i: 7 percent compared with high accuracy
detonators which have a range of:i: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 5 10 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 Vi bra-Map technique.
"
Q
Q
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 of the 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.
6
8
20
72
24
76
28
BO
32
84
36
88
CI
o
32
84
6
48
00
52
4
56
08
60
12
64
16
68
o
Signature Shot : Example layout - 12 ms between 2 decks, 52ms between 12 holes, and 80 IDS
between 2 rows.
2
4
o 32
2
44
04 56
16
68
20
72
24
76
28
80
32
84
96
48
00
52
04
56 08
60
12
64
c
c
Signature Shot: Example layout - 24 ms between 2 decks, 32ms between 12 holes, and 84 ms
between 2 rows.
28
60
92
52
o
o
.
~ f' ~.-,
u
u
Appendix C
Recommendations for Seismic Monitors
o
o
i"-. .,...
Message
Page 1 of 1
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Monday, February 06,200612:03 PM
To: Weiss, Zeff A.'
Cc: Griffin, Matt L; Hollibaugh, Mike P; 'Gregory H. Sovas'
Subject: Martin Marietta, Mueller North & South underground mining petitions
Good afternoon, Zeff:
In order to be heard by the Technical Advisory, one must submit an application & plans no later that 15 days prior
to the TAC meeting date. If you would like to be heard at the March 15 TAC meeting, the application and plans
must be distributed to all TAC members by Tuesday, February 28. You can find the TAC members list online at:
http;lLwww.ci.~!:!rmel.in~I.!~11)JillLiG~s/DQQ.s/DQC.ST~Q.200_4,hlm Also, a copy of the application and plans should
also be directly sent to Greg Sovas & Jason Kappel with Spectra Env't1 Group.
There are also BZA filing deadlines; February 10 is the filing deadline for the March 27 BZA meeting and March
10 is the filing deadline for the April 24 meeting. DOCS will let you know at a later date which BZA meeting date
your petitions will be heard. (Even though the Dept. has copies of the 2002 applications, these applications must
be updated, should there be any changes.
Thank you,
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Division of Planning & Zoning
Dept. of Community Services
City of Carmel
p. 317-571-2417 f.317-571-2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
7/18/2006
. . ,'. .;....... ( .\
'-/jCE~ILLERLLP
Q
LEGAL COUNSEL
WRITER'S DIRECT NUMBER: (317
DIRECT FAX:
INTERNET: Zeff.W .
February 2, 2006
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
~
Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., Petition For Special Use Approval
to Establish Surface Limestone Operations on Mueller South Property
Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals Docket Nos. 05090003 SU and
05090004 SU
Dear Neighbor/Interested Party:
Weare counsel to Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. ("Martin Marietta"). Martin Marietta
has filed an Application for Special Use Approval to establish surface limestone operations on
96.921::1: acres of unimproved land located at the southwest comer of the intersection of 106th
Street and Hazel Dell Parkway, commonly known as Mueller Property South. This Petition has
been docketed by the Department of Community Services as Docket Nos: 05090003 SU and
05090004 SUo
A hearing before the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals has been set for this matter
for Monday, February 27,2006, commencing at 6:00 p.m. in the City-Council Chambers, which
is located on the second floor of Carmel City Hall, One Civic Square, Carmel, Indiana 46032,
all as described on the enclosed Notice of Public Hearing.
If you should have any questions or comments with respect to the aforementioned
Application in advance of the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing, please do not hesitate to call
me at (317) 236-2319.
Very truly yours,
ZAW:cac
Enclosure
cc: John Tiberi
INDY 1678847v.l
One American Square I Suite 3100 I Indianapolis. IN 46282-0200 I P 317-236-2100 IF 317-236-2219
INDIANAPOUS I CHICAGO I NAPERVILLE I WASHINGTON D.C.
www.icemiller.com
John R. Molitor
Attorney at Law
9465 Counselors Row, Suite 200
Indianapolis, IN 46240-6150
(317) 843-5511
Fax (317) 843-1543
e-mail jmolitor@prodigy.net
February 2, 2006
Zeff A. Weiss, Esq.
Ice Miller
Box 82001
Indianapolis, IN 46282
Re: Martin Marietta - Pending Applications
Dear Zeff:
This will confirm that it is the policy of the City of Carmel that an applicant for a land
use permit is entitled to have its application considered and the permit issued or denied in
accordance with the laws in effect on the date that the application is filed with
Department of Community Services. This remains the policy of the City notwithstanding
the recently issued decision of the Indiana Supreme Court in the case of Metropolitan
Development Commission of Marion County v. Pinnacle Media.
In the case of Martin Marietta and its applications for special use permits which were
filed in December 2002, the City further stipulates that all proceedings conducted by the
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals in respect to such applications shall be conducted in
accordance with the provisions of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance and the Rules of
Procedure of the Board as they existed at the time of filing in December 2002. If and
when the City's ordinances or the Board's rules are duly amended, the City recognizes
that such amendments would not apply to the Board's consideration of and decision
whether to approve or deny such application!).
Please call me if you have any questions about the topic of this letter.
Yours truly,
,
\,//7
'".' ('7:" l
'';<1?'" .------
,/ /
(J<>1ln R. Molitor
Attorney for the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
cc: Larry Kane
Mike Hollibaugh
--_.------~-~ ~~------
~
u
o
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC.
ENGINEERING. ARCHiTECTURE & SURVEYING, PC.
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 Depaltment of Community Services Comments
Regarding Review of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MM),
Mueller Property South Surface Limestone Operation and Altificial Lake
Application To the BZA, December 12, 2005
DearMr.~:
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
summary 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
controlling 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.
Response: The SPCC Plan has been appropriately updated. There are no additional concerns
or comments.
2. Comments Regarding Continuity of the Application Materials, Including Maps and Plans:
Original Comments: The Additional Information submittal for the Mueller Property South
Surface Limestone Operation and A~!ficial Lake, dated Sept~!!IE.~T___~Q_05, is intended .t<:>
....................~-~---_..... ............--CORPOf(ATE oFFlcE-~.-19 BRlTlSH AMERfCAN BLVD, -LATHAM, NY 12110. 518 782~?882. FAX: 518 782-OQ73 __......._._._.___
---.------....P6UGHKTEPsiE.OFFicE~ ONE CIVIC CENfERPi:P':ZA'~SUlrE 401 .~9.~:?~~.~~~~1~:...~:_~2601 .845454-9440. FAX: 845 4~~~~~____.______
----..-.~_... . ........-----......--..-SYRACUSE OFFICE: 307-S":""TOWNSENO-STREET. SYRACUSE, NY 13202- 315A71-2101 . FAX: 3-15471-2111
......................nm.._....._.______ UTICI'... OFFICE: 100 Lorn.ond Court _ UTICA, NY 13502- 315 266-012Q. FAX: 31S.-266-e192
u
Q
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 InfOlmation submittal explains that the eXlstmg 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 two 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 pOl1ion 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 Southprope11y. 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 Erosion Control Plan included with the Additional Infolmation submittal
describes a mining scenario, prior to the relocation of Blue Woods Creeks, where stonn
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 propel1y
will occur at elevations below the inverts of the sediment basins. Developing the site in this
manner may create a situation where storm 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 storn1 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
o
w
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 tl1lcks, 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 cUlTentapproval 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: Mmtin 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 106th Street will adversely impact the anticipated reclamation
lake proposed for the Mueller North Sand and Gravel Operation was asked during Spectra's
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 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 eff0l1s. 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 CUlTent 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.
o
u
Mr. Michael Hollibaugh
December 9,2005
Page 4
5. Comments on Blasting. Induced Vibration and Air Overpressure:
Original Comments: 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 concem 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 would support this application, (2) an assessment of blasting impacts, and (3)
and basic information that we refer to as a blasting plan.
