HomeMy WebLinkAboutPreliminary Comments by Kingswood HOA Mining Committee
-
j
Preliminary Comments
on
Draft Mining Policies for the Comprehensive Plan
And
Proposed Zoning Ordinance
for Mineral Extraction Districts
Submitted to the Special Studies Committee of
The Carmel-Clay Plan Commission
By the Mining Committee of the
Kingswood Homeowners Association
February 17, 2003
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT MINING POLICIES PROPOSED FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AND
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE FOR MINERAL EXTRACTION DISTRICTS
Introductory Remarks
The following comments are offered to the Special Studies Committee of the Cannel-
Clay Plan Commission (as well as to the Plan Commission as a whole) with respect to two
pending and interrelated proposals: (l) the draft Mining Policies for inclusion in the
Comprehensive Plan; and (2) the proposed ordinance to amend the Cannel-Clay Zoning
Ordinance to establish procedures and criteria for proposals to rezone parcels for extraction of
mineral resources. These comments are provided by the Mining Committee of the Kingswood
Homeowners Association ("KHAn).
The draft mining policies and proposed zoning ordinance have potential for providing
adequate protection to landowners within the City of Carmel in addressing the substantial
property impacts associated with proposals to create mineral extraction districts. However, for
that potential to be realized, it is firmly believed by our committee that both documents need to
be enhanced and strengthened in critical aspects to provide adequate tools to the Plan
Commission for its review of such proposals. Among these key aspects are: (i) an explicit
recognition of the inherent incompatibilities between mining operations and certain other land
uses, (ii) the need for adequate buffering between such incompatible uses; and (iii) the need for a
hydrogeologic study of the potential impacts of the proposed district on groundwater availability
to surrounding properties and to public water supplies. These items along with other
suggestions and comments are discussed in detail in Section I and Section IT below.
In addition, as the Special Studies Committee develops recommendations on the draft
Mining Policies and the proposed ordinance, we urge the Committee to give strong emphasis to
the characteristics and assets of the City of Carmel that have contributed to its outstanding
position among Indiana communities. While the City is far more than its residential districts,
nonetheless, it is the quality, beauty, and other supportive amenities of its residential areas that
have become the hallmark that distinguishes Carmel from other communities of this state and
many others.
In contrast, heavy industry, which includes mining or mineral extraction, is at most a
minor aspect of the Cannel community and, we would anticipate, not a principal emphasis for
future development.
Thus, we would hope and expect that this Committee will be acutely sensitive to the
innate incompatibilities between residential areas and proposed mining operations and to the
need for criteria to be applied to future rezoning proposals that will prevent juxtapositions of
such incompatible uses.
Preliminary Comments of Kings wood Mining Committee
February 17, 2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-1 Zoning Ordinance
;-
SECTION I
Preliminary Comments on
Draft Mining Policies Proposed for Inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan
The following preliminary comments, including proposed revisions, are offered by the
Mining Committee of the Kingswood Homeowners Association with respect to draft Mining
Policies that have been proposed to the Carmel-Clay Plan Commission for inclusion within the
Commission's Comprehensive Plan:
A. The City of Carmel recognizes the value of having mineral resources located within its
community. These mineral resources are non-renewable natural resources that may be
considered for development subiect to compatibilitv with nearby existin!! uses and
shelil€i 813 ae'.'8IeIH~a 8eliBistoot ".-;ith sound environmental planning to the benefit of the
community.
B. It is also reco!!nized bv the City of Carmel that certain land uses are inherently
incompatible with minin!! operations. These include residential. commercial. and
!!ovemmental services. as examples. Substantial buffetin!! between such land uses
and a proposed minin!! district. as described in Item F. is necessarv to satisfactorily
miti!!ate the incompatibilitv.
