Wholesome MAR Inc. asked a Prince George’s County hearing examiner April 16 to approve Special Exception 22007 — dubbed “Gaslight 3” — a proposal to relocate and replace an existing surface sand-and-gravel mine and to add roughly 328.02 acres to the overall mining operation, of which about 230.45 acres would be used for active mining.

The applicant’s attorney, Matthew Tedesco, opened the hearing and said the proposal would use an existing wet processing plant on the adjacent property and an overland conveyor so raw material would not be hauled off-site for processing. Tedesco said the application was being reviewed under the prior zoning ordinance and asked the examiner to accept revised conditions the applicant submitted as Exhibit 46.

Why it matters: The proposal would expand an industrial extraction use near rural residences and environmental resources in Prince George’s County, affecting land cover, nearby private wells, surface-water drainage and local traffic. The record includes several technical studies and testimony from the applicant’s experts and questions and objections from neighbors.

What the applicant says: Timothy Bavard, land manager for Wholesome MAR Inc., described the project as a “replacement reserve” for the existing Gaslight 2 site that will be conveyed to the plant by an electrically powered conveyor rather than by truck. Bavard testified the conveyor “is quiet and does not produce dust,” and said the plan calls for four mining phases, on-site sediment basins and perimeter buffers. He said roughly 100 acres of the added property would be preserved as floodplain, tree conservation areas, wetlands and steep slopes and that the overall operation would be reclaimed and reforested after mining.

Technical evidence: The applicant presented seven expert witnesses and supporting reports that the hearing record accepted into evidence.

- Hydrology: Paul Scott, hydrologist (GTA), testified the applicant will not dewater the site and therefore does not expect drawdown impacts on wetlands or private wells. Scott said most nearby wells are deep (about 350–400 feet) and separated from shallow surface sands by hundreds of feet of low-permeability clay; he concluded, “there will be no adverse impacts to wells, wetlands, or hydrology at the site or off-site.”

- Noise: Michael A. Stiano, acoustical engineer, measured ambient levels along Accokeek Road and used worst-case source modeling for excavation, loaders and conveyors. With proposed 15-foot berms and equipment controls, he calculated equivalent sound levels in the 43–48 dB range at the closest residences — “approximately 20 decibels below the county limit,” he said — and concluded the project complies with state and county noise standards.

- Air quality: Brandon Bonanno (Jenkins Environmental) reviewed EPA emission factors, onsite controls and short-term field sampling at the existing plant and near residences. He reported predicted particulate and criteria-pollutant impacts would be within applicable federal and state ambient standards and described standard dust controls (water truck on-site, wet processing at the plant) and enclosed operator cabs.

- Traffic: Michael Lenhart, traffic engineer, updated counts from 2023 with new counts in 2024 and reported the existing Gaslight 2 operation generates about 21 morning peak-hour trips and 14 evening peak-hour trips; his study for Gaslight 3 found the roadway V/C ratios would remain well under local thresholds. He concluded local roads have capacity to accommodate the operation and that the conveyor reduces off-site heavy-truck hauling.

- Civil/Stormwater/Reclamation: Paul Woodburn (Atwell) described the special-exception site plan, four-phase mining sequence, sediment basins and perimeter controls to trap and slowly release runoff. He said the final reclamation grades will “mimic existing” topography and that temporary stream crossings and conveyors would be removed and restored after mining. Stormwater features will be reviewed by the Maryland Department of the Environment and the Prince George’s Soil Conservation District.

- Planning and tree conservation: Mark Ferguson, land planner, summarized master-plan consistency and the proposal’s tree-conservation approach. The plan shows 17 specimen trees on site; the applicant proposes removal of four after filing justification statements (Exhibits 17 and 30) and intends to meet woodland conservation requirements through on-site preservation and reforestation; reforested areas will be subject to bonding and conservation easements.

Applicant requests and record status: The applicant asked the examiner to adopt seven revisions to the staff’s recommended conditions (Exhibit 46) — housekeeping changes to cross-references, timing triggers for construction of an Accokeek Road entrance and clarifying COMAR and zoning-ordinance citations. The examiner accepted the revised conditions and admitted exhibits into the record and closed the hearing record; no final decision was announced at the hearing.

Neighbors’ concerns: Several members of the public testified in opposition or with questions. Janet Gingold (Prince George’s Sierra Club) said she appreciated the information but remained “concerned about what happens to Mattawoman Creek,” asking for clearer phasing and more explicit timing to reduce the duration of denuded areas and sediment risk. James Lawson, a nearby resident, said heavy trucks and diesel emissions endanger local roads and residents and said expansion “should not be approved.” Linda Moore Geroute, a Brandywine-area commissioner, said the project threatens the rural character and cultural heritage of the area and opposed approval.

What the record does not show: The hearing transcript records no final vote or grant/denial; the examiner said a decision would be issued later. Several conditions and external permits (Maryland Department of the Environment, Prince George’s Soil Conservation District) remain prerequisites to construction and reclamation, and the applicant’s requests to modify the timing of one road-access condition mean some implementation elements are contingent on future site-plan approvals.

Next steps: The hearing record was closed and the examiner said a written decision will follow. If approved, the project will proceed subject to final conditions and regulatory permits listed in the record.