Agenda - 10-05-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

091 Efl3T . tfl 17 ir further action for compliance. Post explained that the natural runoff would flow by gravity in volumes that cannot be efficiently d. the that was approved previously and the installation of the pump ponds, three py change was enough room for landscaping and this additional .59 acres would add to the present landscaping. In answer to Planning Board member Dan Eddleman, Chandler responded that the ponds were in operation in accordance with the State Environmental protection laws to retain the water in stream. We need to be able to operate the ponds and not let it go into the in order to keep the concrete plant in operation. and the reclamation system Commissioner Halklotis 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 used in the making of concrete. Planning Board Chair Barry Jacobs asked that some documentation be provided from DEM stating their previous there seems to be some differences relating position and present position as to be retained. Post indicated that his lients ' desireowasutof contain wall runoff not dust that produced by the washing of trucks. He that controlling the runoff from truck washing could be handled on the eQwestern side but that he felt the better job was being done by handling all runoff from one location. Planning Board Member Steve Yuhasz was centered on the operation of the concretet why all the discussion 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 continued that he felt the discussion should be centered on extension of the zoning to bring Chandler into complainance 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 relevent. Planning Board Member Eddleman t n immediate area. Post responded thatg the arreadishchangi�ngdbutnthat°theimajorr change in conditions are environmental requiring regulations by DEM and another changed condition would be that of buffer requirements. John Capewell who is an appraiser spoke to the question of area changes. He noted that five parcels in the immediate area have changed to PD-01 , 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 therein that if Chandler granted the amendment, replanting of the .59 Is loblolly pines. He summarized the contents acres gill be done with there would be no change or expansion of the the commercial activity (the agreement noting that concrete plant). He continued retdin restrictions and the affirmative obligations on shall become effective only approval agreement. These - -- effective onlydm pvLbydtheeOrange County Cal seiPer Permit.. the above Mr. Rhine expressed concern that If the amendment sisPenottgranted, Mr. Chandler will be legally forced to leave the area and no replanting will have to be done. While he does not enthusiastically support requested by y pport the amendment as y Chandler, he realizes that without the approval , the area could remain bare which would be more detrimental to the surrounding area. County Attorney Gledhill informed the Board that the agreement between