Meeting Information
6:35 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
(1) (a) Consider approval of Commission Orders;
(b) Consider acquisition of Right-of-Way for Structure No. 6.00N-19.03E (Michael Kelly); and
(c) Consider waiving Purchasing Policy and approving Agreement for Engineering Services for E 1750 Road surfacing project from Baldwin City Limits to Route 12 (Keith Browning).
REGULAR AGENDA
(2) CUP-12-00099: Consider a Conditional Use Permit for sand excavation and extraction for Penny Sand Pit, approximately 434 acres located on the NE Corner of N 1500 Road & E 1850 Road. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for William Penny & Van LLC, property owners of record. (The Planning Commission voted at their October meeting to forward the CUP to the County Commission. The CUP application was returned to Planning Commission for a new public hearing after identification of error in mailed public notice for the October meeting. The Planning Commissions reconsidered the item at their joint January 30, 2013 meeting following re-notification and took the following action: The Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission voted 4 to 3 to recommend denial, and the Eudora Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 to recommend denial) (PC Item 8; 1/30/13) Mary Miller will present the item.
(3) (a) Consider approval of Accounts Payable (if necessary)
(b) Appointments
-Lawrence Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission 05/13
-Heritage Conservation Council 05/13
-Property Crimes Compensation Board 04/13
(c) Public Comment
(d) Miscellaneous
(4) Adjourn
Gaughan called the regular meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. on Wednesday, February 27, 2013 with all members present.
CONSENT AGENDA 02-27-13
Gaughan moved approval of the following Consent Agenda:
► Acquisition of right-of-way for Structure No. 6.00N-19.03E; Road No. 188 (N600 Rd), Project No. 06001903; Tract No. 1 for Busby Revocable Living Trust dated June 10, 1993;
► Waive purchasing policy requirements and approve agreement with BG Consultants, Inc. at a not-to-exceed cost of $21,885.72 for engineering service to chip seal E 1750 Road from the Baldwin City limits to Route 12.
Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.
PLANNING 02-27-13
The Board of County Commissioners considered CUP-12-00099,
a Conditional Use Permit for sand excavation and extraction for Penny Sand Pit. The property has approximately 434 acres located on the northeast corner of N 1500 Road and E 1850 Road. The application was submitted by Landplan Engineering, for William Penny & Van LLC, property owners of record. Mary Miller, Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Staff, presented the item.
Background information: The Planning Commission voted at their October 2012 meeting to forward the CUP to the County Commission. The CUP application was returned to the Planning Commission for a new public hearing after the identification of an error in the mailed public notice for the October meeting. The Planning Commission reconsidered the item at their joint January 30, 2013 meeting following re-notification and took the following action: The Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission voted 4 to 3 to recommend denial, and the Eudora Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 to recommend denial.
Flory moved to incorporate all of the original material previously heard into the record of this hearing. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.
Miller outlined the history of the application process through tonight's meeting. The current zoning is Valley Channel (V-C); Floodway Overlay (F-W) and Floodway Fringe Overlay (F-F); and rural residential and agriculture are the predominate land uses. Mining activities are permitted under this zoning with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. A floodplain development permit would also be required. The property contains conflicting natural resources, quality agricultural soils and sand reserves. The Comprehensive Plan recommends both the protection of high quality soils and the responsible use of marketable natural resources. Deciding which natural resource takes precedence is a policy issue. The land uses in the area and subject property are primarily agriculture, rural residential and mining/extraction. Conditions are being placed on the CUP to assure compatibility and safety of the environment. There will not be two areas dredged simultaneously, either the previously approved river dredge will operate, or the proposed pit dredge. Improvements are recommended to the corner of N 1500 Road and Noria Road based on the information in the Traffic Impact Study provided by the applicant.
Miller said a specialist with the ArmyCorps of Engineers indicated the river can make channel changes with or without the dredging operations. Miller showed a drawing of the river channel since 1873 and outlined the conditions proposed on the CUP.
