Laserfiche WebLink
Board o2' Adjustment ~ ~ Page 4 <br />January 7, 197G • <br />Case M7.'i-1 (continued) <br />Mr. Ream's mach concern related to the terminology of "topsoil" be- <br />CauSe there is a difference between topsoil artd quarry fines. They <br />don'rt want to be put in a position of having to haul topsoil in fr~oni <br />do outside location to cover the benches. There is a very limited <br />amount of actual topsoil available, but it is being conserved and wi1T <br />be utilized on the benches as much as possible. <br />Mr. DeLaCastro, recalling previous testimony, noted that samples of the <br />quarry fines mixed with proper amounts of organic fertilizer had been <br />Lested and found to sustain growth of certain types. Also that fire <br />Board had used the terminology "topsoil" assuming that the"applicant <br />leas Familiar with the standard definition used by the State. lie Bunted <br />same from the spec. book and concluded that based on testimony, reports, <br />product tests and definition, this mixed material would be equivtilent <br />and considered to be "topsoil". He felt this a necessary criteria he- <br />Cause as the pit goes down farther, the fines won't have the sane pro- <br />portions and more organic matter will have to be added to obtain the <br />qua lity necessary for growth. <br />Mr. Holley and 11r. Ream agreed to accept the terminology of "topsoil, <br />Subject to the interpretation" that chemical fertilizer being added to <br />quarry fines can be considered topsoil. <br />Mr. James suggested and Mr. Holley agreed that what they are trying to <br />Say is "topsoil and/or quarry fines fertilized sufficiently to substan- <br />tiate reasonable growth". <br />Regarding the applicants proposal to cover only the horizontal portion <br />of tlhe benches and not the slopes and faces, there was apparently a <br />misunderstanding of the wording in the resolution. The resolution does <br />not actually say that slopes and faces have to be covered with the soil <br />..mixture; it says that they will be covered with climbing vines or other <br />suitable vegetation as much as possible. This was intended to mean <br />that vegetation mould climb or fall down over the unsightly, glaring, , <br />sharo edges or portions. It was agreed that covering the vertical <br />portions with the soil mixture would be unreasonable and impossible to <br />keep in place. <br />There was very little discussion on the varying depths propose~.l or re- <br />quired for the soil mixture covering to be replaced. Referring to <br />testimony received September 10th, the environmental consultant r•econi- <br />mended putting back 12 to 18 inches, perhaps by experimenting with the <br />depth and amount of organic matter necessary. <br />Mr. Holley said they want the required depth of cover left at a minimum <br />of 12" because it will end up much more than that over most of the area <br />where they have to make it reasonably level at various locations. <br />"Growth acceptable to the Fioard of Adjustment" appears again in this <br />portion of the resolution. Earlier, the applicants had asked that it <br />not bo limited to the opinion of the Board. Mr. James suggested drat <br />"acceptance would not be unreasonably withheld" he added. Mr. Volley <br />thought this a legal requirement and not necessary to ctrange although <br />it is difficult to interpret what the board meant because requirements <br />are inconsistent. <br />WET AND DUST COLLECTION SYSTEII: <br />The resolution requires that wet drilling and dust suction devices be <br />employed in drilling operations. <br />The .alrplicant advises drat it is technically impossible to sinrult,rrrepusly <br />use both a wet drilling and a dust collection system. They aro pr•esc~ntly <br />Using the wet drilling method and investigating use of .a dust collection <br />system. <br />(~~ <br />(conll.nuad) <br /> <br />