PERMFILE111914 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

R.C.R.P.C. MINUTES DECEMBER 18, 1997 Elizabeth Miller, DOW, spoke about the differences in her November 25 and December 8,1997 letters. Commissioner Wolf stated that the second letter was written after additional information was received. Ms Miller agreed. In response to a question from Commissioner Mitsch Bush, Ms Miller stated that there is an active grouse population in the area but she does not know how many there are in the immediate vicinity. It was pointed out that impacts from excessive grazing would be greater especially when it involves destruction of sage brush. Paul Draper discussed the railroad crossing. He said railroad improvements should be a cooperative effort between the County and the railroad. He said with or without this petition, the County will continue to work with the railroad for crossing improvements. Mr. Draper explained that the width of the roadway is insufficient and needs to be widened in order to allow room for the crossing improvements. Improvements to this crossing are not in the 1998 County budget. Ms Fox stated that Sue Grablar, Union Pacific Railroad engineer, is supposed to send Mr. Draper a preliminary report about the crossing. Ms Fox spoke with Rich Perske, CDOT, who indicated that the owner of the road, the County, would be the entity that requests a review of the highway access upon the submittal of a new highway access permit application. CDOT would then make a recommendation about accelldecel lanes. Mr. Perske stated that the Board of County Commissioners and Mr. Draper can request study, however, CDOT is more concerned with a higher volume of truck trips, i.e., 20 truck trips per hour. In response to a question from Commissioner Holly about an impact fee for dust abatement and maintenance of RCR 33A, Mr. Draper stated that the County has general requirements for participation In a dust abatement program, however, routine maintenance participation has never been requested. Mr. Draper referred to the proposed conditions and stated that he supports cooperation from the operator to address the railroad crossing, does not want to limit the operator to one crusher; and does not believe this petitioner should be singled out and prohibited from hauling on RCR 33A during school bus hours when other commercial operators do not have this prohibition. Commissioner Wolf asked if the current County road can accommodate the anticipated traffic. Mr: Draper stated that the road does not meet existing County standards. He reluctantly said that the road will accommodate the anticipated traffic, as well as any other County road used as a haul road. Luke Tellier stated that the interior haul road has been moved as far as possible to accommodate the neighbors, to keep the road on his property and still have a workable project. In rebuttal, Mr. Crofts reiterated his initial presentation, about dust control (an emissions permit is required by the Department of Health), noise, truck traffic, the railroad crossing (has agreed to participate), noise of the crusher, Anderson's well water, and water quality testing. Mr. Crofts read a letter written to Mr. Tellier from Frank Hogue dated November 20, 1997 which stated that after reviewing the updated facts, he believes the mine is a workable proposal. The letter congratulated the Petitioner for his attempts to mitigate impacts on neighbors. Telephone Call