Keith Browning, Director of Public Works, introduced Kirk Heffer and Peter Oram, specialists from the Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA) Consulting Company.
Kirk H ffner, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA) Consulting Company, stated his firm was hired to provide a third-party analysis of the information received on mainly two reports submitted by Mr.. Nuzman and Dr. McElwee. There was conflicting information about ground water flow directions between the two reports. CRA focused on the potential for contamination of the aquifer and also looked at potential de-watering of the aquifer and the size of operation when at full scale. There could be 25 million square feet of area that could be impacted and 250 gallons per minute of water usage due to the ground water extraction through the dredging. The resulting pond would create an estimated 415 gallons of de-watering per minute, which according to H ffner, is a modest amount. He noted it would be helpful if the applicant would provide the full extraction plan to get a more complete analysis of potential impacts on water quality and quantity. The main issue is the water quality impacts. CRA d s not see any negative effect on the water supply and wells, but pointed out additional studies that should be done to provide safeguards. He suggested determining groundwater flow direction by looking at five wells around the mining area; do a grain size analysis; hydraulic slug testing; and put in monitoring wells and sampling those. He would like to sample private wells in the area and incorporate those results into the study. He would also recommend a site assessment to determine if pesticides and herbicides should be evaluated.
Peter Oram, CRA specialist from Nova Scotia, stated he is a geologist, geographer with 25 years experience on water supply projects in water environmental permitting specifically related to mining projects. His role is getting base line programs in place, evaluating sites before they go into operation, and helping companies or conservation groups through the permitting project. He stated he is available to answer questions.
Commissioner Flory asked Keith Browning to discuss the issue of river bank stabilization. Browning stated he contacted George Butler Associates, who has worked on the river stabilization issue with a previous CUP. He only received the report this afternoon, which he emailed to the County Commissioners. The report looks at the history of the movement of the river and how much the bank has moved at this location. The report said the post tributary reservoir construction changed the flow characteristics of the Kansas River. The report diagrams river bank movement from 1971-2010. From 1976-2012, the river bank on the west side of Penny's property moved 190 feet to the east. Before placement of the revetments by the landowner, between1976-1991, the river moved 130 feet east. Data suggests that after placement of the revetments, 1991-2012, the river moved an additional 60 feet. It appears the revetments on the east river bank had reduced the lateral movement by 50%. There has also been movement of the north river bank, along Penny's property, which has moved 850 feet southeast creating a large island, or secondary channel, which followed the 1993 flood. Dredging in the existing river channel locally changes the sediment transport characteristics of the river. Once dredging is ceased that will fill the deeper pools from decades of dredging and long-term river response should be expected. Moving the dredging off the river will decrease local river slope and cross sectional area as dredged areas fill over time. One major factor, when the secondary channel occurred, it slowed down the flow and increased the flow gradient. He went on to discuss nick cuts and the need for a woody riparian barrier on the east bank or west side of the Penny property at least 300 feet wide. Some simple steps could be taken to get the river back in its old channel. Once dredging is off the river the low areas will fill in. The report indicated that a setback of 800 ft or more between the pit and the river would provide greater protection.
Thellman stated the study concurs the Kansas River is down cutting a river event. Breaching the proposed pit would accelerate long-term river bed degradation. That kind of event was given a 3% probability according to their data gathering.
Thellman asked what a woody riparian buffer would look like. Browning said he is not the person to describe that. He was told it was easy to transplant trees and shrubs that are in a riparian area to get buffers started.
Browning said that the recommendation included the continuation of riverbank monitoring on the east bank that is in effect now and that the river should be surveyed following all flooding events lasting more than one week. He talked to the consultant about stabilization on the north side of the property. They didn't think it was a bad idea, but did not appear really necessary based on amount of change. Removing some of the abutment that was breached would get rid of the secondary channel and restore more of the historical channel.
