12/21/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r DEC 211983 980K 55 PAE€ 71.7 Mr. Schmucker again emphasized the positive aspects of the proposed development and the benefits to the adjacent owners. He stressed that this would not be spot zoning, but only interim zoning to allow them to mine, and assured the a Board that fences would be erected to safeguard the children in the area; he believed the owners had agreed to this previously. Mr. Schmucker pointed out that under the County Code, they are required to develop the lake to specific flat side slopes so that no one would be endangered by a sudden drop off. As to whether the lake itself could cause damage to the aquifer, Mr. Schmucker informed the Board that a report written by a member of the County Agricultural Department stated that if they just dug to +5, everything would be fine, or, in other words, if they only dug 15' deep. Their own consultant stated that the lake would not cause any danger to the substrata water as long as the head of water remains and they don't pump it,down. Mr. Schmucker felt the main issue is whether the proposed lake would be more of a detriment to_ the environment than 25-50 septic tanks, and he certainly believed it would be preferable to have a lake with less homes, traffic and septic tanks. Vice Chairman Scurlock felt it seems cumbersome to have to rezone for a mining operation and then change back to the residential zoning. Planning Director Keating explained that staff does recognize that mining is an activity that has to be undertaken for development to proceed, and they are working on a new Mining Ordinance. He noted that although site plan considerations usually are not taken into consideration at the time of rezoning, this is an unusual case in that the only reason for the rezoning is to allow this particular use; therefore, Mr. Keating believed site plan considera- tions are a major point of discussion today. He emphasized that digging below the level of the water table, which is