SU0012636 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BA 9-16-81 Purviance. -13- Mrs. Sitkin said that in April, 1981 :staff stated that they would not allow an excavation on a new site until the problems on the old permit had been cleaned up. REBUTTAL: Mark Adams said that with regard to junk on the new site, they do not intend to move junk that they do not intend to u®:2!. They have old equipment ; they will be moving some old stuff from the old site to the new site to provide spare parts for the new site. When they leave the new site, they will be glad to make a condition that all the equipment is to be removed. The junk can be scrapped or removed, etc . lie did not feel that would pose a problem. With regard to Mr. or Mrs. Sitkin's concern that the proposed site comes within 150' of their house , and the illustration of that point, it could be feasible that if the Board so allowed them, they could go into some other areas to the east (tailings to the east,on the Purviance property) that could be feasible. As far as the comment regarding the change of the initial permit application to subdivide these areas (he made reference to one of the standard conditions of the Excavation Ordinance - #6) , #6 actually allows and permits this type of project to be on the larger of either 80 acres or 25% of the project at one time. So they have already asked to modify one of the standard conditions, and that is: They do not want to be on the whole project at one site; it is less than 80 acres , it is 40 acres; and condition #6 of the actual standard conditions would, on its face , allow them to be on the whole project at once. Tfie proposal is much less than that. The big concern he heard is the safety issue ; that is an important issue and that is why they are willing to abide by Public Works recommendation. The safety issue is an over-riding concern for the neighborhood and the children who have to walk in the. area. They have no quarrel with that issue. They will work with Public Works on their recommendation of possible modification of the current access or chosing a new access. Mr. Adams said there will be no batch plant on the new site ; even if there were, it would not increase truck traffic because the total tonnage of material leav- ing the site would be exactly the same. The material would be either in one form or another. As far as the productivity issue, their studies indicate that as far as grazing land is concerned , without irrigation, you will get one head of cattle per five or ten acres and that is only during the wet season. There will be no explosives used on the new project. He said they did not have to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" as was suggested. This is not a criminal case. He said there was a suggestion that they build a road for the County or actually pave Flood Road. They do not build roads . They provide the materials for the building.of roads for county highway traffic or state highway traffic . PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED There was a discussion from the Board Members on the appropriate method of continuing this item in order to have the full discussion on the issue with Mr. Boyden's input. It was felt by Mr. Sherwin that the item could be con- tinued to a date certain so that no additional notice would have to be given.