Laserfiche WebLink
MR,WALKER STATED THAT THE WAY HE UNDERSTANDS IT, A MINING <br />OPERATOR SUBMITS PLANS SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL, AND <br />IF YOU HAVE 100 YARDS REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY, IT IS COMPUTED OVER A <br />PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS, THIS WOULD GIVE YOU THE TOTAL OF YOUR BOND, <br />MR. HYATT CONTINUED THAT THERE IS A PARAGRAPH THAT STATES THE <br />PROPERTY MUST BE BROUGHT BACK TO "RESIDENTIAL USE," HE QUESTIONED THE <br />TERM "RESIDENTIAL USE" AS THE PROPERTY MUST BE AGRICULTURAL IN ORDER <br />TO OPERATE A MINING BUSINESS, <br />ROBERT BERG, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR, STATED THAT IT WAS <br />FELT IF YOU RESTORE THE LAND TO A CONDITION SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL USE, <br />IT WOULD BE THE BEST USE YOU COULD HAVE,. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT QUESTIONED THE WORDING "RESIDENTIAL USE" <br />AND STATED THAT HE FEELS THIS SHOULD BE DEFINED, <br />MR, HYATT STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING MORE <br />POSITIVE AND EASILY UNDERSTOOD WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT YARDAGE OVER A FOUR <br />YEAR PERIOD, THE ECONOMIC SITUATION CHANGES YEARLY, AND THIS WOULD NOT <br />BE ACCURATE, <br />FRED BRIGGS REPRESENTING HOBART LANDING CO, APPEARED AND STATED <br />THAT HIS COMPANY SELLS TO SAND HAULING COMPANIES, <br />HE ALSO QUESTIONED THE WORDING IN PARAGRAPH R-11 REGARDING <br />BONDING PROCEDURE, HE ALSO STATED THAT IF A BOND IS PUT UP, THE COUNTY <br />RETAINS THE INTEREST IN THEIR GENERAL FUND, HE STATED THAT THE INTEREST <br />SHOULD BE GIVEN BACK TO THE SAND OPERATOR, <br />THE BOARD INFORMED MR, BRIGGS THAT THE .INTEREST IS REFUNDED TO <br />THE OPERATOR WHEN THE JOB IS FINISHED, <br />MR, BRIGGS FEELS THE INTEREST SHOULD BE RETURNED YEARLY AND NOT <br />-AT THE END OF THE JOB, NIR, BRIGGS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THERE SHOULD BE <br />SURVEYS MADE OF THE OPERATION AND A REASONABLE FEE CHARGED TO SEE THAT THE <br />LAND IS NOT BEING DESTROYED AND THE PROFILE IS BEING CARRIED OUT, <br />DICK MARTIN, REPRESENTING MARTIN AND SONS, APPEARED AND OPPOSED <br />PARAGRAPH R-11 REGARDING BONDING PROCEDURES, <br />.JIMMY WALKER, OWNER OF WALKER MASONRY CONCRETE, INC., APPEARED <br />AND STATED THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD HAVE HAD A REPRESENTATIVE OF A HAUL- <br />ING COMPANY ON THE COMMITTEE, <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE FEELS THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE <br />NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED AGAIN AND SUGGESTED THE FOLLOWING: <br />-19- <br />SEP 1 0 1975 <br />aoo <br />PAU299 <br />