Laserfiche WebLink
<br />judge the unchallenged testimony fairly and give it the <br />deserves regarding the competency of such evidence. Spe <br />all of the statements regarding the devaluation that thi <br />sandpit will supposedly cause the adjoining or surroundi <br />simply self-serving testimony unsupported by any factual <br />including Mr. Simmon's appraisal. For example, no study <br />any comparative analysis of the affect of similar opecat <br />adjoining or surrounding property as would be required i <br />law. Pihile landowners have the right to voice their opi <br />their own land, they are not competent to make opinions <br />value of oti~er lands. The only competent evidence rey-ar <br />affect of a sandpit of a similar nature as it impacted c <br />values was an appraisal submitted by Mr. George Vandenbe <br />appraisal does net indicate that any negative impact occ <br />property as a result of a sandpit similar to the one pro <br />a DOLulsal Was ^Ot dOne at tit ir,s tance o~ the applicant <br />consequently is unbiasen and the best possible comp=tent <br />The remainder of the statements are basically self-s <br />do not qo to the specific issues addressed by the Planni <br />regarding noise, dust, traffic control or aesthetic_ matt <br />the Protestants have shown pictures and a video tape of <br />or gravel pit operations and the adjacent sandpit operat <br />Durango United Construction as being unsightly and aesth <br />ur.pleasing to them personally, they are using exageratio <br />as an attempt to influence the Commission into denvina t <br />application. <br />The applicant simpl•r asks that the Commission sae th <br />for what it is as a relatively small, limited szndoit op <br />one loader, loading approximately five truckloads of app <br />ten to twelve yards per truckload per day not to exceed <br />annually. This is not such a significant impact that wi <br />property values, create an;~ unaesthetically or unsightly <br />to the valley, or create any problems that have not been <br />account by the Planning Commission or by the Planning St <br />provisions made for them. <br />Although 92 people voiced their opposition against t <br />impact project, the Commission is reminded of the fact t <br />to Sundance Hills v. Board of County Commissioners, 534 <br />matters such as this are not popularity contests. This <br />must be determined in accordance with the rules and proc <br />lack thereof, already promulgated by La Plata County as <br />the Beaver Meadows decision. Consequently, that type of <br />not competent for the Board to consider in rendering its <br />There is also a letter dated February 23, 1987 from <br />Waller to the Commission that indicates that this applic~ <br />be denied for failure to comply with the Flood Plain Ord. <br />1983-1. Obviously, the Planning Staff does not believe <br />Flood Plain Ordinance applies. Furthermore, Section 4.2 <br />mandatory and would not apply in this situtation because <br />do mainly with building structures. Section 5 pertaininc <br />eight it <br />ifically, <br />proposed <br />q areas are <br />data <br />was made of <br />ons on <br />a Courc of <br />ion as t., <br />pOUt Che <br />ing t;~e <br />open t,; <br />g. Thac <br />rred t~ his <br />used. -;;_s <br />nd <br />evidence. <br />rvinc a^:. <br />g Star- <br />rs. :..--= <br />they sand <br />o n •r <br />ticall: <br />and ai3rm <br />is <br />s aacc=_ <br />ration with <br />oximate_y <br />,000 yards <br />1 diminis:n <br />appearance <br />taken into <br />ff and <br />is limited <br />at pursuant <br />.2d 1212, <br />uestion <br />dunes, or <br />equired by <br />evidence is <br />decision. <br />one Monte G. <br />~tion should <br />nance No. <br />hat the <br />1 is not <br />jit has to <br />` to flood <br />5 <br />