Laserfiche WebLink
• -20- . <br />John Ward: Tw~~, the plan should be tailored so that the affected land is <br />by~~nd the 200 feet requirement. <br />Dick Ward: And should provide for reclamation of areas... <br />.~ <br />John Ward: ... of the areas that have been disturbed within that 200 foot buffer. <br />Shelton: I'm unclear about one thing, you've said it twice. I didn't think <br />our law said that you couldn't have a structure .within 200 feet. <br />It can adversely affect that structure, yeah. You`ve got to get <br />consent of the landowner or you can't do it. If the operator can <br />show that they're not going to adversely affect the structure, I <br /> <br />don't see that it outlaws operations within 200 feet of the structure. <br />Now maybe I'm reading it wrong. You said it twice, and I'm interested <br />in what you said. IIut I don't moan it that way. I assume you're <br />referring to Section 115-4-D, which says .you cannot have a permit if <br />"the mining operation will adversely affect the stability of any <br />significant valuable and permanent man-made structure located within <br />2(10 Feet." Now, if they're not going to adversely affect it, I don't <br />see that we can deny a permit on that grounds, just because they're <br />within 200 feet. I just don't... maybe I've been misreading it all <br />this time, but ... <br />Turner: Yeah, I see w1~at you're saying. We've had cases come up where there <br />have been structures within the 200 foot boundary, but in those cases, <br />tl~e agreement has been worked out..J In Fact, usually in those cases <br />what happens is the operator says, "If I do cause any I will repair <br />it", etc. etc. IIut you're saying that it's up to the adjacent land- <br />