B. Th8 ae-;eI8pm8lit sfmin8ral nBSlif@@B 88lidits the eemm.unity 8;" prs';iamg th8 means ts
@l8ate ana @SBBw@t elK hem8B BBa el:H' infraBtm@tlH'e. Min@ral r@selif8@B are th8
haekssli@ ef @@eftemte a@":8Iepm8Bt fsr seth pri::ate a@-:elspmmt ana plisli@ ....'sfkB
prt~j 8@tB. Ry prEl'1':idmg theB@ IiSl1 f8nlV....asleliataFal feBel:H'eeB el1eaplj', sw/ingB are
@aptlH'ea sj'l1emGlH:lyers leel8.ng te me";e th8ir families te Carmel ana ili the €lest sf
iuastmetlH'e imprevemeBts enjeyea sy all reBiaeBtB efthe eitj'.
C. HineP81 FeBelifees €Ian elily 8@ eJitfaetea "l.'kere they are leeatea ili liame. TheFefsfe,
ev;neFS efpn~perty ",,,,kere these namral F@ael:H'eeB are leeatea Bk8Ulel se peJ.1ilDittea te
a€l';elep theBe reselifeeB Be leng as they as liet sigftiiieamly impaet the €I\lality ef1ifc fef
the Fest efthe eemmwlity,
C. Given the permanency and substantial nature of minin!! imDacts on affected lands.
even after reclamation, all proposed mining land uses should be comprehensively
reviewed to insure that potential impacts on !!roundwater sUPDlies durin!! minin!!
operations and the limited land use options after reclamation ofthe properties is
consistent with the overall comprehensive land use objectives of the city. R€lfeFe
prepGI'tiea are a€l'.~€llep8a fur ke\lsil1g BBa ethef peFman8Bt \lS8S, RMn€lIal fe8elif@@8 eli the
sit8 slie\lla se e';aluat@a :(irat, te @1i8l:H'8that theseliattifal f8Belif@@B ae liet 8e8eme
pemlaneBtly il1ft.@ees8isle.
D. Open space planning within the community should consider existing and proposed mines
as ';alliaslelong-term open space candidates after reclamation.
Preliminary Comments of Kings wood Mining Committee
February 17, 2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-l Zoning Ordinance
E. All current and proposed mining activity within Clay Township should be evaluated
based on the following criteria:
1. Environmental impacts
2. Noise impacts
3. Vibrational/seismic impacts
4. Visual impacts
5. Dust
6. Integrity of underground mining
7. Impacts on hydrology and hydrogeology
8. Traffic impacts
9. Reclamation obj ectives
10. Location of storage & processing of materials
11. Buffering from adjacent uses
12. Erosion Control
13. Monitoring and reporting of mining activities
14. Suitability of soils
15. The applicability of mining practices and technology that could minimize impacts
to nearby neighborhoods
16. Surrounding land uses.
F. Surface minim! )'iming should not occur within 3.000 ~ feet of incompatible land
uses (such as an existing residential area). Undereround minine should not occur
within 2.500 feet of incompatible land uses. The area between the mine and nearby
residential areas should be buffered including, but not limited to, noise and visual barriers
and landscaping such as trees, shrubs and mounding, and/or other. more compatible
uses. such as recreational. aericultural. or other open space uses. The goal of this
buffer area is to minimize impacts to nearby residences.
G. No additional subsurface mining should occur north of 106th Street or West of Gray
Road. No expansion should occur of the existine open pit mine located in the area
bounded bv 106tb Street. Grav Road. and Hazel Dell Parkway.
H. Mining applications involving blasting should be required to include an isoseismic study
that will indicate appropriate techniques and use of technology to adeQuatelv mitigate
the impacts of blasting on nearby residential areas ~ to prevent property damaee.
nuisance conditions. and diminution of property values. The techniques described in
the study must be employed by the mining company with the approval ofthe City.
I. Only mining companies that are members of the Environmental Stewardship Council and
have adopted the Guiding Principles of the Environmental Stewardship Council should
be allowed to mine within the Carmel/Clay community. [71]
J. When mining is complete, the reclamation plan should be initiated quickly to provide the
community with an attractive amenity in accordance with the adopted reclamation plan.
The City can require the posting of reclamation bonds if deemed necessary. When
2
Preliminary Comments of Kings wood Mining Committee
February 17,2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-1 Zoning Ordinance
appropriate, reclamation areas may be dedicated or acquired for public use as part of the
community parks system.
