Laserfiche WebLink
<br />H. eummar9 of Facta <br />Some time before June 1982, Brannan filed an application with <br />Adams County for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, a rezoning <br />of its Pit 29 property from A-3 to I-1, and a conditional use <br />permit for a permanent asphalt plant to be located on five acres <br />within Pit 29. See, e.g., Exhibit E. From the beginning, the <br />County staff had opposed the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the <br />rezoning. Presumably, the staff's opposition was driven, at least <br />in part, by the citizens in the area who had expressed (during <br />phone conversations with County staff) a "major concern" with <br />regard to the proposed industrial development at the site. The <br />proposed asphalt plant was not as much of a concern given the fact <br />that it would be an accessory use to the mining operations that had <br />already been approved. See Exhibit B. <br />Brannan worked with the County staff to develop an alternate <br />proposal. That alternate proposal eliminated the Comprehensive <br />Plan amendment and the rezoning request and consisted solely of an <br />application for a conditional use permit for a temnorarv asphalt <br />plant. See Exhibit C. Staff recommended approval of such a <br />conditional use subject to four conditions, none of which changed <br />or restricted the proposed location of the asphalt plant within Pit <br />29. See Exhibit D. <br />At the Planning Commission meeting, six individuals expressed <br />some concern about Brannan's asphalt plant request. In response to <br />those concerns, the Planning Commission added two conditions to the <br />.,a..~xo.,.. ~ 4 <br />