Laserfiche WebLink
future residence site. An aerial view (Exhibit No. 7 of DPD November 1, 2011 <br />memorandum) does show a clear area with "pond" and road above the site. <br />Why is this important? At the November 15 PCPC Meeting, it was overlooked that the <br />permit does not grant permission to build. Statements that linked the mining operation to <br />applicant's future residence were misleading by omission. Statements alluding to the Army <br />Corps of Engineers "approval" were taken out of context. There are also contradictory <br />statements regarding restoration in the special use permit application, e.g., "will be <br />reclaimed as it is today" vs. "clear the landowner's property for residential use ". <br />It is appropriate the Board reconsider the permit for mining. The experts on the DPD Staff <br />are correct; this is a long -term mining operation that is not harmonious to surrounding areas <br />or land use. It will have extensive cumulative, disruptive impacts to the neighborhood. <br />Click links for demonstration of noise levels. <br />http:// www. youtube.com/watch ?v= IW24RQvYSLk and . <br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXc5QmpPwL0 <br />2. Harmonious environment with surrounding properties and Rye neighborhood: Chapter 17.140, <br />Section 050 SPECIAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS of the Pueblo County Code. <br />✓ DPD Staff comments (see Memorandum dated November 1, 2011, to Pueblo County <br />Planning Commission): ".... There does not appear to be any other commercial activities <br />within 1 mile of the property that has obtained a special use permit for this type or similar <br />commercial use. Staff does not believe this is an appropriate use in this location." <br />✓ Appeal comments on Road Use — Cattle Operations: At the November 15 PCPC <br />Meeting, the Board inquired about road use from the property that had an impact on county <br />roads. The applicant responded the property had been used to graze cattle. A Board <br />member mentioned having no actual knowledge of ranching operations; however, they <br />thought it would involve heavy truck use throughout the year to haul cattle, move equipment, <br />etc. This is an incorrect assumption. <br />Local cattle operations are "non- invasive" events; once cattle are at the location they are <br />basically left alone. There has not been frequent, heavy equipment use on neighborhood roads <br />from cattle operations. The most visible activity came from an old - fashioned cattle drive; a <br />rancher drove cattle on horseback up to the property. <br />• Mr. Winslow, Rye rancher, grazed cattle on the property for decades prior to current <br />ownership. <br />0 Cattle were hauled twice a year, once in Spring to enter property and once in Fall to <br />exit property. <br />0 Cattle entered /exited property at south boundary and did not use Zorn or Park Road <br />for transport. <br />0 Cattle were moved in horse trailers with capacity of up to 8 young or 6 full -grown <br />animals. <br />0 Due to limited grazing and water on the property, there were 20 +/- cattle on 200+ <br />acres. <br />0 Neighbors have indicated there was no obvious ranching activity using county roads <br />such as hay hauls, heavy equipment sales, etc. <br />• A Mr. Clennin, Rye rancher, also grazed cattle on property and appears to have managed <br />cattle similar to Mr. Winslow. <br />SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPEAL NO. 2011 -002 <br />STAFF REVIEW 11 -30 -2011 <br />PCPC <br />EXHIBIT NO. <br />4 cont' <br />11 -15 -2011 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />