Agenda - 08-24-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

required any further action for compliance. Post explained that the natur7 al runoff would flow by gravity in volumes that cannot be efficiently pumped. By the change that was approved previously and the installation of the three ponds, there was enough room for landscaping and the additional 0.59 acres would add to the present landscaping. In response to Planning Board member Dan Eddleman, Chandler said that the ponds were in operation in accordance with the State environmental protection laws to retain the water in ponds and not let it go into the stream. He emphasized the need to be able to operate the ponds and the reclamation system to keep the concrete plant in operation. Commissioner Halkiotis asked if the water in the ponds could be used to water grass and flowers. Post's response was that the water was not caustic but may need to be diluted slightly. Mr. Chandler indicated that the water is used to water trees and shrubs as well as in the making of concrete. Planning Board Chair Barry Jacobs asked that some documentation be provided from DEM stating their previous and present positions as there seems to be some differences regarding the types of runoff to be retained. Post indicated that his clients' desire was to contain all runoff and not just that produced by the washing of trucks. He agreed that controlling the runoff from truck washing could be handled on the western side but that he felt a better job was being done by handling all runoff from one location. Planning Board Member Steve Yuhasz questioned why all the discussion was centered on the operation of the concrete plant and the location of the ponds, stating that Chandler's request is due to court action which found him in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated he felt the discussion should be centered on extension of the zoning to bring Chandler into compliance with the two acre minimum requirement. Chair Marshall noted that the recommendation of the Planning Staff is for denial and therefore the background information is relevant. Planning Board Member Eddleman questioned the changed conditions in the immediate area. Post responded that although the area is changing the major change in conditions are environmental regulations by DEM. Another changed condition would be that of buffer requirements. JOHN CAPEWELL, an appraiser, spoke to the question of area changes. He noted that five parcels in the immediate area have changed to PD-OI, CC3 and CC4. Chair Marshall noted that those changes were not inconsistent with the Central Orange Area Study. MR. ROBERT E. RHINE, owner of land across from Chandler Concrete, stated that he and his sisters were the ones who opposed the original Land Use Plan amendment and initiated court action against Chandler Concrete. Since that time, an agreement has been reached between Chandler Concrete and the Rhine family which states that if Chandler is granted the amendment, replanting of the 0.59 acres will be done with loblolly pines. He summarized the contents of the agreement, noting that there would be no change or expansion of the commercial activity (the concrete plant) . He continued reading the entire agreement, noting that the restrictions and the affirmative obligations on Chandler would become effective only upon approval by the Orange County Commissioners of the above specified amendments to the Land Use Plan and Special Use Permit. Mr. Rhine expressed concern that if the amendment is not granted, Mr. Chandler will be legally forced to leave the area, and no replanting will be done. While he does not enthusiastically support the amendment as reqested by Chandler, he realizes that without the approval, the area could remain bare which would be more detrimental to the surrounding property. County Attorney Gledhill informed the Board that the agreement between