Laserfiche WebLink
believe the County should include appropriate stipulations on activities <br />that must occur at the site if mining is suspended. <br />12. Item 3-35-06-06 Hours of Operation <br />I doubt that I would have an objection to AI operating a mine from 6:00 <br />am to 10:00 pm if they were using a wet mining process, because such a <br />process generates much less noise, dust and other negative factors that <br />are associated with dry mining. However, with a dry mining operation, <br />the lights, the noise, the dust and other factors make operating for these <br />hours (without the number of days per week being specified) for a period <br />of 17 years totally unacceptable. The County should require AI to submit <br />more precise request for extending operating hours beyond 6:00 pm and <br />then consider the request as submitted. <br />13. Item 3-35-06-12 Fencing <br />I agree that the area needs to be fenced and needs substantially better <br />fencing than currently exists (or does not exist) at the Tucson Pit. <br />However, I would suggest the County require AI to submit a <br />comprehensive fencing, berming and berming landscape plan as part of <br />the conditional use permit application. The fencing to be included should <br />go on the inside of the berms such that it is not visible from outside the <br />property and the berms should be landscaped with trees and vegetation <br />other than Kosha weed which adorns the berms at the Tucson Pit. <br />14. Item 3-35-06-14 Reclamation of Spent Areas <br />As previously requested, I do not believe the County should permit AI to <br />import processed or unprocessed materials from any other site. I have <br />previously commented on the amount of time AI should have to mine and <br />reclaim the area. <br />15. Item 3-35-06-18 Revegetation <br />I do not believe that non-irrigated grasses are sufficient to reclaim the <br />area. Please refer to my previous comments on reclamation. <br />16. Findings of Fact which support approval of theses requests. <br />Item 1. I agree with part of this statement; however, Aurora, <br />which is the purchaser of the water storage, is not part of Adams <br />County. Accordingly, the benefit of the water storage does not <br />affect Adams County residents. If the project were to be <br />