Laserfiche WebLink
merely intended to clarify that the asphalt plant had to be at <br />least 1,000 feet from the "property line" of Mrs. Allen's property. <br />The Planning and Development Director takes Condition No. 6 <br />out of context and interprets it as requiring Brannan to locate the <br />asphalt plant at least 1,000 feet from all existing property lines. <br />The site and shape of Pit 29 have not changed since 1982 when <br />Brannan submitted its conditional use request. It was then, and is <br />now, physically impossible to locate an asphalt plant anywhere <br />within Pit 29 that is 1,000 feet from all existing property lines. <br />This is plainly evident from the maps that were submitted with the <br />conditional use request. See Exhibit A. The east-west width of <br />Parcel A only approaches 2,000 feet along the northerly line of <br />Mrs. Allen's property. And, the east-west width of Parcel B never <br />exceeds 1,400 feet. Thus, the Planning and Development Director's <br />interpretation of Condition No. 6 precludes Brannan from <br />implementing the conditional use permit that was granted by the <br />BOCC. <br />Additionally, there is no compelling reason to adopt the <br />Planning and Development Director's interpretation of Condition <br />No. 6. There is nothing in the record suggesting that other <br />property owners desired a 1,000 foot buffer area similar to the one <br />that the Planning Commission had recommended for Mrs. Allen. Nor <br />is there anything in the record to suggest that the BOCC intended <br />to expand the scope of the buffer area recommended for Mrs. Allen. <br />To the contrary, the BOCC explained that its approval of the <br />conditional use request was made "in concurrence with the <br />aae~...r.u.a~ar. i 10 <br />