Commissioner Gaughan asked if stopping river dredging would improve stability. Browning answered that removing the breached embankment and other simple steps would return the river to the original channel. Staying off the river would allow areas to fill in.
Dan Watkins, representing the applicant, stated he would not go through the prior presentation as it has been incorporated into the record, as well as the prior Planning Commission minutes and staff reports. New conditions have been added since the first presentation, plus he plans on the possibility of further conditions set after the results of the pre-dredging report. For this reason, he asks the Board to approve the CUP contingent upon on the results of a pre-dredging report.
Flory asked if the applicant is willing to cover the cost of any reports ordered by the County. Watkins stated "yes" his client is prepared to cover the expenses. Flory stated it d sn't make sense to order a pre-dredging report if the Board plans to deny the CUP.
Watkins added the project d s meet all the planning standards. There are a lot of state and federal regulations, and permits required as part of the recommendation by staff that must be complied with. He added staff d s recommend this project. There are not a lot of sites to do this in Douglas County. This is as close to an ideal site as you can find. In addition to the conditions discussed, a condition was added for the applicant to add a muffler to the dredging operation to reduce noise and in addition an affidavit be filed with the Register of Deeds that future landowners must maintain berms according to state and federal regulations. Watkins feels these conditions would be adequate protection of public, health, safety and welfare.
NOTE: The GBA report submitted to the Commissioners prior to the meeting was copied and distributed to the media and the public.
At 7:46 p.m., Gaughan called for a 10 minutes break.
The Board resumed session at 7:56 p.m.
Dennis Bixby, Leavenworth County Commissioners, stated concerns about how the dredging noise and sand particles in the air will affect the cows in the area. He feels we need more answers on water quality and flooding issues then what has been proposed.
John Harrenstein, City Manager of Eudora, stated the City of Eudora still remains opposed to this project. He still feels even with a pre-dredging report, there is still too great of a risk to the water supply. Harrenstein said if the Board approves the CUP conditionally based on results of the pre-dredging report, it still sends the project down the path of being approved regardless of what comes back in the report. He said it is unfair for the City of Eudora and County residents to expect a clean analysis which provides all the information about the aquifer that has been requested be completed by the organization that is requesting to alter those public resources prior to any approval.
Gaughan asked if Harrenstein can "layout" what the requests are about the aquifer not addressed by the pre-dredging report. Harrenstein said he believes that the pre-dredging report will answer the questions about the aquifer that the City has if done appropriately. So he requests that their geologist be consulted on the methodology if approved.
Flory stated the City of Eudora's geologist is welcome to review the information from the pre-dredging report. However, since the County is hiring an independent consultant to do the testing, Eudora's geologist will have no input. Harrenstein said he agrees but foresee if the methodology is not shared there will be arguments. Gaughan added if the Board moves forward in that direction, it will be with the Commission and our staff making the final determination on how the testing will be completed.
Thellman asked what level of water treatment the City of Eudora has and if required by KDHE to treat surface water what that would mean to the residents. Harrenstein said the surface water upgrades are costly and would cause a large impact to the rate payers in Eudora. He has heard the cost would be millions.
Carl McElwee, 1564 E 1850 Road, stated three main reasons he is against the CUP: 1) an unstable river bank in the area, 2) protection of the Kansas River aquifer and 3) the destruction of 400 acres of prime farmland. He also stated he submitted a letter discussing three items he feels has not been addressed properly such as nick points, which he feel could cause instability to the river. He recommended that the pre-dredging report take measurements over extended area, inventorying the existing wells, and using GPS at the top of the well so they have the same datum; he thinks it is unlikely they'll find the high conductivity areas. He discouraged grain size analysis as it d sn't correlate with hydraulic conductivity. He recommends high resolution slug testing.
Carol Wilcox, 1301 Burch Street, Eudora, read a letter from Lois Hamilton, landowner who donated property for the Eudora water wells. In the letter Hamilton stated concerns future flooding could cause changes in the riverbed and she had concerns about truck traffic affecting the area.
