Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

[Dignann]

Re: Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

Destruction At Cedar Creek

Letter to the Editor

Civil War News
July 2008

TO THE EDITOR:
A limestone-mining company based in Cleveland, Ohio, has just won from the politicians of Frederick County, Virginia, the right to destroy ultimately some 600 acres of Cedar Creek battlefield.

A group ostensibly intended to protect the battlefield, but apparently primarily devoted to staging reenactments, played a role in this result.

The reenactment community at large should be aware of the event, in order to be able to judge the merits of the case and consider the seemliness of having anything to do with such an organization.
In June 2006 the Frederick County Planning Commission made the easy choice of denying the proposal for destruction of this historic land.

Last month, however, the county Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning despite the recommendation of their own planners, and the opposition of a wide array of individuals and groups pleading for protection of the historic ground.

In August 2007, hoping to avoid being the victim of political indifference, the concerned citizens group "Preserve Frederick" had sent to each of the supervisors a thoughtful proposal that allowed the gravel company considerable opportunities for work, but spared the most important battlefield land. This Plan B seemed certain to provide ground for reasonable compromise.

In concerned reaction to the prospect of Frederick County even considering allowing the destruction of a major piece of Cedar Creek battlefield, I wrote a heartfelt letter in November 2007.
Since that letter documented the case reasonably thoroughly, I include most of it here:

“I am delighted to have a chance to comment on the horrifying prospect of the possible destruction of a portion of Cedar Creek battlefield by gravelling operations.

“I recently heard that the proposed developer has somehow ascertained that nothing actually happened there, which is amusing and entirely predictable. That always results in such cases: 'twas so at Brandy Station a few years ago, and many another spot.

“The soldiers who fought and bled on the ground, and drew the maps that accompany their official reports, for some reason marked their positions in the wrong place apparently?! Perhaps it was a conspiracy, begun in the fall of 1864, to thwart 21st-century developers?

“Surely the people, the media, and the governing officials of the lower Valley cannot be gullible enough to fall for such an egregious misrepresentation?

“On the ground in question, Gen. George A. Custer's Union cavalry thundered down on the exposed left flank of the Confederate line at the battle's final climax. Gen. Cuvier Grover's Federal infantry piled in just to Custer's left (east).

“A Northerner who participated in the assault wrote of the advance: ‘every inch of it was a bloody one. Scores upon scores dropped from the ranks. There were more lying on the ground than there were survivors running ahead.’

“The Georgia brigade of Gen. Clement A. Evans faced the brunt of the attack. Evans wrote wearily to his wife the next day: ‘What a defeat yesterday evening!... I have slept but one hour in over sixty hours.... At 4 o'clock p.m. the enemy attacked our left flank....& by heavy force broke and drove us back to our camps.... Oh how distressed I am…. They broke the lines on my right, poured in on my left and forced me back…. Some of the fighting of my brigade was done hand to hand.’

“My respect for the citizenry in Virginia's beautiful and historic Valley is strong enough to leave me confident that they will scorn the ludicrous lies about what happened where, and protect the scenes of mortal combat at Cedar Creek.”

My respect for the citizenry may not have been misplaced, but the politicians — always eager for development no matter what the consequences — went ahead and approved the ghastly proposal in May 2008.

They found allies in the reenactment business known as Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, which saw an opportunity for a tiny bit of private gain at the cost of the historic site.

In exchange for eight acres (eight acres!!) the reenactors of the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation (CCBF) endorsed the destruction of the other 600. The eight acres, it is said, will be useful for parking for the Foundation's loyal re-enactors.

The developer-owned politicians delightedly waved the support of the CCBF as evidence that real, local, Civil War people actually welcomed the destruction of the battlefield. With characteristic political dishonesty, they ignored the flood tide of opposition from preservationists across the country.

Ironically, the Plan B proposal actually included the CCBF parking lot anyway.

The horrific damage done by selfish and irresponsible people ought to weigh heavily on their collective conscience, but almost surely will not cause them the least discomfort.

Had the CCBF not been indifferent to battlefield preservation, instead of being focused exclusively on their own narrow selfish interests, what might the result have been? Eight acres, the equivalent of 24 pieces of silver, will hardly mitigate lots and lots of deep pits where once Civil War soldiers fought and died.