Response: To accomplish its review and comment on the submission of new materials in
advance of the BZA meeting on December 12, Spectra requested that any additional
infonnation 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 field
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 Vi bra-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) multiple-hole
production blast - Production Blast I, and (3) an underground blast - Production Blast 2.
The study raises a number of concerns and questions:
1. hl 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 10hz 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 of this fact (9 below 10 Hz).
Q
u
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 made
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 rep0l1 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
structural 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 of the 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 destructive 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 infonnation 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 HZA.
Summary and Conclusions
While Spectra appreciates the efforts of Martin Marietta, we continue to have concerns on
substantive issues including blasting and its impacts. Spectra cannot supp0l1 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 infornlation 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.
o
Q
Mr. Michael Hollibaugh
December 9, 2005
Page 6
If you have any questions or cOlTIments, please feel free to call me or Jason Kappel at (518) 782-
0882.
Sincerely,
SPECTRA ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC.
/1~
/ G~egory~. Sovas, P.E. .
. VIce PresIdent of Governmental Affairs
!c' /J ..~ ~
// ./~}Y'-
;hsot C. Kappel, P.G.
Hydrogeologist
GHS/JCKlfc
G:\200 1 \0 1233\Applicalions\MuellersoulhlimcsloncBZA- fina1.doc
,
',..
'0
/UILECTBA
u
,
November 22, 2005
/~r::~'___
ft' ~))\~L.L--L,~ ,~( "',
..' tl,!""
,\;:' .~'-:. <'i\l
(~-:)) ~!;~-' RECElVf'J
LJ .",:, ~f,
--;; AiOli '. -
-~y ~ -\
~~!\ ' DOc.S
\, < ....
,-
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC,
ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURE & SURVEYING, P,C,
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 Carmel
Regarding Review of Martin Marietta ,Ma~erials, Inc.,
Response to TAC Comments Dated November 9,2005
Dear Mr.~, .
This letter summarizes Spectra's technical comments regarding our continuing review of Martin
Mariett,a'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 SPCC 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
sU,bmittals are related. The. text offered explaining how the two su1;>mittals 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 tothe 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 . 518782-0882 · FAX: 518 782-0973
POUGHKEEPSIE OFFICE: ONE CIVIC CENTER PLAZA . SUITE.401 . POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 12601 .845454-9440 · FAX: 845454-9206.
SYRACUSE OFFICE: 307 S,TOWNSEND STREET -SYRACUSE, NY 13202.-315471-2101. FAX: 315 471~2111
UTICA OFFICE: 100 Lomond Court. UTICA NY 13502. 315266-0129. FAX: 315266-0192
WWWSPECTRAENV.COM
Mr. Michael Hollibaugh
o
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 InfQrmation submittal. 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 T AC comments explains that Vibra- Tech, a blasting and vibration
consulting fimi, 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 blasti~g 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 whetherMM 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 MM is 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. Furthermore, 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
Kingswoodproperty 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
o
November 22, 2005
o
Page 3
..
..
Specific blast-related information must be part of the Mine Plan for the Mueller Property South.
To summarize, 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 shouid provide the following: (1) 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 TAC 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. i 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 Erosionand 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
o
. November 22, 2005
o
Page 4
,I
.:
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 NorthIndianapolis 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 understood 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 Department] 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
o
November 22, 2005
o
Page 5
&i
..
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
infomlation 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: (1) 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 iriformation that we refer to as a
blasting plan.
Without such information the application does not contain sufficient
inforniation 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.R
Vice President of Governmental Affairs
JCK/fc
G:\200 1 \0 1233\Applications\Muellersouthlimestone I.doc
Q
u
TAC Nov. 16,2005
Mueller South - Limestone Operations 05090003 SU & 05090004 SU
Additional Review Comments:
Spectra only received a copy of MMM' s response to their T AC comments a few days ago. They
do not have any comments that this time, but would like to set up a conference call, tentatively
November 21, Monday, at 3 pm.
Spectra requests that all correspondence with them be mailed directly to their office and not
handed to DOCS.
DOCS would like an official submittal of commitments for the file from MMM.
The City would like to see blasting levels at the southern boundary of Kingswood subdivision to
be similar to the agreement btwn Kingswood & Martin Marietta in 2000, (Peak Particle velocities
of. 1 for surface blasts).
Please provide a copy of the Blue Woods Creek Relocation LOMR to DOCS, as part of the
approval or as part of the commitments.
Provide an up-do -date list of adjacent property owners from the Hamilton County Auditor's
office.
Trash dumpsters on site: show location on site plan. State how often trash will be removed.
Signage: will there be any? If so, provide signage location on site plan and signage
elevations/details.
Will there be mining underneath the road rights of ways? If so, BPW approval will be needed.
Note: River road will have to be vacated. Contact Dick Hill regarding BPW submittal and contact
the Clerk-treasurer's officer regarding the city council approval.
Dedicate road rights of way for 106th & Hazel Dell, pursuant to the 20-year Thoroughfare plan (if
not already done) Also, show/label the hazel Dell Pkwy half right of way of 70-ft and the half
right of way of 106th St. of 45-ft. show/label the centerline of the streets.
Show/label the front yard setback line of 40 feet from the road rights of way on the site plan.
Label/show a 300-ft buffer along Hazel Dell Pkwy on the site plan maps.
Provide a copy of the approval letter or email from Scott Brewer, Carmel urban forester, for the
landscape plan.
Parking requirement is 1 space per employee. Will there be off-site parking within 300-ft or
onsite parking?
Q
/HL~
Q
-.; ,
<~
_ RECEIVED
OCr3 1 2005
DOCS
ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURE & SURVEYING,P.C.
-,
OCtober 26, 2005
Mr., Michael Hollibaugh
Director
Division of Community Services
City of Carmel, City Hall
OQ.e Civic Square' -
, Carmel, IN 046032
Re: Comments to Department of Community Services, City.orCaimel
Regarding Review ,of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., -
Mueller property South Surface Limestone Operation and Artificial Lake
Dat September, 2005
Thi letter summarizes Spectra's technical comments offered during the September 21, 2005 Technical
'Advisory Committee meeting (T AC) regarding the above referenced submittal. Additionally, in the time
since theTAC meeting, Spectra has had the opportunity to review several of the submitted documents in
more'detail. 'technical ,comments",generated from our 'expanded document review are also included
below.
Comment 1: The Spill Prevention, Control, aI}d Countermeasures Plan(SPCC), dated April, 2003, does
.not specifically mention that it covers and is the controlling document over excavation activities-on
Mueller Property South. Mueller Property South is included in the document only.as a property outline
" on a figure in the report, The ,plan also does not state whether or notit is the Mueller South sand and
gravel operation that is covered by the SPCC plan or the Mueller South Limestone operation.
Comment 2: The SPCC Facility Site Plan by ATC Associates, Inc" last revised July 19, 2005, is not
, .included in the list of revisions on page 5 of the SPCCplan. The list. of plan updates should reflect all
revisions to the SPCC plan.
