ENFORCE36408 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

13:07 IDEX INC* 3 19792475104 N0, 069 D07 ~_ 99/1./2025 ,5: c7 T-9935a?5^ ^„~:~'~va oASS ?51?~ and if the t 12(e) mining perrrrit is not issued, all state perrnits associated. with the operation of tl;e butch plant must be subinined to the Plarniing depamnent before operation of the said mentioned plant. 6) A1n mittir+g ar mineral processing activity may take placs'within. one hrtttdred foot of die wedatid. 7) That all C.D.O.T. rrquiremcnts rotated to access are complied with. "' 8) No bu1.k on~ito fliel storage for the oporation of the'baah plant will be allowed. 9} .Tho Applicant will work with tho Dcvetopmont Sot~'tces C'oordinatar and review the submittal Air quality application and request for the state Air quality Division that a baseline water study be conductEi on the associated waterways for fugitive dust. 10) If there i s substantial change to the oparation of the batch plant such as but not limited to storatye of equipment, cleaning a+td maintenance operation that steal I be mason for the 130CG to reape» the CUP Case, 1Nicttaet seconded the motion. Tom noticed one more condition needed to he added to the resolution. Leona moved w amtnd the motion [o add condition a+l l as follo+as: t I }Tho Applicant will reouest from LhC $OGC a modification from the height tsgoiremartt of non- residential sttttctures in a mining cone district of35 fi. Michael seconded the motion to add conditon tell, all in favor. The motion to recommend approval with conditions 1 - l1 passed 3-2. Sheila CYOSS voted against the motion for reasons as follotivs; "There are potential issues regarding vehicular safety, itgpect to wildlife, and current adjaceat uses that may or ry not be compatible: to ute request.", and "Ct is not logical to have a batch plant on a piece ofpropeny that ~„~gregatc may not be turned for, in the middle of no where." Briggs Cunningham voted against the motion for reasons as follows: "Fairplay already has a batch plant. Why have another one? Why create another eye sore?", and "7he appicatian does not meet Section 5-503 A. 2 or 5-503 A. 6 of the 2005 edition of the Land Use RegulationsJ." 1ZI~AKNED U1V,j<T OEVELQP~1'IE1VT CASE t106PUD-Ol : Property located in Township 7, Range 72, Scetions 3 & b and portions of Sections 2, S, 8, 9, and 10. The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Plan for Lone Rock PUD. APPLICANT: Lone Rock Ranch, L,LC. PRE5ENTER: Tom Eisenman Tom gave a PowerPoi+tt presentation on the Subject property and answMed questions &am the board members. Kent called the applicant forward for explanation and questions from the board rnembess. Applicant, Dave Crane with Lone Rack Ranch LLC, gave proposal to have 3091ots rather than 335 lots, and gained 100-acres ofopen space. Dave also aoswercd questions from the board members. Elizabeth Wcwdward, Elk Crack Fire Marshall, explai»ed she did n. of have any objtxtions subject to the conditions provided to the Planning and Zotiipg Department, which aro on record with the file. She also ^^swerod questions from the board motnbClS.