Laserfiche WebLink
<br />An impossibility in relation_to nois~_dust and pollution which will be <br />ci-ea ro~ec in o a Effecting rest en s wi in mi ). <br />United Com anies states that "area is all above water line". This is <br />true at this time, in that normal) is 10' below a 00' <br />topograp y. owever, their excavation of t P topsoil alone will meet <br />water flow level. Going a ow that level cannot but in uence e <br />erosion factors taking place. <br />United Companies state that "stockpile will be oniainad o~site". This <br />is a violation of the Land Deve]_nvment Code. Section 8.3.3.E (8)b-"Anv <br />use obstruction or encroachment which woul increase <br />w a soever in e e evation o ood waters Burin the 100 ear lood at <br />env point. Also 10. .1S an 0.1.12. U de erence to propose'~park <br />and ad-ioinina riverfront orp'eLct, and consi'~ering past evacuation si e <br />of United Companies, especially Golden Pond, the county can expect the <br />project site to remain a sand and gravel stock pile and useless, if not <br />dangerous liability once United Companies turns the land over, for many <br />,years in the future. <br />Planning Commission has instructed that state permits are required for <br />the asphalt plant and "that etitioner must demonstrate that vailing <br />winds will not adverse y•impact area rest en s with ust and odor per <br />in a pro~ec site wi a solutely prevent adequate <br />control of dust and odor that would not impact area residences living <br />anywhere in the area. <br />" <br />since "no portion of site 1 <br />t si <br />co t,oun~ to ineerin sLarr. <br />recommendation not evident to this writer in current ile.) <br />ies told <br />nd <br />J o lent o e ec i n (No application for a change of zoning <br />swill be approved un ess the proposed new zoning district will be a <br />planned unit development district, unless the land requested to be <br />rezoned is less than 2 acres in area and abuts an existing residential <br />:tone having the same zone as is being requested), and Section 1.6 (Where <br />there exists a conflict between any limitation or requirement in the <br />code and any applicable limitation or requirement contained elsewhere in <br />this code, the more restrictive limitation or reouirement SHALL PREVAIL. <br />IJhere a conflict exists between the provisions of this code and any <br />other resolution, regulation or policy of Mesa County, the provisions of <br />'this code shall control), which is quite specific in content and <br />meaning. Section 3.18 gives mandatory obligation for the Planning <br />Iommission regarding zoning changes. The Planning Commission shall <br />consider the provisions of this code"... <br />