Comment 3: As explained)n the T AC meeting" the Additional Infortriation for the Mueller Property
South Surface Limestone Operation and Artificial Lake, dated. September~ 2005, is intended to expand
upon the original application materials submitted in 2002. The Additional Iq,formation, however, does
not reference the original 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. '
Co~ment 4: The Additional Information submittal explains that the existing surface limestone operation
will be extended to the north to encompass Mueller Property South. Maps and plans throughout the
Additional Information submittal do not show the connection between the. two operations. The Mine Plan
and Reclamation Plan maps show that Mueller Property South will be mined 'with no connection to the
existing operation. The' Reclamation Plan shows that Mueller Property South will be reclaimed as a lake
, while the existing limestone operation remains dry. All plans, cross-sections and plates should indicate
that ,that existing operation will be extended to the, north to incorporate' Mueller Property South.
CORPORATE OFFICE: 19 BRITISH AMERICAN BLVD. ~ LATHAM, NY 12110 . 518 782-0882. FAX: 518 782-0973
POUGHKEEPSIE OFFICE: ONE CIVIC CENTER PLAZA . SUITE 401 . POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 12601 .845454-9440. FAX: 845454-9206 '
SYRACUSE.OFFICE: 307 S, TOWNSEND STREET. SYRACUSE, NY 13202. 315471-2101 .FAX: 315471-2111
UTICA. OFFICE: 100 Lamond Court. UTiCA, NY 13502. 315266,0129 . FAX: 315 266-0192
WWWSPECTRAENV.COM
Mr. Michael Hollibaugh 0
October 26, 2005
o
Page 2
Comment 5: The method of mining, particularly blasting and advancement of surface limestone benches
on the Mueller South property is not described in the Additional Information submittal. Given the
concerns of the community over the potential impacts of surface mine blasting on structures 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 the integrity of adjacent properties. As the
submittal currently stands there is no discussion of this topic.
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 m~nerprotective of the adjacent
properties. Spectra cannot recommend a favorable decision on the application until a blasting plan is
described in far greater detail. .'
Comment 6: 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 (he saIld and gravel operation and not the
limestone operation. In fact, Section 6.1 of the Surface Limestone Operation Report is almost word-for-
wo'rd identical to Section 6.1 ofthe 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. .
Comment 7: The September 2005. Sediment and Erosion Control Plan included with the Additional
Information submittal describes a'mining scenario, prior to the relocation of Blue Woods Creeks, whe.re
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. Accon;ling to information presented at the T AC meeting, these control
structures have already been constructed on the site. From the proposed grades of these sediment basins
(as shown in the Erosion Control Pian Report), 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 manner may create a situation where storm 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 e~ca"atiot:lcondition$, 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. To ensure that the Mueller South sand and
gravel operation is conducted in accordance with the current approval for the excavation activity, Martin
Marietta must 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: Since the sediment basins described above have been constructed (per information supplied
at the T AC meeting), there is now the. potential for storm water discharge to Blue Woods Creek. What is
the status of the NPDES permit authorizing such discharge? Will copies of the permit application be
forwarded to the City as part of the Board of Zoning Appeals review process?
Mr. Michael Hollibaugh 0
October 26, 2005
Q
Page 3
Comment 9: The issue of hydrogeology and the potential to adversely impact the Plant Four Well Field
due.to the development of the Mueller South limestone operation is not discussed at any length in either
the 2002 or 2005 submittals. The Plant Four WellField is in close proximity to the proposed limestone
mine Gust north of 106th Street west of the Mueller North property). Similarly, the Mueller North sand
and gravel operation is a water-based extraction process also due north of 106th Street. Will the
development of a surface limestone operation south of 106th Street compromise water levels in the
Mueller North sand and gravel operation and the Plant Four Well Field (both during active excavation and
after reclamation of Mueller North)? Similarly, what are the implications of the proposed reclamation
lake for the. existing surface mine operation extending north adjacent to 106th Street? Spectra cannot
recommend a favorable decision on the application until a full discussion of hydrogeologic issues is
provided. Spectra is concerned about issues. of hydrogeology based on the viability of the proposed
operation and reclamation plans.
To be able to respond to questions and comments at the TAC meeting scheduled for November 16,2005;
we respectfully request that responses to this letter be provided by Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. no later
than November 9.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me or Jason Kappel at (518) 782-0882.
GHS/fc
. G:\200 1\0 1233\Applications\Muellersouthlimestone.doc
Sincerely,
SPECTRA ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC.
~
. Sovas, P .E.
esident of Governmental Affairs
u
u
Page 1 of 1
Conn, Angelina V
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Wednesday, October 26,20055:36 PM
john.tiberi@martinmarietta.com; Wayne Phears (wphears@pmlawfirm.com); Zeff Weiss
Conn, Angelina V; John R. Molitor; Duffy, John M; Glaser, Fred J; wdmcevoy@msn.com;
Ikane@indy.rr.com; Tom Yedlick
Subject: FW: Muellersouthlimestone (2)
John:
Attached is final draft letter of Spectra's review of the amended Mueller South mining petition. They have mailed a
final version on Spectra letterhead which will be available should you wish to have something more official
looking.
We are asking to receive updated plans/supporting info and a written response to Spectra's comments by
November 9, so we can have a good discussion at Nov. 15 TAC
thanks
Mike Hollibaugh
571 2422
10/2712005
"-
Q
u
S?e c \-'(0.
R-e'li~ L~-\-t-eY t}
RECENED
OCl 2 7 'LG~
'DOCS
October 26, 2005
Mr. Michael Hollibaugh
Director
Division of Community Services
City of Cannel, City Hall
One Civic Square
Cannel, IN 046032
Re: Comments to Department of Community Services, City of Carmel
Regarding Review of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.,
Mueller Property South Surface Limestone Operation and Aliificial Lake
Dated September, 2005
Dear Mr. Hollibaugh:
This letter summarizes Spectra's technical comments offered during the September 21, 2005 Technical
Advisory Committee meeting (T AC) regarding the above referenced submittal. Additionally, in the time
since the T AC meeting, Spectra has had the opportunity to review several of the submitted documents in
more detail. Technical comments generated from our expanded document review are also included
below.
Comment 1: The Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC), dated April, 2003, does
not specifically mention that it covers and is the controlling document over excavation activities on
Mueller Property South. Mueller Property South is included in the document only as a property outline
on a figure in the report. The plan also does 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.
Comment 2: The SPCC Facility Site Plan by A TC Associates, Inc., last revised July 19, 2005, is not
included in the list of revisions on page 5 of the SPCC plan. The list of plan updates should reflect all
revisions to the SPCC plan.
Comment 3: As explained in the T AC meeting, the Additional Information for the Mueller Property
South Surface Limestone Operation and Artificial Lake, dated September, 2005, is intended to expand
upon the original application materials submitted in 2002. The Additional Information, however, does
not reference the original application materials or explain in any way how the current infonnation
expands on or modifies the original application. There needs to be better continuity between the two
submittals.
Comment 4: The Additional Information submittal explains that the existing surface limestone operation
will be extended to the north to encompass Mueller Property South. Maps and plans throughout the
Additional Infonnation submittal do not show the connection between the two operations. The Mine Plan
and Reclamation Plan maps show that Mueller Property South will be mined with no connection to the
existing operation. The Reclamation Plan shows that Mueller Property South will be reclaimed as a lake
while the existing limestone operation remains dry. All plans, cross-sections and plates should indicate
that that existing operation will be extended to the north to incorporate Mueller Property South.
o
<.)
Mr. Michael Hollibaugh
October 26, 2005
Page 2
Comment 5: The method of mining, particularly blasting and advancement of surface limestone benches
on the Mueller South property is not described in the Additional Information submittal. Given the
concerns of the community over the potential impacts of surface mine blasting on structures 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 the integrity of adjacent properties. As the
submittal currently stands there is no discussion of this topic.