K. The City should select and employ independent experts , at thg gl~8B.Be efthg mining
@empany, to review the applications and mining plans and provide a recommendation to
the appropriate city agency regarding said materials. Application fees for rezonin!! of
land to minin!! use can be specified which are adequate to defray expenses of such
experts.
SECTION II
Preliminay Comments on Proposed Zoning Ordinance
for Mineral Extraction Districts
The following preliminary comments, including proposed revisions, are offered by the Mining
Committee of the Kingswood Homeowners Association with respect to a proposed Zoning
Ordinance for Mineral Extraction Districts that has been proposed to the Carmel-Clay Plan
Commission:
Definitions: The following revisions and additions are proposed:
"Air Blast" (also mown as "air overpressure") means airborne ~ waves resulting from the
detonation of explosives. . .
Rationale: insertion of the modifier "shock" seems to better describe the airborne waves which
result from detonation of explosives commensurate with practical experience.
"Compatible Land Use" means any existin!!land use (i) inherently compatible with minin!!
and/or (m that requires a minimum public or private investment in structures and/or other
real estate improvements and which may accommodate minin!! in a proximate location
because of the relative economic value of the land and its improvements. Examples of such
uses may include. but shall not be limited to. very low density residential. !!eo!!raphically
extensive but low impact industrial. recreational. a!!ricultural. siIvicultural. and open space
~
Rationale: Addition of this definition for "Compatible Land Use" as well as the corresponding
obverse term "Incompatible Land Use" are recommended as helpful terms in addressing where
ME-l districts should be considered or where they should not.
"Extraction of Mineral Resources (EMR)" means the removal of Minerals from surface or
underground mrtra@tiell ef deposits, whether of a consolidated or unconsolidated nature. and
re!!ardless of the particular means employed. The term includes, without limitation. the
3
. Preliminary Comments of Kingswood Mining Committee
February 17,2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-l Zoning Ordinance
removal of Overburden. preparatory activities such as drilline: or blastine:. and mechanical
operations such as use of aue:ers. drae:lines. conveyors. or drede:es. €lrsagmg, tirillmg,
hlastmg, Ima l'Sm8';al 8f O~:sl'hW"asll. . . . .
Rationale: This term in the current proposed Ordinance seems unclear and circular in its form.
It is suggested that the term be clarified as proposed above.
"Incompatible Land Use" means any existine: land use (i) inherently incompatible with
minine: as a result of. e.e:.. the nuisance impacts of minine: on such use and/or (ll) that
reQuires public or private investment in structures. land improvements. and landscapine:
and which may preclude minine: because of the e:reater economic value of the land and its
improvements. Examples of such uses include. but shall not be limited to. hie:h density
residential. low density residential with hie:h unit value. public facilities. e:eoe:raphicallv
limited but hie:h impact industrial. and commercial.
Rationale: see the comment above for "Compatible Land Use".
"Reclamation" means the process of land treatment that minimizes surface or e:round water
dee:radation. fue:itive dust. damae:e to aQuatic or wildlife habitat. floodine:. erosion. and
other adverse effects from surface minine: operations. includine: surface effects incidental to
undere:round mines. so that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition which is
readily adaptable for alternate land uses and creates no dane:er to public health or safety.
The process may extend to affected lands surroundine: mined lands. and may reQuire
backf"illine:. e:radine:. recontourine:. topsoil replacement. revee:etation. soil compaction.
stabilization. and/or other measures. tfts s81ltliti8nmg 8ftftsllma lissa f8r an Opsrati81l as
pr8'liasa ill tfts Rsslamati€lll J?llm.
Rationale: the currently proposed definition is too uninformative and nondescriptive and is
circular with the proposed definition of Reclamation Plan.
"Sand and Gravel Extraction" means the extraction of sand and gravel deposits by Surface
Mining through the use of 1m slsstr8msaUy p8V;SrSa! floating dredge.
Rationale: it is unclear what is meant by an "electronically powered" floating dredge and use
of such a qualifier also seems unnecessarily limiting. It should be sufficient for definitional
purposes to refer to use of a floating dredge without describing the precise means of powering of
the dredging operation.
