My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/31/1995
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1995
>
5/31/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:11 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 2:36:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/31/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
N <br />setback to the pit has been in the ordinance for a long time and <br />there are a lot of mining operations now operating that have come <br />in under that requirement. Staff is proposing an alternative of a <br />180 foot setback from adjacent structures for the haul route and <br />stockpiles, with the setback for the mining pit itself to remain at <br />150 feet from the site's perimeter. If the site were in a very <br />remote area and houses were quite a distance away, the pit could be <br />set back 150 feet, but the stockpile areas and driveways could come <br />closer to the site's perimeter. <br />Commissioner Bird asked for clarification on the recent <br />decision made in the Jenkins' case. He understood there may be an <br />appeal in process and wanted to know whether the land regulations <br />in effect at the time the Jenkins submitted their application, on <br />which the Board's decision was based, would apply to the appeal. <br />He also questioned what would happen should the Jenkins modify and <br />resubmit their original application, whether that modified <br />application would be regulated under the new revised regulation or <br />be grandfathered in under the prior regulation. <br />County Attorney Vitunac advised that if the Jenkins should <br />reapply, the new application would be considered under the new <br />regulations, but the appeal would still be considered under the old <br />regulations. <br />Commissioner Bird commented that he just wanted to make it <br />clear, in fairness to all parties concerned, that the Board felt it <br />had a basis for denial under the old regulations and that the <br />appeal would still be considered under the old regulations. <br />Vice Chairman Adams felt that the 150 foot setback is only <br />half the length of a football field and the problem had not arisen <br />in the past because we have not had occupied structures that were <br />close to mining operations. As the agricultural area is getting <br />more developed, obviously, there will be more problems. <br />The Vice Chairman then opened the public hearing and asked if <br />anyone wished to be heard in this matter. <br />Dean Luethje, an engineer with Carter Associates, wanted to <br />confirm that any existing permits that have been approved will <br />continue to operate under the old regulations, and Community <br />Development Director Bob Keating responded that mining permits are <br />renewed annually but permits issued under the old regulations would <br />continue to be governed by them. <br />Mr. Luethje then inquired whether the same would be true for <br />any site plan activity. <br />7 BOOK 95 FA,liE2 <br />MAY 319 1995 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.