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 the adjacent
properties. Spectra cannot recommend a favorable decision on the application until a blasting plan is
described in far greater detail.
Comment 6: 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 Rep0l1 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
Rep0l1 should be tailored specifically to the limestone operation.
Comment 7: The September 2005 Sediment and Erosion 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. According to infonnation presented at the T AC meeting, these control
structures have already been constructed on the site. From the proposed grades of these sediment basins
(as shown in the Erosion Control Plan Report), 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 manner may create a situation where storm 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. To ensure that the Mueller South sand and
gravel operation is conducted in accordance with the current approval for the excavation activity, Martin
Marietta must 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: Since the sediment basins described above have been constructed (per information supplied
at the TAC meeting), there is now the potential for storm water discharge to Blue Woods Creek. What is
the status of the NPDES permit authorizing such discharge? Will copies of the permit application be
forwarded to the City as part of the Board of Zoning Appeals review process?
u
u
Mr. Michael Hollibaugh
October 26, 2005
Page 3
Comment 9: The issue of hydrogeology and the potential to adversely impact the Plant Four Well Field
due to the development of the Mueller South limestone operation is not discussed at any length in either
the 2002 or 2005 submittals. The Plant Four Well Field is in close proximity to the proposed limestone
mine Uust north of 106th Street west of the Mueller North property). Similarly, the Mueller North sand
and gravel operation is a water-based extraction process also due north of 106th Street. Will the
development of a surface limestone operation south of 106th Street compromise water levels in the
Mueller North sand and gravel operation and the Plant Four Well Field (both during active excavation and
after reclamation of Mueller North)? Similarly, what are the implications of the proposed reclamation
lake for the existing surface mine operation extending north adjacent to 106th Street? Spectra cannot
recommend a favorable decision on the application until a full discussion of hydrogeologic issues is
provided. Spectra is concerned about issues of hydrogeology based on the viability of the proposed
operation and reclamation plans.
To be able to respond to questions and comments at the T AC meeting scheduled for November 16, 2005;
we respectfully request that responses to this letter be provided by Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. no later
than November 9.
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.
Gregory H. Sovas, P.E.
Vice President of Governmental Affairs
GHS/fc
G:\200 I \0 I 233\Applications\Mucllcrsouthlimcstonc.doc
o
Q
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Martin Marietta; Interested Parties
FROM:
Mike Hollibaugh, DOCS Director
RE:
Board of Zoning Appeals, Docket Number 05090003 SU
Agenda Item 5h on October 24, 2005
Request for Pre-Hearing Conference
As Administrator ofthe Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals and pursuant to Article VI,
Section 7 of the Board's rules of procedure, I am requesting that attorneys for the
Petitioner in Docket Number 05090003 SU and all interested parties meet with me for a
pre-hearing conference to consider the following matters regarding this Docket Number:
(a) The simplification ofthe issues relating to the Petition;
(b) The process for the Board to duly consider Mr. Thomas Yedlick's Motion to
Dismiss the Petition, including a briefing schedule and potential time for oral
arguments and/or a public hearing regarding such Motion;
(c) The tabling of the Petition until such time as the Board shall rule on Mr.
Yedlick's Motion; and
(d) Such other matters as may expedite the disposition of the Petition.
The pre-hearing conference shall take place at 10 A.M. on Monday, October 24,2005, in
the conference room ofthe Department of Community Services (City Hall Third Floor),
One Civic Center, Carmel, IN 46032. Please advise this office on or before Thursday,
October 20, whether you will able to attend the pre-hearing conference.
Contact Connie Tingley, BZA Secretary, at 317-571-2417 or ctingley@carmel.in.gov
()
o
Conn, Angelina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Conn, Angelina V
Friday, October 14, 200510:29 AM
'chuck_appelquist@yahoo.com'; 'schweiml@aol.com'; ~8- -'~:...Jl rr; 'janderson13
@earthlink.net'
FW: Oct. 24 - pre-hearing Conference regarding Martin Marietta Limestone extraction
memo-prehearing 200501024.rtf (773
conference.doc... KB)
Good Morning:
Please notify the president of your neighborhood group, also, if you are not.
Attached is a file containing a memo to Martin Marietta and interested parties which
provides notification that the Planning Director, Mike Hollibaugh, is scheduling a pre-
hearing conference for October 24 at 10 AM in the DOCS Conference Room.
Also attached is the BZA agenda for October 24 which the memo refers to.
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Division of Planning & Zoning
Dept. of Community Services
City of Carmel
p. 317-571-2417 f. 317-571-2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
1
o
u
Conn, Angelina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Conn, Angelina V
Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11 :20 AM
'JanetRodriguez'
Hollibaugh, Mike P
RE: Martin Marietta Petition to the BZA
Hello, Janet:
Are you the representative for Williamson Run subdivision? If not, may I have the contact
info of the person who is for our records?
The Martin Marietta item was set to be presented at the Oct. 24 BZA meeting, but it has
been tabled. The City's consultant for mining sent out a review letter a little too late
and so the information requested from the petitioner could not be provided in time. Stay
tuned for the next meeting date for this item. The agendas are posted on the City's
website 10 days prior to the meetings which usually take place the 4th Monday of every
month.
The file for this petition is very large and it might be best if you want to visit our
office and look through the file. Then we can make copies of the exhibits you would like.
Our office hours are 8-5, M-F.
Just a brief overview of the petition:
Martin Marietta seeks approval to surface mine limestone at the southwest corner of Hazel
Dell Parkway and 106th street. They propose to mine from south to north. 9-12-ft
landscaped berms will be placed around the perimeter of the mine pit. Some controlled
blasting will occur.
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Division of Planning & Zoning
Dept. of Community Services
City of Carmel
p. 317-571-2417 f. 317-571-2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: JanetRodriguez [mailto:janetrodriguez@indy.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:08 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: Martin Marietta petition to the BZA
Good Morning. I left you a message requesting information re: Martin Marietta's petition
to the BZA for expansion. I am writing as a representative on my neighborhood's board
(Williamson Run). Thanks for your assistance. Janet Rodriguez janetrodriguez@indy.rr.com
705-0177 10575 Power Drive Carmel IN 46033
1
u
Q
Page 1 of 1
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Tuesday, October 11,200512:44 PM
To: 'weiss@icemiller.com'; 'zeff.weiss@icemiller.com'
Cc: 'dan.hoskins@martinmarietta.com'; Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: Martin Marietta - Mueller Property South (#05090003 SU and 05090004 SU)
Zeff:
It looks like these items will be shown as Tabled on the October BZA agenda (05090003 SU and 05090004 SU).
The Director & Department do not feel comfortable presenting these petitions before the.Board without complete
information, as will be required by the review letter from Mr. Kappel of Spectra. This review letter will be sent to
you by the end of this week or early next week. We apologize on behalf of Spectra for the delay in preparation of
the review letter.
Information packets will not be needed this month.
Please contact Mike or me with any questions or concerns.
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Division of Planning & Zoning
Dept. of Community Services
City of Carmel
p. 317-571-2417 f.317-571-2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
10/11/2005
Q
u
ConstructionlStormwater Pollution Prevention Plan - Technical Review and Comment (Form 1)
Mueller Property South Surface Limestone Operation
10/06/05
Assessment of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Sections B & C)
The construction component of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan includes stormwater quality
measures to address erosion, sedimentation, and other pollutants associated with land disturbance and
construction activities. Proper implementation of the plan and inspections of the construction site are
necessary to minimize the discharge of pollutants. The Project Site Owner should be aware that
unforeseen construction activities and weather conditions may affect the performance of a practice or the
effectiveness of the plan. The plan must be a flexible document, with provisions to modify or substitute
ractices as necessary.