David Penny, 643 Tennessee Street, stated he owns adjacent property to the CUP project. He stated Penny Concrete has a history of trashing land. David Penny showed photos of a site in Johnson County where Penny Concrete left concrete waste and abandoned cement mixer tanks on the land at the end of its lease. He also suggested decreasing the size of the site plan.
Gaughan responded to concerns raised outside of Douglas County about a similar pit are fair and open for discussion. He said David Penny's presentation was designed to create the maximum level of discomfort for his brother and advance his own personal issues. Gaughan said he wants the applicant to have an opportunity to respond after the break. He said he wants to make it clear this is not an application for a sandpit in Johnson County. The reclamation plan under consideration is for this Board to consider and what happens in other counties is not on our agenda.
At 9:10 p.m., the Board took a five-minute break (to return at 9:15 p.m.).
At 9:15 p.m., the Board returned to regular session.
Watkins responded to David Penny's comments by saying there is a lease dispute in litigation and this is not the place to discuss it.
Michelle Mailand, 25343 Alexander Road, stated she is a property owner on the north side of the river and is awakened by noise in the mornings due to the current river dredging. She is glad to hear there will be a muffler system added to reduce the noise, but she is disappointed in seeing the proposed hours of operation. She asked the Board to deny the request until there is further evaluation on the possible contamination of the water.
Martha Sanders Skeet, 2909 Yellowstone, said she grew up in this area and stated concerns that once prime soil is removed, you can't get it back.
Nancy Jackson, 1964 N 1550 Road, stated the entire city's water supply is at risk. She feels because the applicant is willing to provide the testing proves there is a risk. Monitoring d s not provide a remedy. She asked who will bear the cost of the remedy.
Jerry Jost, 217 North Fifth Street, said moving from river to sandpit dredging is the right direction to go, however, the proposed site is the wrong location. According to the USDA web survey soil map, the projected CUP location shows a poor source of sand.
Steve Layman, 24697 Alexander Road, said his cows are stressed and
won't sleep, or calf because of something unusual in their environment. Layman believes that to be noise coming from the current river dredging two miles away from his property. He feels sound studies should be done and the noise muffled.
Karen Miller, spoke on behalf her father-in-law, David Bieber, 533 Lindley, who lives close to the proposed dredging site. She feels this proposal is not compatible with the uses of the river. She said the noise of the current dredging is affecting her father-in-law's cattle.
Kerry Altenbernd, 431 Forrest Avenue, said the applicant is saying this is the best site they can find. He feels they should not settle and find the best site. We hear the potential problems, d s that justify going through with a marginally good site. Altenbernd asked the Board to deny the CUP.
Scott Carlson, Director Kansas Division of Conservation, offered his services to staff and third party contractors. He stated he had no jurisdiction over the reclamation process for the Johnson County sandpit site shown earlier because it did not fall under state law requirements at the time. He assured the Board Penny's Concrete CUP reclamation process will be monitored for compliance.
Nancy Schwartz, 1706 E 1500 Road, asked what kind of insurance is in place with the potential risks discussed.
At 9:56 p.m., the Board took a ten-minute break (to return at 10:04 p.m.).
At 10:04 p.m., the Board returned to regular session.
Dan Watkins responded to the comments made. On the noise, the applicant has ordered a muffler to minimize the sound and set the dredging hours from 6:30 a.m.-6:30 p.m. which will apply to the whole operation. On the question of sand quality, Watkins said there is good sand next to the river. He said the proposed study will be site specific. Safeguards prevent any material risk to the City of Eudora and the neighbors. There is no evidence municipal water sources have been contaminated by a sandpit. There is fear and concern, but no evidence. That is why there are conditions. Watkins said he feels having a baseline study is important. The applicant can take action at any time if there is a problem identified.
Flory asked Watkins to address the question on insurance. Watkins said the applicant carries $1 million in liability insurance.