I know a number of Civil War reenactors, some of them acknowledged leaders in that culture, who also have blue-ribbon credentials as preservationists. They must be disgusted at this smear on the collective escutcheon of their avocation.

I can readily imagine that many rank-and-file reenactors will not be dismayed by the CCBF's behavior. Others, though, surely care about the Civil War and its battlefields enough to be outraged. They ought to be.

Robert K. Krick
Fredericksburg, Va.

http://www.civilwarnews.com/preservation/2008pres/cedar_krick_presjuly08_902.htm

Eric

[Dignann]

Re: Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

Foundation Explains Details Of Cedar Creek Agreement

Letter to the Editor

Civil War News
August 2008

TO THE EDITOR:
I feel a clarifying response is in order to Robert Krick’s commentary on page 3 of the July, 2008 issue. It is apparent that he did not get his information from all parties involved, thus causing an unbalanced summary of the issue.

The greatest danger to the overall battlefield lies not in the quarry’s plans but in the incremental parceling of the area into 5-10 acre residential lots. The viewshed in the area whence come most of the objections to the quarry’s proposal has been irreparably altered already.

To its credit, Carmeuse has a long-range vision going forward 30-50 years. Ironically, this means that by the end of that time, the quarry lands will be more congenial to views from protected battlefield lands than those presently in the county, most of which are not in the NPS core area – and are zoned residential.

The Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation (CCBF) has taken the initiative to preserve and protect core battlefield land and artifacts. When the rezoning issue first appeared, CCBF opposed the application because of preservation concerns.

We waited for almost two years for the local preservation partnership group to negotiate a position, but it did not. Total opposition seemed to be the only position by implication. As the rezoning loomed, we felt we had to deal with the quarry’s owner, Carmeuse, to ensure the best possible preservation efforts and responsible land use.

Our board members felt that the “just say no” policy was not a practical position to take, especially when we learned from Carmeuse officials that the limestone vein adjacent to the battlefield was the highest quality east of Denver, valued at $300 million.

This was not a “gravel company” operation, as described in Robert Krick’s commentary. This is one of the richest limestone veins in the country, and our board members were convinced that sooner or later it would be rezoned for exploitation.

The agreement we negotiated with Carmeuse was not dependent on their rezoning request. This was a very significant unconditional preservation achievement that has been ignored or overlooked by the entities who choose now to disparage our efforts.

Furthermore, CCBF did not share the details of the CCBF-Carmeuse agreement with the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in order to avoid influencing their votes.

The agreement with Carmeuse embraces a great deal more than the 8 acres cited in Mr. Krick’s letter to the editor.

For two decades, the number one complaint from both reenactors and spectators has been the quarry processing plant as the backdrop to the battlefield. Carmeuse has agreed to eliminate or significantly reduce the visibility of the existing processing plant and reduce the height of the berms visible from the Heater House fields and main battlefield.

This mitigation will become the single most important improvement to the vista of the entire park for years to come. This came from simply meeting one-on-one with the quarry, and sharing our concerns, something our partners did not do.

Carmeuse and the CCBF agree that there could be other historical resources (vestiges of the morning battle, U.S. VI Corps camps) immediately adjacent to the cited 8-acre parcel which may encompass additional acreage. These acres will also be deeded to the CCBF upon the completion of an archaeological study to confirm their significance.

An archeological survey headed by Dr. Clarence Geier of James Madison University will be conducted on all other properties under consideration for rezoning, paid for by Carmeuse.

Berm construction will not occur in areas identified as historically significant, and any artifacts found will become the property of the CCBF, held in trust for the public benefit.

As part of the agreement, other areas of historical significance, such as an area known locally as the Middletown Woods, may also be deeded to the CCBF. We are also in discussions with Carmeuse concerning the possible placement of preservation easements on substantial amounts of core battlefield land.

There are other areas, such as the quarry’s pristine buffer land bordering Cedar Creek, which will become available for preservation as active quarrying ceases.

All of the above actions will be paid for by the quarry owners and will not involve non-profit dollars that can now be used to help preserve other battlefield lands.

I would like to comment about precious funds. Five days before the vote, some of our partners asserted that they would acquire the quarry property ifthe rezoning were tabled. Raising $300 million is quite a challenge, and if so, perhaps this money could be better spent on the land to the east of the quarry where the hardest fighting occurred and which is most endangered by county zoning policy.