Description of potential pollutant sources associated with construction activities
Sequence describing stormwater quality measure implementation relative to land disturbing
activities
Stable construction entrance locations and specifications (at all points of ingress and egress)
Sediment control measures for sheet flow areas
Sediment control measures for concentrated flow areas
Storm sewer inlet protection measure locations and specifications
7 Runoff control measures (e.g. diversions, rock check dams, slope drains, etc.)
8 Storm water outlet protection specifications
9 Grade stabilization structure locations and specifications
10 Location, dimensions, specifications, and construction details of each stormwater quality measure
11 Temporary surface stabilization methods appropriate for each season (include sequencing)
12 Permanent surface stabilization specifications (include sequencing)
13 Material handling and spill prevention plan
14 Monitoring and maintenance guidelines for each proposed stormwater quality measure
15 Erosion & sediment control specifications for individual building lots
Q,l -
- =
C'Il Q,l
= ....
Q'" ~
Q,l =
"C Q,l
<~
00
00
00
00
00
The post construction component of the Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan includes the
implementation of stormwater quality measures to address pollutants that will be associated with the
mallanduse. Post construction storm water quality measures should be functional upon completion of
the project. Long term functionality of the measures are critical to their performance and should be
monitored and maintained.
Description of pollutants and their sources associated with the proposed land use
Sequence describing stormwater quality measure implementation
Description of proposed post construction stormwater quality measures
(Include a written description of how these measures will reduce discharge of expected pollutants)
4 Location, dimensions, specifications, and construction details of each stormwater quality measure
5 Description of maintenance guidelines for post construction stormwater quality measures
DNR, Division of Soil Conservation
Page 1 of 1
Revised 12/09/03, Form 1
o
u
ConstructionlStormwater Pollution Prevention Plan - Technical Review and Comment
Mueller Property South Surface Limestone Operation
d: 10/06/05
It would be my opinion that a Rule 5 permit is not needed for this project. The previous Rule 5 plan for the sand and
gravel operation should address the potential for any off site pollution caused by storm water runoff from construction
activities. The limestone mining operation should be addressed by Rule 6 and/or Rule 12. You can submit the NO! for
Rule 5 if you want to play it safe or you could contact Randy Braun (234-3980) at IDEM for more information.
cc: Carmel, Surveyor, File
DNR, Division of Soil Conservation
Page 1 of 1
Revised 12/09/03
'ji
o
u
ConstructionlStormwater Pollution Prevention Plan - Technical Review and Comment (Form 1)
IProject Name: Mueller Property South Surface Limestone Operation
Date Reviewed: 10/06/05
The technical review and comments are intended to evaluate the completeness of the Construction/Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan for the project. The Plan submitted was not reviewed for the adequacy of the engineering design. All
measures included in the plan, as well as those recommended in the comments should be evaluated as to their feasibility
by a qualified individual with structural measures designed by a qualified engineer. The Plan has not been reviewed
Ifor other local, state, or federal permits that may be required to proceed with this project. Additional information,
including design calculations may be requested to fUrther evaluate the Plan.
All proposed storm water pollution prevention measures and those referenced in this review must meet the design criteria
and standards set forth in the "Indiana Stormwater Quality Manual" from the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Soil Conservation or similar Guidance Documents.
Please direct questions and/or comments regarding this plan review to:
John B. South P .E. CPESC
Please refer to the address and contact information identified in the Plan Review Section on page 1.
Assessment of Construction Plan Elements (Section A)
The Construction Plan Elements are adequately represented to complete a plan review:
o Yes D No
The items checked below are deficient and require submittal to meet the requirements of the rule.
A
D 1 Index showing locations of required Plan Elements
Narrative describing the nature and purpose of the
project
Legal Description of the Project Site
(Include Latitude and Longitude - NO! Requirement)
D 7 Hydrologic unit code (14 Digit)
D 3
D 5
0 9 Specific points where stormwater discharge will leave D
the site
D 11 Identification of all receiving waters D
D 13 100 year floodplains, floodways, and floodway fringes D
D 15 Adjacent landuse, including upstream watershed D
D 17 Identification of existing vegetative cover D
D 19 Locations, size and dimensions of proposed stormwater D
systems (e.g. pipes, swales and channels)
D 21 Locations of proposed soil stockpiles and/or
borrow/disposal areas
D Proposed final topography at an interval appropriate to
23 . d' dr .
m lcate amage patterns
DNR, Division ofSoi[ Conservation
Page 1 of 1
D 2 11 by 17 inch plat showing building lot
nurnbers/boundaries and road layout/names
o 4 Vicinity map showing project location
D 6 Location of all lots and proposed site
improvements (roads, utilities, structures, etc.)
o 8 Notation of any State or Federal water quality
permits
10 Location and name of all wetlands, lakes and
water courses on and adjacent to the site
1 Identification of potential discharges to ground
2 water (abandoned wells, sinkholes, etc.)
14 Pre-construction and post construction estimate of
Peak Discharge (10 Year storm event)
16 L~cations and approximate boundaries of all
disturbed areas (Construction Limits)
18 ~oi~s ~p including soil descriptions and
Imntations
20 Plans for any off-site construction activities
associated with this project (sewer/water tie-ins)
D 22 ExistiDg site topography at an interval appropriate
to indicate drainage patterns
Revised 12/09/03, Form 1
o
u
Conn, Angelina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Johnson, Sandy M
Thursday, September 08,200510:31 AM
Conn, Angelina V
Fine, Lois A; Hill, Dick B
First the right of way has to be dedicated through engineering and BPW. Then it is vacated through engineering and the city
council.
SANDVJOHNSON
ASSET MANAGER
CITY OF CARMEL
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TREASURER
317 571-2628 - OFFICE
3 1 7 57 1-241 0 - FAX
1
i ?
"
o
o
rti'5djOtJri-3--- .)
Construction/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Technical Review and Comment (Form 1)
Project Name: Mue}ler Ptol'erty~illface Limestone Operation] County: Hamilton
Plan Submittal Date: 09/0 05 Hydrologic Unit Code: 5120201090040
Project Location Description: South West comer of 106th and Hazel Dell Road
Latitude and Longitude:Lat 39-56'-19" N Long- 86-04'-54"
= Civil Section: 9 17N 4E
Q
i Project Owner Name: Martin Marietta Materials Inc.
E Contact:
Q
'i3 Address: 1980 East 116th Street Suite 200
....
~ City: Carmel State: IN Zip: 46032
.S Phone: 317-573-4460 FAX: 317-573-5975 E-Mail:
...
~ Plan Preparer Name: Mr. Dan Hoskins
Affiliation: Martin Marietta Materials Inc.