"Stone Mining", "Subsurface Mining", and "Surface Mining" should be better correlated to the
principal definition of "Extraction of Mineral Resources". For example, "Stone Mining" could
be defmed as "an EMR Operation involving the removal oflimestone or related minerals from
surface or underground deposits, typically through blasting operations."
4
Preliminary Comments of Kings wood Mining Committee
February 17, 2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-l Zoning Ordinance
Rationale: to facilitate clarity and minimize interpretive questions that may arise concerning
the interaction of the various definitional terms.
2010.1 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the ME-l/Mineral Extraction District is to create and protect areas for
extraction of mineral resources and related processing operations while adeQuately
mitigating the environmental and nuisance impacts. This district is intended to ensure
proper design, placement and grouping of these industries within the community so as not
to create a nuisance to other surrounding land uses. Lana te h@ pla@@a ill this tiistfl@t is
iBt@lla@a te kay@ majef tfan.apertatiell f-a@iliti@s f@aliil~,. a",'ailahl@. This district skellla
must be buffered adeauately as mllBk as pessihl@ from established. as well as
undeveloped, @eInm@f@ial 8fta F@sia@!ltial districts with incompatible land uses
(includinl!. e.l!.. commercial and residential districts). :He :UF: 1 DistriBt Bkellla h@
@f@at@a ";.itbin thr@@ kIDlM@a Feet (399') ef an @stal1!isk@a ef platt@a f@Bia@lltial
8tihliivision. Proposed ME-l Districts must be demonstrated to not threaten critical
environmental impacts associated with mininl! operations. Land to be placed in
this district is intended to have maior transportation facilities readily available.
Vehicular traffic serving the ME-I District should not be routed into or through a
residential development.
Additional Comments and Rationale:
· In the first sentence, the reference to mitigating the environmental and nuisance impacts
must be modified by insertion of a modifier "adequately" or "appropriately".
· The proposed statement of purpose and intent nominally recognizes the critical importance
of the ordinance in precluding the creation of a nuisance to other surrounding land uses.
The remainder of the proposed ordinance is not adequate to achieve this stated purpose.
· The draft's proposed requirement to establish buffering between zoned ME districts and
undeveloped commercial and residential districts is commendable. The question of practical
importance is how much buffering is adequate? As expressed in the introductory comments,
it is preferable to use the terminology of "Incompatible Land Use" already implied by the
proposed language of this section concerning the need for buffering from residential and
commercial uses. Moreover, the need for adequate buffering is all the more acute with
respect to existing districts with incompatible uses.
· A 300-foot buffer would be required between a ME-l District and an established or platted
residential subdivision. This is woefully inadequate to prevent nuisance, A minimum buffer
of 2,500 feet should be required from the nearest boundary of an established or platted
residential subdivision or other district of incompatible use.
· Specific buffering requirements should not be set forth in this general purpose section but
should be stated in a separate ordinance section dedicated to such substantive provisions.
. An environmental review should be required which demonstrates that critical adverse
impacts - such as substantial dewatering of critical aquifers for surrounding land uses
(including but not limited to municipal utility uses) - will not be threatened by the proposed
ME-l district.
5
. Preliminary Comments of Kingswood Mining Committee
February 17, 2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-I Zoning Ordinance
201.1 Permitted Uses.
Excluded Uses
Some of the proposed excluded uses seem superfluous. It would not seem that a specific use
would need to be listed for exclusion unless it first were ostensibly included within the general
scope of one of the permitted uses. As an example, it makes sense to exclude "Related
Industries" since those activities are directly derivative to EMR operations. Similarly, it may
make sense to list "Slaughtering" as an exclusion since it could be viewed as closely affiliated
with or a part of "Agricultural operations" (although this may be resolved by existing definitions
of these terms found elsewhere). However, for activities like "Fertilizer manufacturing," "Stock
yards," "Leather curing and tanning," "Refining or manufacturing of petroleum products," etc.,
which could not reasonably be construed as contained within one ofthe permitted uses, there
would seem to be no reason to list such activities as Excluded Uses. The only possible basis
for designating "Disposal of radioactive materials" as an Excluded Use would be for naturally
occurring radioactive materials (NORM) that might be included within the overburden or the
strata from which minerals were extracted during permitted mining operations. Whether this
would be relevant depends on whether NORM actually occurs within the limestone formations
located in the City of Carmel.
