Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments Miscellaneous 4/14/2004 . I . Letter to Jim Donovan from Thomas Heath--page 2 Thomas W. Heath 855 S. 57th Street Springfield, OR 97478 Fax (54]) 726-0270 Email wheathl234@aoLcom 4- 13 -04 City of Springfield Development Services Dept. Att: Jim Donovan 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Re: Public Hearing, MountainGate Rock Quarry Dear Mr. Donovan, We have read with interest of the proposal to use explosives for the reshaping ofthe old rock quarry that now occupies the futrlre site of a public park. . . . i . As longtime residents on the east side of South 57th Street, we still remember the blasting that took place at the rock quarry back in the late ]970's. We also remember the damage that occurred to our properties for which the quarry's owners at the time had to pay restitution. In my own case, the blasting resulted in cracks to the ceiling of several rooms of my house as well as damage to a large east facing window. My neighbors' house at #827 also sustained damage, particularly to the kitchen area with cupboards that separated from the ceiling. I Considering the fact that our homes are quite some distance from the actual site of the blasting, the extent ofthe damage seemedlto indicate the presence of unique geologic properties in the area that came as a surprise to the quarry's owners at the time. We can only hope that the property's new ownerslare not caught equally by surprise ifpermission is granted to use explosives on the site once again. This could be a much bigger problem . , today that it .was:then py virtue of the obvious fact that extensive new building has occurred in this area dUring the past 25 ydars, and most of it is situated much, much closer to the blast site. , t-i-tt-f1D* QfIlle A~OO\Ved; I . .~ ~'aIWtef~--l'-;fl'2- p~.. w . I UJr'IfV'Y~- r~ j (),S\l!~> GY. ~.\ t>,\I\\ ,~ ..,p. :j~ . I . Letter to Jim Donovan from Thomas Heatli--page 2 I , According to the recent Springfield Ne~1S article about the propo~ed rock quarry , reclamation project in which you were quoted, " . . . blasting on the scale proposed at MountainGate is higWy unusual." Given the potential for damage which exists, we are not at all surprised that this is the case. ! We would only request that the city make good on its promise to treat existing state standards for explosives use as "minimum guidelines" but we are concerned by the proviso that followed, namely to "allow neighbors to supplement those parameters with any concerns they identifY." This implies that changes will be made to the blasting procedures only after they have caused damage. Needless to say, we would prefer an approach that does not allow for "trial and error!" . Finally, we must wonder why the future park site was proposed in the first place if reclaiming the ground it will occupy poses 'such difficult and potentially hazardous obstacles. Our own preference would be to see the park project relocated to an area less in need of such extensive preparation work or else abandoned altogether. Are we not correct , in assuming that permission to proceed with the necessary blasting would never be granted were it not for the city's own future claim to this site as park space? And if so, aren't the concerns raised above just as pertinent to 4 city-owned public space as to a private one? I We appreciate this opportunity to share these views with you and hope that you will take them into consideration as the fate of~his project is decided. Sincerely, I ~~.ILxZ-' I Thomas W. Heath 855 S. 57th Street Cosigner: (i3 .~ Prudence M. Heath 827 S. 57th Street