Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Quarry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Hanover supervisors to deny Luckstone rock quarry over safety and water worries
Summary
Several Beaver Dam residents urged the Hanover County Board of Supervisors to reject a proposed Luckstone (also transcribed as Luxe/Luxone) rock quarry and associated asphalt/concrete plant, citing truck safety, groundwater risks to private wells, and worries that industrial growth would alter rural areas.
Dozens of residents told the Hanover County Board of Supervisors on Oct. 22 that a proposed Luckstone rock quarry and associated asphalt and concrete operations would pose safety and environmental risks to the Beaver Dam area.
Matthew Nuckols, of the Beaver Dam District, said large quarry trucks are more dangerous than passenger vehicles and recounted being rear‑ended years ago by a truck that “could not see my car over the front of his truck.” He told the board: “Please protect our residents and deny the Luckstone Rock Quarry.”
His concerns were echoed by other neighbors. Sarah Nuckols cited Rockville as an example of how “what started out as a few quarries has evolved into a vast industrial park,” and warned that approval would “open Pandora’s box” and jeopardize the county’s rural conservation area.
Several speakers raised water‑quality and public‑health questions. Jessica Gein, who lives about half a mile from the proposed site and whose property lies downstream on the Little River, asked how residents would be protected and whether the public had received adequate notice of a proposed 1,300‑acre quarry. Rhonda Hammond urged the board to demand hydrogeological and cumulative‑impact studies, saying quarries and processing plants “have a long history of impacting groundwater and surface water quality” and noting many Hanover families rely on private wells.
Speakers also cited traffic and safety worries for schoolchildren, cyclists and runners who use scenic county roads that truck traffic would use, and voiced concern about noise and wildlife displacement.
The public comments were made during the Citizens’ Time portion of the meeting; no application vote on the quarry was recorded on the Oct. 22 agenda. Board members did not take immediate action on the quarry during this session.
The board did not provide answers to requests for independent hydrogeologic or cumulative‑impact studies at the meeting; residents asked that the county clarify what technical evaluations have been completed before any decision on permitting.