Thellman asked if it was determined river water was mixing with ground water and a surface water treatment plant was necessary for Eudora and found the cause was the sandpit, what would happen. Watkins replied if damages exceeded Penny's $1 million policy additional damages could be sought if the damaged proved to be caused by the sandpit.
Gaughan noted he had a single exparte communication with J Harkins, former Kansas Water office, and asked for information on what larger agencies will be overseeing this project.
Scott Carlson, State of Kansas Division of Conservation, addressed Gaughan's questions. He discussed the initial license fee of $300 renewed every year based on tonnage, a required registration for each site with a fee, a reclamation plan approved by this agency with a map, and $400 per acre bond paid to the State of Kansas. He also explained the reclamation process and requirements for the over burden. Kansas Department of Health and Environment has a storm water permitting process and the Federal Program Mine Health and Safety Administration will be involved. The Division of Water Resources will require a permit.
Flory asked if there is anything CRA would like the Board to know regarding this project.
Peter Oram, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA) Consulting Company, stated the City of Eudora had questions about the methodology used for the study. The methodology used for groundwater modeling, sampling a well and water level monitoring is standard American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). CRA would identify what the methodology would be and how they came to the conclusion. To determine the baseline for this operation, CRA would build a data base, gathering formation as they go along making decisions at regular intervals. The contaminate issue has been brought up. The current situation is there are agricultural operations around the wells where there are new inputs of potential contaminates with no controls. The sandpit operation would have berms. There would be finite amounts of contaminates with controls in place.
Flory asked if the Board were to make contingent approval of the CUP based on the results of the pre-dredging report, could CRA give additional information on conditions that should be imposed. Oram replied it would.
Gaughan asked how long the pre-dredging report will take. Oram stated about three months.
Thellman asked if CRA ever found a project they could not make work. Oram replied "yes." Thellman asked for Oram to explain. Oram responded no site is going to have zero impact. It is determining if the impact is acceptable. He has been involved where the processing was too expensive or the influence could not be properly controlled.
Thellman stated this sandpit would be the largest in Kansas. She asked if this is large for his experience. Oram replied "no" there are larger pits.
Thellman asked Browning to review the questions submitted at last week's meeting. She said Doug Helmke, Kansas Rural Water Association, said the sandpit could create an issue of water quantity in the area because of the sand removal and evaporation. We should consider all water intake including wells, water districts and treatment plants. Thellman asked how much can the aquifer provide before we are asking too much of it. Browning said he d sn't have much information on that. Matthew Bond, Stormwater Engineer for the City of Lawrence, said the city owns the previous Farmland wells, but d sn't know if they will pump. Larry Wray, Wholesale Water District No. 25, said the pit is not going to affect the water district. Conestoga-Rovers will determine how the dredging will affect all this as a whole. Division of Water Resources, provided information on the Kansas Administrative Regulation 513-2 which basically said sandpits in certain parts of the state with high evaporation can have an adverse impact on the ground water supply. But in areas that have less than 18 inches of net evaporation per year, sand pits do not have an adverse impact. Area impacted is the western two-thirds of the state. Keith noted that a representative from the Corp of Engineers stated no preference to support either off-river dredging versus on-river dredging, however, the trend is to support off-river. Browning said if the state will not allow river dredging, the dredging has to be done somewhere else. It is needed.
Gaughan asked Carl McElwee if river water is susceptible to the same contaminates that can contaminate the pit, such and over spray or pesticides. McElwee replied river water in general has poor water quality. His concern is if the river cuts into the pit, it will dump river water directly into the pit. If the pit stays isolated, it will primarily be filled with aquifer water. If the pit stays isolated from the river, it will have better water quality than the river.
Thellman asked about the risks of the farm chemicals affect on the groundwater contamination through surface water exposure and if we can be guaranteed there will be no issues. McElwee said no hydro geologist can say by opening a pit, it d s not increase vulnerability.
