Laserfiche WebLink
<br />BENDELOW & DARLING, P.c. <br />~~ <br />The access road which h been constructed along the railroad grade is app rently located, in part, <br />off of the applicant's prope y. The Association questions, based on the pplication, whether the <br />applicant has any lawfully stablished right of ingress or egress alon the "abandoned railroad <br />grade". The applicant's prop y deed contains no easement over the ilroad grade, nor was any <br />other easement provided in the pplication. It is unclear who is the o er of such grade, including <br />the portion within the applican's property boundaries. Applicant as totally failed to meet its <br />burden to establish any right to ter the property via the "abando ed" railroad grade. <br />Applicant has proposed that its to egetation and reclamation an be considered to be "interim", <br />based on plans for a future "residents 1 subdivision" in the Pe t Area, and used this as justification <br />to propose that no recontouring occur and that revegetation b limited to grasses without any trees. <br />Applicant submitted no information in uoUOrt of such prop sed end-use, and has no basis for such <br />statements. The property is currently <br />dwelling limit per 35 acres. Applicant's <br />and is not to our knowledge mastetplar <br />Association believes that the applicant <br />necessary to support a residential subdivi <br />be considered "interim", and that a perm <br />includes contouring and trees. <br />The Association is concerned about the adeq <br />reclamation plan topsoil retention provisions. <br />"topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled adj~ <br />;d Agricultur /Forest with permitted density of one <br />perty is only 14.75 acres according to the application <br />for greater density than for the current zoning. The <br />no legit ate future expectation of greater density <br />that th revegetation and reclamation plan should not <br />~reve tation plan should therefor be required which <br />the proposed reclamation and particularly the <br />,graph 5 of Exhibit D, the applicant states that <br />HY 145... once the resource is removed, the <br />topsoil and overburden will be replaced to even epth of 4-6 inches over the disturbed azeas. <br />Surplus topsoil may be sold." This impli that surplu topsoil will be sold followitte reclamation. <br />It is unclear, however, whether there 11 be sutpl topsoil or even enough to perform the <br />replacement to suitable depths. Sectio 3.1.9 of Exhibi Estates, after discussing removal, that <br />"some topsoil.. may be removed ands d," implying that s me maybe sold before replacement has <br />beer[ completed. We request a clatifi [ion from the Divisio that no topsoil may be removed until <br />the replacement has been completed <br />The Association also requests a r nse to the complaint filed Association member Chuck Rea <br />dated August 25, 1995 with res ect to commencement of minin operations at the Project site by <br />the applicant prior to the Pe tt date of October 4, 1995. This m y have been a violation of the <br />prohibition against conduc ~ g a mining operation without a pe ~t. Our examination of the <br />Division's Permit applicat n file forwarded from your office reveals o record of any response to <br />Mr. Rea's complaint. <br />In light of the noticeldeficiency, the unresolved complaint, the factual t accuracies and omissions <br />in the application, and the non-technical expansion of the Permit scope t include industrial batch <br />3 <br />