Minutes - 19850826 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~oa~~~ Chandler referenced the comment that he had graded the property to make it more usable and noted this was inaccurate. He called on Philip Post to explain exactly what had been done on the property and the design details as well as the traffic circulation pattern. Philip Post explained that there were three sources of runoff: truck washing, runoff from the making of concretes and rainwater; the latter being the primary source of runoff. He noted that other than the technical problem regarding water runoff. there were three other benefits from this site plan: (1) additional landscaping. (2) access improvements and (3) eventual recycling of materials used in the operation so there would be no solid or liquid waste removed from the site. At this point Willhoit asked that the applicants only address those things relating to the Land Use Plan amendment at this time. Post noted that most of his remarks were specific to the site plan. Regarding the Land Use Plan amendment he continued that DEM required total. detention of water runoff at this site. The liquid waste contains materials used in making concrete. This proposal requires 1..41 scree as an absolute minimum area to accampliah the requirements of DBM. Kizer inquired what the anticipated results were if the request for LUP amendment is denied. Post responded that if the request were denied, the applicant could not comply with AFM requirements and closure of the plant could eventually occur. Gordon read the reasons for making a Land Use Plan Amendment. Post noted that his client was responding to a state requirement and he felt this was a changed condition. Harry Harkinss an attorney from Chapel Hi11. representing the Rhine family who owa the land surrounding the Chandler Concrete plant. spoke. He noted there would be three additional speakers in opposition to the amendment to the LUP. He continued expressing more firmly the opposition to the amendment far three reasons: he felt it was bad policy. set a bad precedents and it was not necessary to the operation of the Chandler Concrete plant. He stated that from meeting to meeting the applicant had changed his needs or reasons £or the requested amendment. He felt only two lagoons were needed and the proposed driveway was unnecessary. He also felt that a way could be found for location of the lagoons on land that Chandler already ie using and that the barriers that are being stored by contractors working on I-40 could be stored anywhere. He and his clients greatly oppose the expansion of industrial use into this residential area. Harkins continued stating that Chandler had purchased land without checking into the zoning and had begun using the land in violation of the zoning regulations. Harkins clients, the Zzhine family, had to report the nonconforming use to the County before the action was corrected. He further stated that he and his clients felt that this was simply a means to expand the operation of the existing concrete plant. He read from the Zoning Ordinance the reasons for change and noted that he did not view the situation as changed conditions. but simply an expansion of the use after purchase. He also reminded the Boards that Commissioner Marshall had asked for the May 28 public hearing evidence to be placed in the record. Commissioner Marshall noted that she only asked for the minutes Co be entered into the record and if Mr. Harkins had some particular item of record to be entered he would need to make that request. Harkins then requested that