11/28/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NOV BOOK. 78 FJE 477 Chairman Wheeler noted that the question here is specific to this ordinance, and felt probably we should address that. To get the permit to mine they have got to meet the many other requirements mentioned by Mr. Mosby, and these other questions could be addressed at that particular time. This is simply an ordinance change. Commissioner Scurlock believed you are reducing the setback from residential by 850', and Planner Boling agreed but stressed that this only deals with a residential area on well water. Commissioner Bird asked if this happened to be a strip mining operation, what the minimum separation required would be. Planner Boling advised that it still would be 1,000' if the adjacent subdivision did not have public water. Right now the ordinance does not distinguish between dry mining, wet mining, strip mining, etc. What is proposed is to recognize a type of mining activity that would not have a drawdown effect on wells. Commissioner Bowman expressed her belief that they have found a loophole in an inadequate ordinance. Mr. Mosby continued to stress that this is a strictly technical issue, but Commissioner Scurlock noted that, whether you call it technical or not, what is proposed liberalizes the ordinance and makes it less restrictive. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard. The applicant, Todd Smith, commented that the way the present ordinance is written with the 1,000' setback is to protect people's wells. He agreed that when you dewater, you do have a suction effect. He simply is asking that this ordinance be changed to recognize that there are different types of mining and that if you do your mining in the wet and don't have any pumping of water, you are not going to be sucking any water out of adjacent wells. He just wished the Board to refine the present ordinance to recognize that there are different types of mining. 20