Laserfiche WebLink
and arterial roads. He stated that the question going forward is whether the Board wants to have <br />haul truck traffic on local roads or not, if those local roads are used by residents (other than the <br />mining operator). <br />The Commissioners and staff continued to discuss existing and potential scenarios <br />regarding the mines and access roads. <br />Chairman Davis required further information on how the potential requirement had <br />been arrived at. <br />Director Keating provided background history on this item, and noted that the <br />current wording is subject to interpretation, because it refers to "...a local road that only serves <br />nonresidential uses (or properties designated for non-residential uses) in an area designated for <br />nonresidential uses." He stated that what is subject to interpretation is whether the agricultural <br />district was structured for residential or non-residential uses, and observed that the wording <br />needs to be clarified, so that it is not subject to interpretation. <br />Director Keating responded to Mr. Tripson's question regarding whether the <br />County had jurisdiction over any private roads. <br />Attorney Collins provided background on haul route issues experienced by James <br />Godfrey, owner of a sand mine adjacent to Babcock Road, and discussed how the proposed <br />update under Section #11, Item (b)(4) could negatively impact Mr. Godfrey. He felt that the <br />proposed regulations might pose a "Catch-22", but that the old language (proposed to be <br />stricken), could provide an option to use a local road, if it is determined to serve an area <br />designated for nonresidential use. Attorney Collins therefore suggested leaving in the stricken <br />language and removing staff's proposed updated language. <br />33 <br />December 19, 2008 <br />Special Call Mining Regulations <br />