Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Thomas A. Schreiner <br />December 20, 1996 <br />Page 3 <br />2. It is our belief and understanding that the represe~itation <br />in the application that the property is zoned Industrial is <br />incorrect. Rather, it is our understanding that the pro)~erty <br />into which the quarry is proposed to be expanded is presently <br />zoned Agricultural/forestry. <br />3. The pending application omits inclusion of Fremont County <br />Resolution 95-52, which amends conditional use permit 88--4, a <br />copy of which was included in the application. <br />4. A batch plant was improperly operating on the prem:_ses of <br />the existing quarry without authority for a period of tirne in <br />calendar year 1996. <br />5. Again, reference is made to the possibility of an a:;phalt <br />batch plant be placed on site when none has previously been <br />permitted by your agency (see page 5 of the application - Exhibit <br />D -- Mining Plan), but the operation of such is not addressed in <br />the proposed reclamation plan. <br />6. The application states that the Stormwater Management Plan <br />has been reviewed and approved by a licensed structural engineer. <br />(See page 5 - Exhibit D -- Mining Plan). We question whether the <br />applicant has had the SWMP prepared, reviewed and approved by a <br />hydrological professional rather than a structural engine>er. <br />11. We seriously question the conclusion that storm water will <br />never leave the applicants property in the absence of a storm <br />event that has greater than a one time in one hundred ye<<rs <br />probability of occurring. <br />In conclusion, and as noted in one of our earlier letter::, please <br />be aware that we continue to endeavor to resolve our various <br />differences (through our representatives) with Mr. Tezak. If an <br />agreement is reached, we will promptly notify you, and advise <br />concerning the impact that agreement has on the objections we <br />have raised. <br />