Agenda - 06-05-1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• 6 18 of the possibility of a quarry on this property. Mr. Carey: We would like to very much because that's not a specific issue of the public hearing here tonight. Mr. Phears: O.K. Thank you very much and I will skip that, I do want to emphasize as I know the County Attorney is here that there are things I have to do in terms of making the public record, I'm sure you're probably aware of that and to that extent I did want to make my request quite clear. Let me fast forward though and skip- over the detail of that having made it, I think, clear in terms of why we are here. There is no reasonable use for the use of the property from the Teers standpoint. We have looked at the permitted uses in Rural Buffer. You can look at them yourself, the principle permitted use would be residential in the area. The fact of the matter is that if you go out there and take noise readings you'll get levels in excess of 80 decimals along there. If you look at the Federal Highways Administration Environmental Impacts Study for I-40, which I think most of you in this room would say understated to environmental impact it will tell you that the noise footprint, the 70 decimal noise footprint is 500 feet wide out there on each side of the right-of-way. That knocks out a substantial portion of our property. What that EIS will also tell you is that that under federal highway guidelines, not our guidelines, but federal highway administration guidelines, that's an intolerable level of noise for residential development. Now I don't think I have to tell you that if the federal agency says it's intolerable, chances are you and I are going to find it intolerable. Additionally, of course, in addition to the noise we have difficult topographically features, we have very wet areas in there, we have difficult soil to work with, we have no water and sewer, in fact a very conscious policy not to adopt water and sewer, we have the other environmental impacts of I-40 to deal with not just the noise, visual impact, the general indesirability of it, the concern that everybody has as to what will happen in that corridor ultimately, so the question, particularly when you take it into account the building cost, reduces itself to a question of who would spend, what will be 2 to 3 hundred thousand dollars to build out there because of the development cost and the type of house that has to be put with it so that they can live next to an interstate, have no local services, have an intolerable level of noise, have no water and sewer, drive 5 miles to get a loaf of bread, and it may be a large group of folks out there, we don't think so. We haven't seen any yet. I think there's at least one. That is the reason that we're here for the record, we do believe that the original classification was an error, we do believe that the policy underlying the classification ought to be changed, and that the conditions are such in the area that the Comprehensive Plan had to be changed. Finally, I'm