REV96234 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

12/20/1996 15:15 719275 r. ~ MCDERAtOTT LAW !h1 PAGE 04 Mr. Thomas A December 20, Page 3 Schreiner 1996 2. It is our belief and understanding that the representation in the application that the property is zoned Industrial is incorrect. Rather, it is our understanding that the property into which the quarry is proposed to be expanded ie presently zoned Agricultural/forestry. 3. The pending application omits inclusion of Fremont County Resolution 95-52, which amends conditional use rmit 88-4, a copy of which was included in the 'application. 4. A batch plant was improperly operating on the premises of the existing quarry without authority for a period of time in calendar year 1996. 5. Again, reference is made to the possibility of an asphalC batch plant be placed on site when none has previously been permitted by your agency (see page 5 of the application - Exhibit D -- Mining Plan), but the operation of such is not addressed in the proposed reclamation plan. 6. The application states that the Stormwater Management Plan has been reviewed and approved by a licensed atnlctural engineer. (See page 5 - Exhibit D -- Mining Pian). we question whether the applicant has had the SWMP prepared, reviewed and approv~:d by a hydrological professional rather than a structural engineer. 11, we seriously question the conclusion that storm water will never leave the applicant's property in the absence of a storm event that has greater than a one time in one hundred ye+ire probability of occurring. In conclusion, and as noted in one of our earlier letter:a, please be aware that we continue to endeavor to resolve our various differences (through our representatives) with Mr. Tezak. Zf an agreement is reacried, we will promptly notify you, and acivise concerning the impact that agreement has on the ob}ectioits we have raised. J