For years we have watched developers build subdivisions in the very center of the battlefield. Preserving what remains will be a boon to battlefield interpretation.

The CCBF chose to negotiate in good faith, honestly, responsibly and in a manner we believe to be in keeping with the Foundation’s mission statement: the protection of the core battlefield – not established residential areas.

Our efforts have always depended on the sustained goodwill and dedicated efforts of our many Board members, partners, reenactors, sponsors and volunteers who have enabled us to help preserve this important national treasure known as the Cedar Creek Battlefield.

We hope that when fully informed, your readers will agree that the best that could be done has been. Years from now, the view toward North Mountain will be restored land, not ranchettes.

Joseph W.A. Whitehorne

http://www.civilwarnews.com/preservation/2008pres/cedar_response_aug08_821.htm

Eric

[Dignann]

Re: Rezoning request on Cedar Creek Battlefield

National Trust seeks to join quarry litigation

By Erica M. Stocks

The Winchester Star [Winchester, Va.]
September 5, 2008

Winchester — The National Trust for Historic Preservation is seeking to join 20 local property owners in challenging the Frederick County Board of Supervisors’ decision to allow the expansion of a Middletown quarry.

The trust filed a motion in Frederick County Circuit Court last week asking to intervene as a co-plaintiff in the landowners’ complaint, which questions the supervisors’ approval of a request from O-N Minerals Chemstone to rezone 394 acres to the north and south of its quarry from Rural Areas to Extractive Manufacturing

The rezoning, which will allow the company to mine high-grade limestone from property that it owns, was approved in May.

Opponents of the rezoning, including the National Trust, have argued that the quarry’s expanded operations will threaten nearby historical sites, including the Cedar Creek Civil War battlefield and Belle Grove National Historical Park.

The trust owns Belle Grove, which is open to the public as a 283-acre historical site. The property is within the boundaries of the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park south of Middletown.

“We have a lot of concerns, not just as a property owner, but as the manager of a historic site open to the public,” Elizabeth Merritt, deputy general counsel for the National Trust, said in a phone interview Thursday.

Twenty people who own adjoining land, or land within 1,500 feet of of the Chemstone property, filed a complaint in Frederick County Circuit Court in June, asking that the court declare the rezoning decision of the Board of Supervisors void because it did not comply with state laws.

“Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court declare that the zoning decision by the Board was improperly advertised; that it violated the law of Virginia; that the board had no jurisdiction or authority to act on May 28, 2008, on the rezoning; that the rezoning is null and void and of no effect,” the complaint states.

Merritt said the property owners’ complaint raises a number of issues that National Trust officials also think are important.

“We wanted to express our support and make it clear that we are directly supporting them,” she said of the organization’s decision to sign on as a co-plaintiff.

In its motion filed last week, the trust states that the expanded mining operation will consume nearly 400 acres of land on the battlefield property, potentially leading to direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the historical park.

“The National Trust, like the existing plaintiffs, seeks a determination by the Court that the rezoning decision is unlawful, and therefore null and void,” the organization states in its motion.

Merritt said the Board of Supervisors specifically failed to provide the type of public access and notice required by the county’s bylaws in approving the rezoning request of O-N Minerals Chemstone, a subsidiary of Carmeuse Lime & Stone based in Belgium.

“It raises a number of procedural concerns,” she said.

The property owners’ complaint, as well as the National Trust’s decision to intervene, is in its early stages, Merritt said. “At this point, nothing has really happened.”

Nord Wennerstrom, director of communications for the trust, said Thursday that the rezoning is not an issue his organization takes lightly.

“Belle Grove has been a historical trust site for 44 years, so it’s important,” he said in a telephone interview.

In June, trust and Belle Grove officials announced that they were ending their involvement with the Cedar Creek Battlefield Association because of the foundation’s failure to fight the quarry expansion.

Belle Grove Inc. said that in April, the foundation reversed its previous opposition to the expansion and arranged with the quarry owner to accept a land gift of eight acres.

http://www.winchesterstar.com/showarticle_new.php?sID=6&foldername=20080905&file=National%20Trust_article.html

Eric