11/28/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NOV 2 19d9 BooK 78 ur.E 475 another location where there is sufficient room for their operation. Mr. Musante further pointed out that if the Board does change this ordinance, what happens here could take place anywhere in the county, not just Roseland. Commissioner Scurlock expressed confusion. He believed this is an ordinance that will be effective countywide, and now he is hearing that we are talking about a special interest to develop a mining operation on a specific piece of property, which bothers him a bit. Community Development Director Keating pointed out that the county has a mechanism available by which anyone can petition to change an ordinance. That is what was done, and the issue on which Mr. Smith is requesting a change is one which the staff did not have a good rationale for. There is no provision in the ordinance right now to differentiate between the wet and dry mining activities; so, that's why staff agreed with the applicant that possibly the present criterion does not have a rational basis. 4 Commissioner Scurlock asked if Mr. Smith can develop the mining operation under the current ordinance, and it was confirmed that he can if he stays 1,000' from the platted subdivision. Commissioner Bird felt the basic question here is whether there are factors other than just having potable water in a platted subdivision that come into play and might mandate that a mining operation should be placed further away. Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that when we have citizens in residential areas who are upset about the impacts of the dust, the noise, the condition of the roads, etc., caused by a mining operation, he is concerned as to whether we should allow such operations in residential areas or whether we should only allow mining that is done in conjunction with developing that particular piece of land. He personally felt you shouldn't be 18