Laserfiche WebLink
Page 4 of 4 <br /> proven health hazard. The proposed operation is located in our very <br /> front and back yards. How can we be forced to live with this operation? <br /> E. Drainage may not be a problem now, but what about when all the sand and <br /> gravel is removed and the ground level is lowered 15 to 20 feet and this site <br /> becomes and 57-acre water hole as it is surrounded on three sides by <br /> elevated roads with no place for water to go and no sand and gravel to absorb it? <br /> Will this create a mosquito breeding pond? Presently, we have no mosquito <br /> problems. <br /> H. Applicant claims they have reclaimed 320 acres of mined lands. Where? Have <br /> any long-term studies been made to determine if production can be <br /> maintained on land that has been depleted of all of its sand and gravel? Where <br /> crops exist on a small amounts of top soil and heavy chemical fertilization. <br /> The answer is an emphatic NO. Therefore,this claim is unproven. <br /> J. They state that this project will deplete existing mineral resources within the <br /> project area, but it will not preclude future mining on lands adjacent t or near the <br /> project area. GET THE PICTURE! The negative impacts created by <br /> this company will be unending. Thus the inhabitants of this area will suffer <br /> the consequences of this mining activity indefinitely. What right does this <br /> applicant have to do this to us? The applicant is the intruder. We have <br /> 100% opposition in this area to the approval of this application! <br /> NOTE: The maps supplied with this application do not reflect the number of small parcels <br /> in the area or the number of people living here. There are at least 12-15 residents either <br /> directly across the street or backed up to this site. Basically,the area is not A-40 but <br /> rural agriculture, a zoning in which this application would not be allowed. <br />