Address: 1980 East 116th Street Suite 200
City: Carmel State: IN Zip: 46032
Phone: 317-573-4460 FAX: 317-573-5975 E-Mail:
Review Date: 10/06/05
~ Principal Plan Reviewer: John B. South P.E. CPESC
.~ Agency: Hamilton County Soil and Water Conservation District
~
~ Address: 1108 South 9th Street
; City: Noblesville
s::: Phone: 317-773-2181
Assisted By:
FAX:
State: IN
317-776-1101
Zip: 46060
E-Mail: john-south@iaswcd.org
./ PLAN IS ADEQUATE: A comprehensive plan review has been completed and it has been determined that the
plan satisfies the minimum requirements and intent of 327 lAC 15-5.
o Please refer to additional information included on the following page(s).
o Submit Notice of Intent (NOI): Attach a copy of this cover page when submitting the NOI to the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management. Construction activities may begin 48 hours following the submittal of
the NO/. A copy of the NOI must also be sent to the Reviewing Authority (e.g. SWCD, DNR).
o A preliminary plan review has been completed; a comprehensive review will not be completed within the 28-day
review period. The reviewing authority reserves the right to perform a comprehensive review at a later date and
revisions to the plan may be required at that time to address deficiencies.
o Please refer to additional information included on the following page(s).
o Submit Notice of Intent (NOI): Attach a copy of this cover page when submitting the NOI to the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management. Construction activities may begin 48 hours following the submittal of
the NO/. A NOI must also be sent to the
o PLAN IS DEFICIENT: Significant deficiencies were identified during the plan review.
o Please refer to additional information included on the following page(s).
o DO NOT file a Notice ofIntent for this project.
o DO NOT commence land disturbing activities until all deficiencies are adequately addressed, the plan re-
submitted, and notification has been received that the minimum requirements have been satisfied.
Plan Revisions
Deficient Items should be mailed or delivered to the Principal Plan Reviewer identified
in the Plan Review Section above.
DNR, Division of Soil Conservation
Page 1 of 1
Revised 12/09/03, Form 1
Martin Marietta'iggregates
(,)
AA
Indiana District Office
1980 East 116th Street
Suite 200
Carmel, IN 46032
Telephone (317) 573-4460
Fax (317) 573-5975
September 6, 2005
Mr. Michael Hollibaugh
Director, Department of Community Services
City of Carmel, City Hall
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
RE: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Mueller Property South Surface Limestone Operation
Dear Mr. Hollibaugh:
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. has requested a Special Use Approval from the Carmel-Clay Board
of Zoning Appeals for surface limestone extraction on a 96.92-acre tract south of 106th Street
between Gray Road and Hazel Dell Parkway. The site for which this special use is being sought is
referred to as, "Mueller Property South". The Carmel-Clay Board of Zoning Appeals has already
approved a surface sand and gravel operation for the Mueller Property South (approval
04040024SU dated December 13, 2004).
The following documents and maps are supplied in preparation for the upcoming September 21,
2005 TAC meeting regarding the above referenced project. Please find enclosed copies (3 ea.) of
the following reference material:
Additional Information for Application for Board of Zoning Appeals Action Special
Use Approval Request - Mueller Property South Surface Limestone Operation and
Artificial Lake
Furthermore, as noted on the Landscaping Plan Map and depicted on numerous other maps many
of the landscaping, reclamation and erosion control features have already been incorporated andlor
constructed in accordance with the approved sand and gravel operation (04040024SU).
If you require additional information feel free to contact me at 317-573-4460.
Enclosures
......
cc: J. Tiberi (w/o enc.)
Y. Bailey (w/o enc.)
W. Phears (w/o enc.)
Z. Weiss (w/o enc.)
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Members (w/enc.)
o
Q
MARTIN MARlETT A AGGREGATES
1980 EAST 116m STREET, SUITE 200
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032
P. O. BOX 549
CARMEL, INDIANA 46082
PHONE NUMBER:
FAX NUMBER:
E-MAIL:
317-573-4460
317-573-5975
Dao.Hoskins@martinmarietta.com
----- ----; -""
,,/ jr' I! I .....
\ \ ~~-"--. ,
/,' / " I'
:,:,,'::7.. .
<>/ ~ ~
.-:1 ~ ,',
_; ~<.<3 ,'-
~v C-. i.
'\, -
s-8 l'S
,~\.)
\
DATE:
September 7, 2005
, -.
l~'1
1',/
."
./>
\ \::'-
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TO:
Gregory Savas
Spectra Environmental Group, Inc.
19 British American Boulevard
Latham, New York 12110
FROM:
c-::.",
OA\.,.
(- ' .
Dan Hoskins \-. '\
~,-,~
Mueller Property South Surface Limestone:
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan
RE:
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES:
REMARKS:
Please insert this document in the information package entitled:
Additional Information for Application for Board of Zoning Appeals Action Special Use
Approval Request - Mueller Property South Surface Limestone Operation and Artificial Lake
The information package document is being forwarded to your attention by Skelly & Lay.
o
u
2601 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110-1185
E-mail: skellyloy@skellyloy.com
Internet: www.skellyloy.com
Phone: 717-232-0593
800-892-6532
Fax: 717-232-1799
September 7,2005
---- ---. -
/":-, ./--.......
" ~_\ \ J--L.J ."
, \,"'"-~ '" / /
/V~ "",,',
/. "t> '
,tl ~\<-\) '.
'- <~v
--:: ~<-('~ ,,({::J
l~" (,~\)
~t,
\
'0<8 ~f;J'->S
Mr. Gregory H. Sovas, P.E.
Vice President of Governmental Affairs
Spectra Environmental Group, Inc.
19 British American Boulevard
Latham, New York 12110
!;/;
l~~';f~:~ '
I/'~-Y
'\'\{~:>
Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Mueller Property South Surface Lime-
stone
Dear Mr. Sovas:
At the request of Mr. Dan Hoskins, Skelly and Loy, Inc. is enclosing one notebook
containing additional information for the Application for Board of Zoning Appeals Action Special Use
Approval Request for the referenced site. Mr. Hoskins will forward to you the Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan (to be inserted into page 7-9 of the Construction Plan
enclosed) under separate cover.
We appreciate your attention to this matter. Please feel to contact Mr. Hoskins at 317-573-
4460 or me with any questions.
Sincerely yours,
SKELL V and LOV, Inc.
Laura D. Berra, P.E.
Mining Engineer
/
I
Enclosure /
cc: Dan Hoskins
1605456
File: sovas.wpd
Office Locations: Pittsburgh, PA
Morgantown, WV
State College, PA
Hagerstown, MD
Raleigh, NC
FEE 19 '03 04:53PM
u
P.1/1
u
\ ; ~. ! . I .....
SlIilt r$8
OUt .:Ham/ltoJ/ COllnty Stll/nr~
"'obltsvllle, Indillna 4t?o6c-.u 30
Febru~'11,2003
~
",",
-"''-,
eelS, Inc.
Attn: Fred Parker
10'05 College Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46280
VIA F ACSIMlLE: 843-0'46
'"
"-
'-,
Dear Mr. Parker:
Re: Blue Wc)Ods Creek R.elocation
In reference to the Special Cannel TA meeting on Thursday, Febmary 13,2003, e have the following
comments on the reconstruction and reI . . (Blue Woods Creek):
1. Please complete the Petition for Relocation and Reconstruction. I will give you an application at the
meeting.
2. Please forward an engineers estimate or copy of the contract for 100% of the construction coats for the
reconstruction and relocation.
3. Submit orlglnalletters of credit or bonds for the above amounu.
4. Submit the Malntel,lance Agreement.
S. Submit an easement description for the easement on Area B oftbe Mueller property. 'of' (l):)".o ~rnQrJ
6. Submit 5 sets of construction plans. fDY \H0I ~<.U..
Should you have any questions please contact me at 776-8495. Thank you.
gcerelY,
JeMC~
Plan evfewer
Cc; City ofCarmeJ-Engmee .r.e.~
City of Carmel-Department 0 mmUftt crviccs
Hamilton County Department of Soil Conservation Services
Hamilton County Highway Department
Max Williams-Martin Marietta Aggregates (Fax S73-5975)
John Tiberi-Martin Marietta Aggregates (Fax 573.5975)
FEB 11 '03 12:00PM
P.1/1
w
.xcnton c. Wardl Surveyor
'1'Ii/Jl/c (317) 77c;.8495
(Fax (317) 776-9~~8'
,sllitt 188
Oil' .JfomtltQ7I County ,sqllar~
:NobleslJllt" Indiana 4bOt>o-~230
,{' ~ - :~:~ .::\-1--1~::~~:?7-
,/~ \ '; >---------~~.j~,
/: /<....oJ'
/,' ~' ,\
/,':/ fr RfCf/[lbl) \~~\
1-- elJ 11 \--j
\~> DOCS lOa1 if}
'\ /~, /~'/
'v,~~,'~ /,\y
'<:",,' / i'-'~.'- ._-~,_.,.--;~;\ \/
'Z...:...~tu_~~/
February 11,2003
Weihe Engineers, Inc.
