Laserfiche WebLink
BA 9-10-81 <br /> Stocktbn Sand & Gravel <br /> -12- <br /> the revocation process should begin without further investigation by Planning <br /> staff. He said that the dumping of asphalt and the levee situation were not <br /> illegal at the time they were doge , The regulations are not retroactive. <br /> Comm. Boyden said that he has not been to the site so he does not know what <br /> is out there; but he did know that they extending the Use Permit in 1979 <br /> and there was a requirement concerning asphalt being dumped on the ground. <br /> He said this is the second large gravel operation brought before this Board <br /> and he thought these companies were reputable; he said this is an unpleasant <br /> situation and he is getting a little bit tired of this going on. He thought <br /> both excavation parcels for Stockton Sand and Gravel were tied together. <br /> Before he could vote on the use permit he would have to feel more comfortable <br /> about what they could do in the future or make the conditions so stringent that <br /> they could not use the permit. He said he is tired of being the one who is <br /> blamed for the failures of the gravel excavation industry. <br /> Comm. McComb concurred with Mr. Boyden. <br /> Comm. Bethards felt there was a tie between the two permits. He was on the <br /> property and he could see violations. He would like staff to take a look <br /> at the situation and report back to the Board. <br /> Mr. Hunter commented that there have been two presentations. Before the Board <br /> would be in a posit-ion to make a determination that the hearing on revocation <br /> was justified, staff should do a report on what is in the file (communications) <br /> and provide a historical review of past applications from the date the <br /> County had reasonable regulations up to the current date. This will provide <br /> information as to requirements and compliance and provide a balanced picture <br /> as to whether or not a full-blown hearing was called for on revocation of the <br /> permit, or tougher conditions to guarantee compliance. <br /> Mr. Hunter said that to a certain degree there is some separation between the <br /> two permits. Performance may have an effect on whether or not a project <br /> should go ahead. The basic question on the next site is whether or not this is <br /> an appropriate location, and whether or not the applicant has proposed sufficient <br /> safeguards that the land, when left, would meet the requirements of the <br /> excavation ordinance. He thought that the separation is not wide between the <br /> two issues. <br /> Comm. Becker said it is not possible to condition one permit on the other and <br /> this is according to a statement by County Council. Each project stands on its <br /> own .merit, or lack of merit. <br /> Mrs. Sitkin said the Board does have the authority to designate which issue <br /> comes first; the Board can name the order of events. <br /> Comm. Serpa said he would like to have any information in the files that would <br /> tend to indicate the responsible party has been notified of these violations. <br /> Any communications between staff and 'the excavator. Aside from the violations, <br /> it is apparent that it is a sloppy operation. What they have done to that beauti- <br /> ful stream is appalling to him. <br /> Comm. Boyden said that the two issues can be treated separately. If the <br />