Agenda - 09-30-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

09 3- Gordon asked how the change in the request (regarding amount of land) affects the staff recommendation. Hell responded that staff looked upon runoff as an existing condition recognized by DEM as a public health,. safety and welfare hazard that does represent- a changing condition that was not addressed in. the Central Orange Area Study. Commissioner Marshall noted that these were undesirable existing conditions, not conditions brought about by other things happening in the neighborhood. Bell continued that the procedures in the plan were not very specific regarding ."changing conditions* and it was the staff interpretation that Conditions had changed sufficiently to warrant amendment. 'Commissioner Marshall requested that the May 28, 1985 public hearing minutes be entered into the record (An aattachment on page of -these minutes.) Tom Chandler, applicant and president of Chandler Concrete,, spoke. He noted he had operated. the business in substantially the same manner for 13 years. He was notified by DEM in January concerning the problem of water runoff. He noted the reason for the new request for 1.41 acres was to ask for help in solving the water runoff problem. He continued noting that the Railroad representatives were aware of the existence of the ponds, but that it usually took six to eight months to get. a. III letter of approval from Railroad officials regarding right-of-way encroachments. If it becomes necessary to move the ponds from the railroad right-of-way, they could be shifted forward without having to relocate the recycling equipment. Mr. Chandler stated that there would be no expansion of his business operation, no increase in the number of trucks or use. There will be an . improvement in the traffic conditions due to the relocation of the driveway. He cited a letter from J. W. Watkins stating that the proposed driveway has a greater sight distance and is a safer entrance than the one now being used. He also cited a letter from Jon S. Harder concerning land values. He submitted these two letters along with a letter, from DEM dated 8/22/85 to the Board as evidence. (Copies of these letters are on pages of these . minutes). Chandler continued addressing the concern regarding the contents, appearance and overflow of the ponds. He noted the purpose of the third pond was to take care of any overflow. The design and construction of the ponds has been approved and accepted by DEM as a solution to the environmental problem. 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 concrete, 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 Wilihoit 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 III used in making concrete. This proposal requires 1.41 acres as an absolute minimum area to accomplish the requirements of DEM. Kizerqu inquired what the anticipated results were if the request for LUP amendment is denied. Post responded that if the request were denied, the