Phil Struble, Landplan Engineering, discussed the application process to move forward with the project.
Gaughan asked if something g s wrong, in a worst case scenario, who will fix the problem. Struble said he d s not know for sure but KDHE and the Corp of Engineers for sure would be involved.
Thellman said this is a huge effort for Penny to go through to get off the river and at a great expense. If allowed back on the river, would the applicant chose to go back on the river after opening up this large piece of land. Struble replied from Penny's position, if they go to all the work to get approved, the preference would be to stay. A different quality of sand from the river for a different product might be considered.
Thellman asked Struble to clarify how many companies are dredging on the river. Struble replied seven companies are operating on the river out of 15 permits. Three sections of the river were degraded beyond the 2-foot threshold. Two of the three dredging companies had no activity for several years thought their permits were pulled.
Thellman asked if the river bottom hadn't been degraded, would Penny still be on the river. Struble answered they would have preferred to stay on the river rather than having to go through this CUP process.
Thellman said after the reclamation the lake will have very high berms. She asked how the lake be used for recreation and how will it be accessed. Struble said the lake would be stocked with fish and the sides will be sloped and have grass. You would access the water with docks. He predicts the lake will be used regularly.
Thellman said she has a hard time seeing this as a usable lake with a three-story deep pit. Oram added the water level of that lake will be ground level or higher if it develops a bottom. Then you are looking at 12-15 feet below existing ground surface, not three stories.
Thellman asked who would be responsible for the lake if Penny defaulted on the property. Watkins stated the new owner would be responsible. Thellman asked if no one chooses to buy it, then what happens. Watkins replied he cannot answer that question. Thellman said it could fall back on the responsibility of the County. Gaughan said it would be the same as what would happen to any piece of property.
Flory stated a performance bond assures the reclamation process is completed. He asked if there could be a performance bond requirement for perpetual maintenance of the berms. Watkins stated that could be required if a transfer is made.
Flory moved to close the public hearing on the CUP. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.
Gaughan stated he has some concerns. He is not ready to approve anything at this meeting. His intent is to review the research conducted, and if the pre-dredging report addresses the concerns to the aquifer, then he can envision moving forward.
Flory said his thinking on contingent approval is final approval only comes after the completion of the pre-dredging report, and after imposing any additional conditions warranted from the pre-dredging report or not approving or not granting final approval based upon a "show stopper" that comes up in the pre-dredging report. He estimates it will be an expensive undertaking to get this report done. He knows the applicant wants to know if the report passes, he will get CUP approval as he will be reimbursing the County for the report. The applicant should know absent a "show stopper" if they will get the CUP approval.
Gaughan listed the issues and concerns raised by the public and consultants:
1) Traffic issue: There was a study conducted and only one active operation will be allowed at a time, and road improvements will take care of those concerns.
2) Moving forward with the study, as laid out by Conestoga-Rovers, will address the concerns about water qualify and the aquifer.
3) Regarding the concern on the river bank. He is eager to take the applicant up on their suggestion to extend a riparian buffer from 300 feet to 800 feet away from the river bank.
4) On the noise issue, the muffler and maintaining the hours of operation from 6:30 a.m. -6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and some Saturdays, including the dredging will address this concern.
5) Regarding soil: In the discussion of soil vs. mineral resources vs. river, Gaughan said he feels we should probably never get back in the river again, but he cannot promise that. We do need sand. Gaughan commented we get sand from Penny for our road operations. Sand is a local resource.
Gaughan said if conditions and concerns are met with the pre-dredging report he is willing to support the CUP.