Attn: Pred Parker
10505 College Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46280
VIA FACSIMILE: 843-0546
Re: Blue Woods Creek Relocation
Dear Mr. Parker:
In reference to the Special Carmel TAC meeting on Thursday, February 13.2003. we have the following
comments on the reconstruction and relocation of the Moffitt-WlIUamsoD Legal Drain (Blue Woods Creek):
1. Please complete the Petition for Relocation and Reconstruction. I will give YOQ an application at the
meetillg.
2. Please forward an engineers estimate or copy of me contract for 100% of the construction costs for the
reconstruction and relocation.
3. Submit original letters of credit or bonds for the above amounts.
4. Submit. the Maintenance Agreement.
~. Submit al) easement description for the easement on Area B of me Mueller property.
6. Submit S sets of cons1r\lction plans.
Should you have any questions please contact me at 776~849S. Thank you.
Cc: City ofCannet~Engfneer
City of Carmel-Department of COmmunity Services
Hamilton County Department of Soil Conservation Services
Hamilton County Highway Department
Max Williams-Martin Marietta Aggregates (Fax 573-5975)
John Tlberi.M~n MarlettJ Aggregates (F~ 573.5975)
~.'
'."
",
o
u
John Tiberi
Vice President/General Manager
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
1980 East I 16th Street, Suite 200
Carmel, IN 46032
DIVISIon ofPlannmg ~,zonmg ""'()\
rtr? ~ '\,/ ~
f '~:, /(fi ~ '?-\
1::1 I"r;j ~ Cfl//t/J '~:\
7 February \2003 1 At,,, ,~I
! \ 1"1. Illf;) : I'
I;-~\ UI1,,' ':.Iv " -,
\ "':::;;1\ ut,S ! '7
\;:(5'\ /(p~;/
\,/ )>-... ~/"\. )7
"<!::;~Zl,J~ILl~S?>)
re: Special Use Petitions for Mueller Properties South
viafax (317/573-146fJ) & U.S. Mail
6976"
Dear Mr. Tiberi:
Our office has reviewed the Special Use petitions filed by you on behalf of Martin Marietta
Materials, Inc., for property located southwest of the intersection of East 106th Street and Hazel Dell
Parkway. This letter will address three of the four applications submitted: I. Sand & Gravel
Extraction; 2. Surface Limestone Extraction; and 3. Artificial Lake. This correspondence also
incorporates comments forwarded to the Department by the City's mining consultant. The
following are comments that need to be addressed:
Application:
· The Application for Surface Limestone Extraction and Artificial Lake represent two
separate approvals. Each will be docketed separately and will require separate Findings-of-
Fact.
Plans:
· Appendix D, pg D-5, Item 4: The Thoroughfare Plan calls for a ten-foot wide, asphalt,
multi-use path along East 106th Street. Please add this to the plan.
· Appendix D, pg D-7, Item 16; pg. D-8, Item 23: Please submit a draft of the Deed of
Dedication and Acceptance of right-of-way for the forty-five-foot half right-of-way for East
106th Street (Secondary Arterial) for review. The City's standard document is attached for
your use.
· Appendix D, pg D-5, Item 4; pg. D-8, Item 23: The Please submit a draft ofthe instrument
of vacation for River Road for review.
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
Page 1
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032
317/571-2417
I'
o
o
,"
Martin Marietta Materials South - Sand & Gravel and Artificial Lake
7 February 2003
. Appendix D, pg D-5, Items 5-6; pg, D-6, Item 10: Both the findings-of-fact and
supplemental narrative information represent that access for the operations on the Mueller
tracts will be derived solely from existing access points on East 96th Street and Gray Road.
However, the map exhibits filed with the Department clearly show an access drive
established at the point where River Road currently intersects East 106th Street. Please
explain.
. Appendix D, pg D-6, Items 11"':13: Two single-family residential structures and what
appear to be several accessory structures currently exist on Parcel No. 17-14-09-00-00-
003.000. Demolition of these structures will require permits through the Division of
Building & Code Enforcement. I do not find any indication in the materials submitted to
suggest at what point this demolition is proposed to occur.
· Appendix D, pg D-6, Item 14: The narrative indicates that there will be an "approved"
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan for this facility. Approved by
whom? Once prepared, please submit a copy to Gary Hoyt, Fire Marshall, and a copy to my
attention.
. Appendix D, pg D-6, Item 14: Where on site does Martin Marietta propose to locate the
dumpsters?
. Appendix D, pg D-7, Item 16: Are there any existing easements on site that will need to be
either vacated or relocated as part of this proposal? For instance, Blue Woods Creek
appears to also serve as the Moffit & Williamson Legal Drain, which would also require
approvals from the Hamilton County Drainage Board to relocate.
· Appendix D, pg D-7, Item 17-18: The Perimeter Buffering Requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance require that a fifteen-foot wide Landscape Bufferyard be established adjacent to
both the Hazel Dell Parkway and East 106th Street rights-of-way. These bufferyards must
be planted to a minimum of the "D" standards of S26.04.05 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Please submit two copies of the detailed Landscape Plan to my attention, and one to Scott
Brewer, the City's Urban Forester. Any questions regarding the specific requirements of the
Landscape Plan may be directed to Mr. Brewer at 317/571-2417 or
~hTeweT@ci c::lnnel in lIS,
. Appendix D, pg D-8, Item 21: The proposed use of the property will entail the movement
of an unusually large volume of earth, yet an Erosion Control Plan has not been prepared for
this project. Please prepare a detailed Erosion Control Plan, and submit onc copy to Jeff
Kendall, Building Commissioner; one to John South, Hamilton County Soil & Water
Conservation District; one to Dick Hill, Assistant Director, Department of Engineering; one
to Jenny Chapman, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office; and one to my attention.
. Appendix D, pg. D-8, Item 24: Please submit copies of proposed identification signage.
No trespassing signs are allowed to be up to three square feet in size without permits or
other approvals.
. Appendix D, pg. D-8, Item 25: Reference is made to restrictions on operations outlined in
the application. Outlined where? Please submit proposed Commitments for review.
. Appendix F: The proposed activity includes the relocation of Blue Woods Creek. A
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
Page 2
CARMEL, INDL\NA 46032
317/571-2417
.-
...
.
o
u
Martin Marietta Materials South - Sand & Gravel and Artificial Lake
7 February 2003
review of both the Building Commissioner's and the Department of Engineering's records
indicate that the City has not been copied on Martin Marietta's plans. Please submit one
copy of the full-size, complete and detailed plans for the relocation to the attention of Jeff
Kendall, Building Commissioner; one to Dick Hill, Assistant Director, Department of
Engineering; and one to my attention. A copy of the Landscape Plan should also be
provided to the Urban Forester for review. Please also submit copies of any attendant
applications and correspondence regarding these plans that were not included in the original
application packets.
