The Manchester Enterprise
A Heritage Newspaper
Weekly Publication
Concerns mount over ordinance
Stansley Mineral seeks extraction variance for Bridgewater facility
By Ed Patino, Staff Writer
PUBLISHED: February 14, 2008
While no final ruling was made regarding Stansley Mineral Resources' request for a mineral extraction variance, several Bridgewater Township residents voiced their opinions of the project during a public hearing that was part of the Bridgewater Township Board of Trustees meeting Feb. 7.
Advertisement
The hearing began with a slideshow presentation by Stansley representative Chip Tokar covering the mining project at the company's Clinton facility, located at 13500 Allen Road.
Comments from residents who were both for and against the project followed the presentation. The board tabled a final ruling until future meetings so it could examine the language of the township's ordinance regarding the mining project.
"We want to make sure that we interpret the ordinance correctly," Bridgewater Township supervisor Jolea Mull said.
During the presentation, Tokar explained Stansley's request to move the current setback of the southern board of the facility's property, which borders some residences along Allen Road, from the current 250 feet down to 100 feet. Along with the mining of 25 acres of the company's 40-acre parcel, Stansley is also digging a 4.9-acre pond on the site. The pond would be approximately 25-feet deep.
Under the current setbacks, the creation of the pond would leave a steep hill on the southern end of the property. The company wants to move the setbacks to 100 feet from the residences to conform the topography.
"This would eliminate topographic anomalies (the hill) and make a more gradual slope," Tokar said. "It would also reduce surface water."
One of the main concerns of resident Dan Brymer, who owns the property along the southwest border of the Stansley site, was that water would keep running down the hill into his backyard. Reducing the slope of the hill, according to a study conducted by Tokar, would solve that problem.
"Based on an average rainfall of 32 inches per year, there is currently 3.6 million gallons of water flowing toward the house per year," Tokar said. "After the change, there would only be 1,420,000 gallons of surface water, which is a 41 percent reduction."
Tokar also said that with the amended variance, there would be a reduction in sediment erosion rates. He also said that the amendments would have no effect on Stansley's final reclamation date, scheduled for 2012. Tokar also assured that no additional truck traffic would go through the property.
"We'll only be using what we use during the reclamation," he said. "We are already ahead of schedule."
According to Tokar, the company was given the okay by Brymer to request the new variances, and the amendments were already approved by Bridgewater's Mineral License Board.
Several residents voiced their concerns over the proposed setback reduction. Dave Bopp, who used to own Brymer's property, said he was concerned with possible safety issues along the Stansley property.
"There's no six-foot tall cyclone fencing, and that's supposed to be all around the property," Bopp said. "I have grandchildren who are at the age where they can get into trouble."
Bopp also was displeased with the current appearance of the Stansley site.
"Take a look at their Raisin Township operation," he said. "Theirs is nice and ours isn't."
Tom Hukill, who lives along the southeast border of the Stansley property, was concerned with the wording in the variance.
"Most of the changes would occur on the western half of the southern border," Hukill said. "If the variance is granted, I'd like it to specify the western half."
Bridgewater resident Jim Fish presented the board with wording in Township Ordinance 34 that states, if there is a conflict regarding the setbacks, 250 feet is the limit.
"That makes 100 feet not grantable," Fish said. "If that's changeable, the whole ordinance is changeable. In that case, the board should amend the ordinance instead of approving the variance under the current ordinance."
Matt Creekbaum, the attorney for the Bakers said changing an entire ordinance is unnecessary and requested approval of the amended variance.
"Minor changes can be made on a case-by-case basis," Creekbaum said.
Along with examining the ordinance, Mull also said she wanted to look at the documents of Brymer's approval of the amended variance.
Not all stories are guaranteed to appear
online. The Web edition contains a reasonable
sampling of the print edition stories.
For the most complete news coverage, we invite you to
subscribe
to the print edition of the paper.
TOP JOBS
