7/5/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

was approved under the old ordinance where there was no such specific stipulation. However, Mr. Price has an application in right now for another mining operation in the same area, and he will be using the same general routes for hauling; so, in that case, he will be required to maintain the roads. Chairman Scurlock suggested that we give staff direction to pursue this, which he felt is all we can do today until we get into contact with Mr. Price and review our options. Commissioner Wheeler wished to have it made very clear that no new permit will be issued until this problem is resolved. Administrator Balczun believed we can get his attention by requiring that he grade the road twice a week and suggesting that if he doesn't, we will do it and bill him for it, or go to court, if necessary. Commissioner Bowman asked if we can do that legally, and County Attorney Vitunac advised that if his trucks meet the state road weight requirements, he has a right to use the roads, but if we can show some specific damage attributable to his trucks, we can ask him to fix that. It is a gray area as to what is causing the damage - long term normal use or specific incidents. Mr. Youngblood stated that the residents' use of the road is negligible but he has counted as many as 200 loads coming in and out of the mining operation on a 8 hour basis. He continued to express concern about having some schedule they must adhere to, and he was assured that the new Mining Ordinance will protect them in the future and the county will contact Mr. Price in the meantime asking for his cooperation. Commissioner Bowman asked if Mr. Price isn't liable not only for the sign he destroyed but also the county bridge and wished to know if we can go after him for that. Attorney Vitunac confirmed that he would be liable if we can prove it was his equipment that did the damage, and it was felt we should pursue this. JUL 9 Book 7 pni 159 5 �9