GENERAL42430 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Upon review of the video tape of the County Commissioner's comments duri g the fmal approval of 21 July 1997, there appeazs to be some discrepancy that serves to omplement our understanding of this expectation, which departs from that stated in the F ndings and Resolution document as signed on 7 October 1997. First, there is some just c se for any departure in our understanding. As you might remember, the Commissioner's stated that they expected the F ndings and Resolution within two weeks of the 21 July 1997 hearing. Although signe 7 October 1997, we did not receive a copy until 13 January 1998. At no time was the c tent of the Findings and Resolution subject to the Operator's review or rebuttal. Since a substantial amount of time has passed while waiting for, and then waiting to resolve, the Special Review, we made the effort to transcribe the video of the 2 July 1997 Board of Commissioner hearing to better ascertain that we were not in fact ope sting under some misunderstanding ourselves. ntly, Condition #9 reads: to beginning mining activity in the area shown as the South Quarry, a fining plan be submitted for technical review by appropriate agencies ro address fife specific s such as plans for drainage and erosion control for that area, access and traffic, and tt-related issues. Changes to access and addition of buildings or other i rovements require an application for an amendment to the Special Review. c are elements of the Findings and Resolution that appeaz askew from a dialogue occurred at the time of the 21 July 1997 hearing. For example: Th Board of tmissioners did not indicate absolutely that the South Quany needed to considered :r a separate Technical Review, and drainage would only need further r view if the :hero Access Point to County Road was opened. Since the original tan age of the Wing Department recommendations was not fully modified, the Fi dings and tlutions appears to read contrary to the intent of the Commissioners as a pressed by dialogue, as we later determined. maintain that the Technical Revision, as approved by the DMG, co tituted the >propriate agency review,' therefore, the requirements of Findings and Resolution tndition #9 were fulfilled by [hat submittal. Only where we add buildings, r otherwise d physical 'improvements' would the Special Review be `amended,' with c nsideration the amendment only as it pertains to such buildings or improvements. The South Quany has been detailed substantially in the approved Spe 'al Review documents and respective State DMG permit and Technical Revision. No new ~nfotmation should evidence itself since the manner and method of quarrying and reclai ~ g the site will not change. No new points of access, no increase in traffic, no addition o buildings, or other improvements are planned. Buildings could be added a[ a later time would be fded as a sepazate Amendment, but this should not influence whether or n the South Ouatrv is worked. Another Technical Revision would have to be submitted to the DMG to clarify the location and design of any new roads, which the County would receive copies and n ification of respectively. Drainage and erosion control issues were treated extensively in the Special Review and with two agencies of State government and their respective pe ~ts. The resulting drainage plan for the State Storm Water permit can be applied equally the North and South Quarries, and are under perpetual examination by County Engineen g. Perhaps 4 Tuesday 17 November 1998 Correspondence in the matter of Special Review File 97-ZR09 1, Rocky Road Quarry, to Carol Evans, Latimer County Planning Department, from Douglas ]. Ba li, Vice- President, Rocky Road Investment, inc.