Laserfiche WebLink
twenty-Five to thirty acres. October 5, 1970, the zoning <br />resolution ins amended so'as to permit pining Wineral and <br />Natural Resource extraction) subject to county Planning <br />Cortgission approval of location. <br />Castle has invested•$340,oo0 in the purchase price; <br />the costs of plans, development and irprovenent in the quarry <br />sit? and its access road. ' <br />Defendant Ingrahzra issued a Cease and Desist Order <br />to the Plaintiff June 5, 1973. This order was based on Defendan' <br />Ingreha_m's and Tyree's determination that the zoning resolution <br />prohibited any expansion of a nonconforming use. ; <br />Mining was a permitted use of the land atithe time <br />Castle purchased it, and Castle spent money making'the'access <br />road useable, cleaning up the quarry, and preparing to rains <br />kno'em minsral arc reserves. 'The Defendants, Ingraham and Tyree <br />interpreted the zoning change to require a permit as to locatior <br />before Castle has a right to, mine. What siie location'could be <br />applied for? There is no language in the zoning.resolution <br />touching- this. ' <br />A reasonable interpretall- ion of a mine is not the size <br />the existing opening, but rather the ore within the tract that <br />ci.n be reached or rained from the opening. To require the miner <br />to get a permit for each expansion would mean thak a'permit <br />would be for ten acres, then another ten acres, and so for <br />each increment of ten acres until the whole tract awned was min <br />Ttining by its verb nature exhausty and depletes the location, <br />.o that additional ground nust be mined as'long as th'e ore <br />reserves rcmain. But the zoning resolution says nothing as to <br />5 <br />T <br />