Laserfiche WebLink
<br />BENDELOW & DARLING, P.c. <br />Attorneys at Law <br />Mr. Larry Oehler <br />September 5, 1996 <br />Page 5 <br />Land. The ostensible reason is that the topsoil is needed for reclamation, but such need was created <br />by the Permit holders illegal removal of topsoil to begin with. However, the public comments and <br />considerations that have been received with respect to this application have all assumed the existence <br />of such a berm. The withdrawal of this proposal, following vigorous objection by nearby landowners, <br />is not only unfair, hopefully does not reflect an intention to punish the landowners for their opposition. <br />The applicant cannot now be permitted to withdraw this aspect of its application, particulazly after the <br />conclusion of the public comment period and the completion of the Informal Conference, unless it is <br />also willing to undergo further public scrutiny with respect to this modification as an "amendment" to <br />the application due to its significant effect upon the proposed reclamation plan. <br />Batch Plant Facilities. In ¶ 6 of its adequacy response the Applicant states that "plans to relocate a <br />ready mixed concrete plant at the site have been abandoned. If at any time in the future the plan to <br />locate a concrete plant at this site is revived, United will petition for a Technical Revision and provide <br />the relevant information." The Applicant's proposal to amend its application in this manner is a <br />transparent attempt to avoid a troublesome issue with respect to the necessity for a permit for this <br />facility and its contradictory representations as to whether or not such a permit is in fact required (see <br />below). Ms. Altshuler's concern is that appropriate planning occur which realistically assumes that <br />future existence of such a facility, if the permit for such can be locally obtained. This concern is <br />directly related to Ms. Altshulet's desire properly describe, and yet simultaneously to minimize, the <br />disturbed area in which operations will progress through the mining site. It is obvious from the size <br />of this operation, and applicant's original indication of its intention to locate concrete facilities at the <br />site, that the applicant plans to propose such a facility in the future. This intention is confirmed in the <br />Applicant's letter to undersigned dated August 28. Such proposal would not be subject to the public <br />notice or hearing provisions which aze designed to elicit appropriate public input and provide for an <br />accurate and realistic mining operation plan. While we are not asking for a specific designation of the <br />location of the concrete plant, we are asking for some indication of its potential size in reference to <br />the disturbed area. <br />Ongoing Disturbance. In ¶ 2 under Exhibit E (page 6 and 7) of applicant's adequacy response <br />indicates that "approximately 20 to 25 acres will be actively involved in the mining operation at any <br />one time." This information was provided in response to a request by the objectors, and by Mr. Oehler <br />of the Division, to identify the ongoing operation area with regard to the possible minimization of <br />disturbed area. The applicant has provided no specific justification for the need to have 20 to 25 acres <br />of disturbed area throughout the 30 year life of the mine. We respectfully suggest that 20 to 25 acres <br />is far in access of that necessary to support the ongoing operations. We believe that the mining <br />operation area should be smaller than, and certainly should not exceed, the area currently disturbed <br />and contained within the original permit area in other words approximately 9'/z acres. If the applicant <br />