PERMFILE118541 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,cam ~: r • MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID #: M-7000-OSl INSPECTION DATE: 6/6/00 INSPECTOR S INITIALS: _J('S (Page 2) I~ ~~ OBSERVATIONS This inspection was conducted in order to resolve certain remaining adequacy issues identified during the Division's review of the County's permit application for this pit. The problems identified are with the permit application and ,since the site is not permitted, are not compliance matters. Although properly notified of the inspection, the County was unable to have a representative present during the inspection. This inspector, however, was able to contact the landowner, Andrew Castillo, and Mr. Castillo was present during the inspection. The public notice of the application required to be posted at the site was present. The unresolved adequacy issues remaining for the Castillo Pit permit application involve the proximity of the boundaries of the proposed permiUaffected area to adjacent properties having different surface owners and to fences along those property lines. These issues are required to be addressed with responses made under Exhibits A, B, E and L of the permit application. The Exhibit A and E maps provided by the County in response to the Division's May 10, 2000 adequacy review of the permit application for the Castillo Pit show that the boundaries of the proposed pit lie within 200 feet of property indicated to be owned by Joseph Montoya, to the east, and within 200 feet of property indicated to be owned by David Fahey, to the south. Both the map of the proposed permit area and that of the Castillo property were prepared by licensed surveyors, should be dependable and should agree. In the County's response, however, the County reported that on-site measurements from the surveyed boundaries of the proposed permiUaffected area placed the Castillo-Montoya property line, along which there is a fence, and the supposed property line and fence along the Castillo-Fahey property boundary as being 443 and 600 feet from the proposed permit area, respectively. Although the County did notify, or attempt to notify, both of these adjacent property owners of the permit application, as required, the County did not identify the adjacent surface owners within 200 feet on the Exhibit A map nor did the County acknowledge the fences along these property lines, or any other fences, as being within 200 feet of the proposed permit boundary in either Exhibit B or Exhibit L and did not represent them with the owner(s) identified on the Exhibit E Maps. With Mr. Castillo's assistance, the easternmost corner marker far the proposed permit area was located and the distance to the Castillo-Montoya property line and fence was paced. By both Mr. Castillo and this inspector's determinations, the distance.to this fence and property line is less than 200 feet, as indicated by the permit application maps. Also with Mr. Castillo's assistance, the distance to the Castillo-Fahey property line, marked by a series of low white stakes, was determined to be less than 50 feet, also as indicated by the permit application maps. The Castillo-Fahey property line, however, is not marked by a fence. The County is correct in its determination that the nearest fence to the south is over 200 feet from the proposed permiUaffected area. This fence, according to Mr. Castillo, lies well within the Fahey property. Although not confirmed by.this inspector, Mr. Castillo also indicated that the extreme northern corner of the proposed permit/ affected area would intersect an existing EW trending fence belonging to him. The County, in its response, had reported that the Castillo fence nearest the northwest corner marker for the proposed permiUaffected area was over 200 feet away. As a result of this inspection and the determinations made with and reports received from the landowner, the County is requested to do the following in order to render the permit application for the Castillo Pit adequate and approvable: 1) Revise the Exhibit A map that is being returned to you to show the adjacent surface owners of property within 200 feet of the proposed permiUaffected area to the east and south. 2) Provide a revised Exhibit B that acknowledges the existence of the fences within 200 feet of the proposed 9~ permiUaffected area to the east and south and the owner(s) of such. (It is this inspector's understanding, from conversation with Mr. Castillo, that he owns the EW fence intersected by the northern corner of the proposed permit area and he and Mr. Montoya share ownership of the fence along their boundary to the east.) ryp 3) Revise the Exhibit E Maps that are being returned to you to show the EW fence owned by Mr. Castillo which is ~,yn intersected by the northern part of the permit area and the fence owned by Mr. Castillo and Mr. Montoya along the Castillo-Montoya property boundary to the east with the owners of these fences identified. ~~ 4) Provide a revised Exhibit L that acknowledges the existence of these two fences within 200 feet of the boundaries of the permiUaffected area together with an agreement with Mr. Castillo to reimburse him for any damage to his fence(s) brought about by operations at the pit. (The County's agreement with Mr. Castillo provided with the permit application did not include any reference to such damages to his structures.) In regard to the Castillo- Montoya fence to the east, the Division will be satisfied by a statement from the County that the fence is nearly 200 feet away from the permit area and that separation of the County operations in the pit from the fence will be maintained by the County.