· Appendix F, IDEM Correspondence dated 27 August 2002, pg. 1: Paragraph 1 makes
reference to the Hamilton County Drainage Board having agreed to reduce its easement to
thirty feet. Please provide supporting documentation from the Drainage Board.
· Appendix F, IDEM Correspondence dated 27 August 2002, General Conditions, Item 1:
Where does Martin Marietta propose to deposit dredged material? Will this become part of
the berm?
· Appendix F, IDEM Correspondence dated 27 August 2002, General Conditions, Item 2: A
detailed Erosion Control Plan needs to be prepared and submitted as previously stated.
· Appendix F, IDEM Correspondence dated 27 August 2002, General Conditions, Item 4:
Submit one copy of Blue Woods Creek Relocation Riparian Planting Scheme, Job No.
011015, to my attention, and one to the attention of the Urban Forester.
· Appendix F, IDEM Correspondence dated 27 August 2002, General Conditions, Item 5:
Copy the Urban Forester, Building Commissioner, and Department of Engineeiing on all
post-construction (as-built) plans.
· Appendix F, IDEM Correspondence dated 27 August 2002, General Conditions, Item 6:
Provide copies of the maintenance agreement to my attention, the Urban Forester, Building
Commissioner, and Department of Engineering.
· Appendix F, IDEM Correspondence dated 27 August 2002, General Conditions, Items 7-
10: Copy the Division of Planning & Zoning and the Division of Building & Code
Enforcement on monitoring reports.
Maps:
· Revise to include existing grade contours on Mine Map without reclamation, indicate
hau1ageways, direction of mining.
· Remove "Conceptual" from Title block for both Mine Map and Reclamation Plan Map.
Noise Assessment:
· Conduct a study to establish the noise impacts on neighbors, as the excavation of sand and
gravel by mobile vehicle will be louder than the by dredge. This is contrary to the statement
that mobile equipment will be on the subject property only infrequently.
· Reference applicable noise standards.
As stated, after removal of overburden, 26 ft. of sand and gravel will be removed utilizing
Page 3
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
C\lUvIEL, INDIANA 46032
317/571-2417
o
o
. ~ .. ....~.
Martin Marietta Materials South - Sand & Gravel and Artificial Lake
7 February 2003
loaders, backhoes, and trucks. Removal of overburden will be done in the daylight hours.
Mechanical removal with sand and gravel will be just a noisy as removal of overburden,
as was not the case with the Mueller North operation, which was proposed to be operated
by dredge. Hours of operation should be limited to daylight hours or less. Daylight hours
for the stripping of overburden may be acceptable for the removal of overburden, as that
is expected to be of a short duration. However, removal of sand and gravel by mobile
equipment will occur for a much longer time.
Recommendation: No mining on Saturday or Sunday; hours of operation no greater than
7 am to 7 pm.
Air:
. Include a statement to provide for the watering of haul roads to limit dust when necessary.
Hydrologic Assessment:
· Report current groundwater elevation (map with contours preferred).
· Report anticipated groundwater or lake level in excavation area.
The Cross sections show the floor of the sand and gravel pit at 720 feet above mean sea
level (amsl). The anticipated pond level at the Mueller North property was 724 ft. amsL
The "Groundwater Interference Investigation" draft report contains an Existing
Conditions Map that shows groundwater contours on the Mueller South parcel at
elevations from 728 ft. to 724 ft. The Report also states that there will be leakage (i.e.
recharge to the groundwater) from the relocated Creek causing a groundwater mound.
The elevation of the White River adjacent to the parcel is 724 ft. amsl, according to the
"South Mueller ESC Proposed Reclamation Map" submitted last year. Groundwater
adjacent to the river will be at higher elevations. The data suggest that a pit floor at 720
ft. amsl will be saturated.
Review of the sand and gravel pit mining operation, in which the diversion and relocation
of Blue Woods Creek is proposed, raises several potential issues. First, the to-be-
constructed channel, into which Blue Woods Creek is to be diverted, appears to be
unlined. According to reclamation cross-section A-A', the unlined channel has a bottom
elevation of approximately 732 ft. amsL The proximity of this new channel to the
proposed sand and gravel pit, with a bottom reclamation elevation of approximately 720
ft. amsl, indicates that there is a potential for a minimum head loss from the channel to
the pit of at least 12 feet. Given typical hydraulic conductivity values for sand and gravel,
and the fact, according to Darcy's Law, it is difficult to maintain large differences in
hydraulic head in material with high permeability, there is potential for significant
leakage from the channel to the sand and gravel pit. Secondly, with the assumption that
groundwater in the vicinity of the pit will be equal to or higher than the elevation of water
in the White River, which is approximately 725-728 ft. amsl, it appears that the
reclamation floor elevation of the pit (approximately 720 ft. amsl) will be saturated or
under water during high groundwater stands in the spring and late fall. Thirdly,
reclamation cross-section A-A' makes no attempt to show that disposition of the water
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
Page 4
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032
317/571-2417
.-- ~ ";\..
u
u
Martin Marietta Materials South - Sand & Gravel and Artificial Lake
7 February 2003
table across the site at buildout. And lastly, the Reclamation Plan map shows the floor of
the pit being dry at full buildout, while water bodies have water surface elevations
ranging from eight to fifteen feet higher.
Recommendation: Because of the segmented nature of these applications, Martin
Marietta needs to complete a hydrologic assessment of the entire area including the lake
at North Mueller, and most importantly, the current and future impacts to the City's water
supply wells and its long-term plans to provide water to City residents.
Recommendation: Martin Marietta should provide larger maps and details of the
relocation of Blue Woods Creek. They should also provide a copy of the annual report of
the relocation ofthe Creek that they are required to produce for the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management.
Reclamation and Landscaping Plan:
· Address disposition oftopsoil (i.e. minimum thickness).
· Pr:esent a planting and seeding plan.
The grading and landscaping plan obviously anticipates approval of the subsequent
mining permits for open pit mining of rock.
Because this application is to be reviewed without regard to any future mining at the site,
MM needs to provide a Reclamation Plan for this parcel. The existing plan does not
indicate any plantings on the floor of the mine, and all the reviews indicate that the
bottom of the mine will be saturated or under water.
Either MM needs to submit a new Reclamation Plan or they need to change their Mine
Plan to stay above the groundwater. In any event, they will still need to do a hydrologic
assessment to better define their current and future plans.
The Department is interested to know what the final disposition of the property is proposed
to be. On the Mueller North parcel, we had discussed the potential for the area to eventually
become a park, and we would like to know if that is the intent here, and if not, what the intent might
be. Weare also interested in having a timeline prepared that will give us a rough idea when the
various aspects of this project would be initiated and completed.
If I can be of any further service, please contact me at (317) 571-2417.
Sincerely,
c1~annIDg Zonffig Admllrisrrator
Department of Community Services
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
Page 5
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032
317/571-2417
o
o
~....
.. "" ...:...
.. .'
Martin Marietta Materials South - Sand & Gravel and Artificial Lake
7 February 2003
.-
cc: Mike Hollibaugh, DOCS, Director
Scott Brewer, DOCS, Urban Forester
Jeff Kendall, DOCS, Building Commissioner
Dick Hill, Assistant Director, Department of Engineering
Gary Hoyt, Fire Marshall, Carmel/Clay Fire Department (fax: 317/571-2615)./
John South, Hamilton County Soil & Water Conservation District (fax: 317/776-1101)./
Jenny Chapman, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office (fax: 317/776-9628)
Greg Sovas, Spectra Environmental (fax: 518/782-0973)
ONE CIVIC SQU.-\RE
Page 6
CARc"\fEL, INDIANA 46032
317/571-2417