Laserfiche WebLink
/eve <br />A. I?,ceAYATioN sersmeK FoR ALL MINES Vj fR11tt l000' of <br />PLAii b SuBDLVISiot, W,b ? .ice WATER• <br />g. ?RESENT Etc?AVATIoFI .S T BA@J . $S IS& Fltor. 'P AT D <br />SuBblViaioN WrTN Posa:tc WATER. <br />Planner Boling clarified that there is an 100' setback from <br />the pit boundary to the project boundary itself and then an 150' <br />setback from that project boundary to an abutting property line; <br />so, in any mining operation, the pit itself will be at least 250' <br />from the property line. In the ordinance there is also a setback <br />for equipment used in the production of the mining materials - <br />crushing bins, tanks, etc. That setback is 600' where the <br />project abuts residential and 250' where it abuts non-residential <br />property. The other setback in the ordinance, which is the one <br />in question this morning, is the 1,000' setback from the project <br />property line to a platted subdivision which does not have public <br />water. <br />Commissioner Scurlock wondered how you differentiate a <br />mining project such as this from development projects such as <br />Lake in the Woods which impacted wells in the surrounding area <br />when they dug their lakes and asked if we have some safeguards on <br />operations that are using their excavation material for their own <br />project. <br />Commissioner Bowman noted that our definition of mining is <br />if the material is removed from the site; so, she did not feel <br />our ordinance is inclusive enough. <br />Commissioner Scurlock noted that while he did not want to be <br />too restrictive to these type projects, he does want to have some <br />protection to alleviate their effect on neighboring properties. <br />NOV 2$ 1999 <br />15 <br />hie - <br />BOOK 8 <br />e � <br />Ari d /4r <br />rtuC <br />