Laserfiche WebLink
19702475184 <br />__,- 99/1_/2E?5 ~i:t7 7'98351?5", <br /> <br />N0.070 <br /> <br />Q87 <br />and i fthe 1 12(c) mining permit is not issued, all stag; permits associated with the operation of ti•:e batch <br />plant m+si be submitted to tfi; Planning department before operation of the said mentioned plant. <br />6) No mim.ng or mineral processing activity may take plan: vrithiu ono hundred feet of the wotl:and. <br />7) that ail t~.D.O.T. requirements related to access are complied with. <br />` S) Na hulk on-silt Orel storage for the pperatian of the batrlt plant will be allowed. <br />9) .The Appiieaut will work with the Uev®lopmetit 8et•e~ices Coordinator and review the submittal Air <br />gnaliry applicarion and request for the state Air quality nivision that a baseline water study he conducted <br />on the associated waterways .for fugitive dust. <br />1 q) if there i s substantial change to the operation of the'batcb plant such as but not linnited to storage of <br />equipment, cleaning and maim®nanea opaation that sltnll be reason for the 13000 to reopen the CLiP <br />case. <br />Michael seconded t11e motion. <br />Tom noticed one more condition needed to be added to the res~alution. <br />Leonamoved to amend the motion to add condition #1l as follows: <br />l 1) The Ap li_~,cant wi ll request from the HOCC a modification from the hai~ht rcquiremem ofnon- <br />rasidcntial structures in a minin~znne district of 35 R <br />Michael seconded the motion to add condition #11, al' in favor. <br />'I}te motion to recotntnend approval with conditions 1 - I I passed 3.2. <br />Sheila Cross voted against the motion £ar reasons as follrnvs: <br />"There era potential issues regarding vehicular safety, impact to wildlife, and current adjacent uses that+nay or <br />+y not be compatible to the request.", and "It is not logical to have a batcb plant on a piece ofproperty that <br />•..{,gregatt may not be mined for, in the middle of no where." <br />Briggs Cunningham voted against the motion for reasons as follows: <br />"Pairplay already has a hatch plant. Why have another one? Why create another eye sere?", and "The <br />application does not meet Section 5.503 A. 2 or 5-503 A. 6 ; of the 2005 edition of the Load Use Regu]ationsJ " <br />PScAI„~„F~A UNT't DEVELOPIYIF;NT CASELt QbPUD•Ol: Property located in Township 7, ltattge 72, <br />Sections 3 & 4 and portions of Sections 2, 5, B, 9, and 10. The applicant is requesting a.Prcliminary Plan for <br />Lone Rock PL1D. <br />APPI.[CyANT: Lone Rock Ranch, LLC. <br />PRES$iYTER: Tom Eisenntan <br />Tom gave a PowerPoint presentation on the subject proporty and answered questions from the board members. <br />Kent called the applicant forward for explanation and questions from nc~ board members. <br />Applicant, Dave Crane with Lone Rock stanch LLC, gave proposal to have 309 lots rather than 335 lots. and <br />gained 100-acres of open space. Dave also answered questions from the board members. <br />Elizabeth Wnodward, Elk Creek Fire Marshall, explained she did not have any objections subject to the <br />conditions provided to the Planning and Zoning Depamnent, which are on record with the tile. Sho also <br />-^vwtred questions Rom tkc board members. <br />