Thellman said in terms of going ahead and approving the CUP contingent upon the pre-dredging report and pulling back if a "show stopper" arises so the applicant can move forward with the project, she feels we should not downplay the possibility of finding water flow issues. She feels by making contingent approval the Board may hesitate at pulling back. Thellman said she d s not support the CUP. We should not move forward without the data. Her concern is the integrity of the river and possible riverbed degradation. Thellman stated she is concerned that over the 30 years of this CUP, it is projected that the earth's population will increase by 2 billion with less and less farmland to support that population. This is both a local issue and global issue. Thellman said we owe it to our next generation and the next to save prime soil. She stated she is not convinced there are no other locations that can support a sand pit that do not contain prime soil. We are not choosing the site that is best for this project but what is most expeditious for Penny. In her opinion the cost of losing this many acres of prime soil is too high.
Flory stated this is a classic case of competing land use interest, the extraction of sand and prime soils. Both are considered equally important. Both are discussed in Horizon 2020. Another competing issue of equally importance is individual rights vs. governmental authority. Flory said in his view, when restricting individual rights and liberties, the government should use the least restricting alternative when settling an issue and only to protect the health safety and welfare, not to advance a philosophical point of view or a certain personal belief. Flory said that is his general philosophy. When looking at this application at the first hearing, he had some concerns regarding the Eudora water supply, which clearly is an issue of health, safety and welfare. Flory said he is now convinced the majority of his concerns have been remedied by a professional evaluation of the studies. He would like the concept of a pre-dredging report to be completed. He said he sees that as the primary issue in respect to health safety and welfare. He views the soil issue as one of philosophy. When imposing government regulations and authority on a property owner, Flory said he feels it is only fair to use the least restrictive alternative and allow that person to use his property to the extent he d s not infringe on the public health, safety and welfare. Several things have been discussed and he feels the applicant has jumped through hoops, appropriately, to get the application to this point. Flory said he agrees with Commission Gaughan the traffic issue has had significant studies. He d sn't see this as an issue; the noise issue has been addressed by limiting the dredging time; regarding the reduction in size, Flory feels this is multi decade project with phase extraction. He would like to explore as a middle ground the approval with periodic review at certain phases on the size of the project. He is not sure if that is acceptable to everyone. He said he likes the idea of contingent approval. The applicant would have to agree to reimburse the county for the pre-dredging report expense. If that report d s not present a reason to deny, his intention would be to approve. He said he likes the idea of using the contingency as safety valve. The Board has the capability of adding conditions to the already numerous list of conditions if warranted by findings of the report. He suggests working with Miller to prepare a list of conditions to consider for approval at the next meeting.
There was discussed on Flory's suggestion of review after certain phases. For instance, review after phases 1 thru 16, re-approval would be required by the Commission to go forward. This may address the concern about a 400-acre project. Watkins said he feels combining the remarks made by Flory and Gaughan, the proposal of moving the setbacks would reduce the size of the project from 30 phases to 20, and there would still be five-year reviews.
Struble clarified the pit acreage in the application is 294 acres. The property itself is 400 acres. Removing 20 acres from the northwest side and 70 acres by the wetlands will leave with about 200 acres to dredge. Watkins added any additional dredging can be subject to conditional findings.
Gaughan clarified he is very willing to deny the CUP based upon the findings of the pre-dredging report. He is counting on a professional report with the analysis of the situation and if that report says to "not" move forward, he will agree to that.
It was the consensus of the Board to defer the CUP item to the March 13, 2013 meeting, and for staff to bring back wording for the Board to consider contingent approval of the CUP based upon the results of the pre-dredging report and language that reflects the reduction of project size based upon earlier discussions.
PUBLIC COMMENT 02-27-13
Carl McElwee made the comment he is extremely concerned about cutting through the east property of the site. He asked for the Board to consider moving the setback line 500 feet on the north side of his property.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 02-27-13
Flory moved to approve accounts payable in the amount of $768,808.10 to be paid on 02/28/13. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.
Gaughan moved to adjourn the meeting; Flory seconded and the motion carried 3-0.
____________________________ ____________________________
Mike Gaughan, Chair Nancy Thellman, Vice-Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________ _____________________________
Jamie Shew, County Clerk Jim Flory, Member
Time and Date