SU0012636 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BA 9-i0-81 Stockton Sand & Gravel -11- Mr. Adams noted that the new application, on another parcel of land, is not connected with the concerns on the existing excavation. The two issues are independent. Mr. Adams said they deny that top soil has been removed. The contract that he has with the grandmother requires several conditions, including the posting of a bond. They agreed to do that on a contractual basis at the time they signed the lease agreement for 1981-82. Mr. Adams said that the Planning Department should have given some notice that they were in violation. The governmental people have been out there on many occasions and they have not shut down the operation. He said there has been nothing excavated from the levee areas; there has been material taken from the pond area. They are under bond right now to satisfy certain issues. The two properties should not be considered together. They do not feel there is substance to the Sitkin complaint; the complaints that he did have were negotiated under contract; Mi. `_`itkin is complaining about the same things they have agreed to do. This is an attempt to further delay their application on the Purviance property. Staff was asked if they were aware of the concerns on this property. Mr. Thanas responded that on the last report to the Board of Zoning Adjustment on excavations the concerns regarding this property were listed; most of the concern was directed toward the levee. A letter was received and forwarded to the Board as a communication item complaining of the operation on this property. Mr. Hunter noted that it would be necessary to research the files to prepare a report to the Board regarding the concerns of staff members. He suggested that it may be necessary for this Board to have that information before it can make a judgment. Barbara Sitkin was present and said that on April 1,1980 a letter was sent from the Planning Department to Stockton Sand and Gravel outlining problems with the operation. The levee had been been breached; there was a violation of condition #7 of the permit; and there was concern over the heavy equipment strewn about the property. Stockton Sand and Gravel did receive notification of violation of the permit. Mrs. Sitkin said that they have had a lease with Stockton Sand and Gravel for over 20 years and there is no compliance with the permit. She said that the problem is the lack of enforcement and the applicant does not respond to the concerns noted. She said that the applicant does not have a performance bond and she understood that they were unable to obtain a performance bond. She said that if the County is going to grant a permit to allow excavation in the County, they should have the enforcement to back it up. She felt that it is the responsibility of this Board that ;when a citizen comes to it stating, there is a problem, that the Board should look into it. She believed that the two issues were closely tied together. It involves the same equipment, the same management practices , and the same operators. If they did not comply with one permit, it is reasonable to expect that they would not comply with the other. It would be a mistake to ignore the history of this operation._ Mark Adams, representing Stockton Sand and Gravel, said that his client would be glad to meet with Staff to go over some of these concerns. This site has been in existence for over 25 years. Some of those requirements are not retroactive; they would be willing to work with staff but did not feel that