Laserfiche WebLink
which he had made improvements benefitting the residents who travelled it. He reiterated that <br />the language in Section #11, Item (1)(4) of the Ordinance was confusing, and should be deleted. <br />A brief discussion among staff was prompted by Susan Boyd's question regarding <br />whether any restrictions would remain. Attorney Collins stated that, pursuant to Section <br />#5(3)(b)(1) of the Ordinance (page 40), there would still have to be a 300 -foot separation from <br />any residence, whatever type of road was used. <br />James K. Godfrey, 13515 101 Street, recounted prior difficulties (pertaining to <br />his haul route), which he had experienced, while trying to obtain a mining permit for his sand <br />mine. He asked the Board to not add the new language to Section #11, Item (1)(b)(4), of the <br />Ordinance. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner O'Bryan, <br />SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, to approve Section <br />#11, with the deletion of Item (1)(b)(4), and to approve <br />Section #12, Section #13, Section #14, and Section #15. <br />Commissioner Solari was supportive of Commissioner O'Bryan's Motion, with the <br />exception of the language in Item 8 of Section #11, wherein it states, "...no fee shall be charged <br />by the County for any such appeal." He felt that the fee waiver might occasion some frivolous <br />lawsuits, and that the County would no longer have a level playing field. If the Commissioners <br />wanted to leave the appeal fee waiver in, he suggested the addition of the following language: <br />"...no fee shall be charged by the County for any such appeal; however, after anv such appeal, <br />provided that the appellant not prevail, the appellant shall bear all the costs of the appeal, <br />including staff time, expert's time, and attornev fees, of the opposing partv." <br />35 <br />December 19, 2008 <br />Special Call Mining Regulations <br />