201.5.2 Minimum Buffers
Minimum buffers between an ME-I District and other land uses shall be
provided and maintained as specified in the followine table:
ME-I District Tvpe
Minimum Buffer
From Incompatible
Land Uses
Minimum Buffer
From Compatible
Land Uses
General 1
Processine Qperations2
Sand & Gravel
Extraction3
Stone Minine4
3.000 ft
2.500 ft.
Oft
Oft.
3.000 ft.
2.500 ft.
Oft.
Oft.
1 ME-I District with no restriction on type of operations per commitments
2 ME-I District restricted throuehcommitments to specific mineral processine
operations
3 ME-I District restricted throueh commitments to Sand and Gravel Extraction
4 ME-I District restricted throueh commitments to Stone Minine
Rationale: drawing upon the introductory concepts that certain land uses, such as, e.g., high
density residential, low density residential with high unit value, or retail, are inherently
6
I,
Preliminary Comments of Kingswood Mining Committee
February 17,2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-I Zoning Ordinance
incompatible with mineral extraction operations, it is logical to incorporate minimum buffer
zone requirements into the ordinance to provide adequate separation from a mineral extraction
district to satisfactorily mitigate the incompatibility. Conversely, no buffer would be required
between a ME-l District and compatible land uses. It is strongly urged that this concept must be
an indispensable element of the proposed ordinance. We interpret the minimum side and rear
yard specifications of the proposed ordinance as directed to this purpose. However, it seems
that a buffer zone more directly meets the intended purpose and is less burdensome on a
proposed mining operation. The proponent of the proposed mining district is not required to
own or control the minimum buffer zone, which by definition would be outside the ME-l District.
Rather, the buffer zones simply must be honored in establishment of the boundaries of a ME-l
District. In contrast, the owner of the mining operation would be required, presumably, to own
or control the side and rear yard areas and may have difficulty in putting large dimension side
and rear yards to productive use. In addition, the proposed ordinance does not treat front yards
in the same manner as side and rear yards, which is myopic. A mining operation would have
no less adverse impact on incompatible land uses located across a public thoroughfare from the
mining operation than such uses located to the side or rear of the mining operation.
201.5.~ Minimum Front Yard [no comments]
201.5.~ Minimum Side and Rear Yard
Use
Minimum Side Yard
Setback Frem ~~.<ll R@sidential
Us@s er Distfl@ts (Feet)
Minimum Rear Yard
Setback Hem -"'\II R@tail er
Cemm@F@ial Distfl@ts (Feet)
Processing Operations
Sand & Gravel
Extraction
Stone Mining
300 ~
150 WG
300
300 ~
150
150
Rationale: Since buffering objectives are now addressed through a separate buffer section
(Section 201.5.2), this section should revert to the conventional use of side and rear yard setback
distances. The above proposals may need revision to achieve consistency with other existing
land use district specifications.
201. 7 Criteria for Approval:
201.7.1 Zoning.
1. The use of any land for the Extraction of Mineral Resources (EMR) shall
be permitted only in the ME-I District where EMR is listed as a
Permitted Use. In &dditiel1, all EMR. ~eFatie118 ghall h@ 811'8j@@t te
7
Preliminary Comments of Kings wood Mining Committee
Febmary 17,2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-l Zoning Ordinance
De\'€lIEl~m€nlt Plan a~~:nr:al ey the Cemmi8sien as ~n}T:i€le€l in
8eetien2QI.8.
2. The proposal shall not specify any Excluded Uses within the
proposed ME-I District.
3. All minimum buffer reauirements of Section 201.5.2 shall be met for
the proposed ME-I District.
4. Maior land transportation facilities must be readily available and
accessible to the proposed ME-I District.
5. A Hydroe:eoloidc Study demonstrates that the impact of EMR
Operations on aauifers within the proposed ME-I District and
surroundine: parcels will not cause sie:nificant adverse effects
upon Quantity or auality of e:round water available to
surroundine: property owners or public water utilities.
6. All proposed EMR Operations shall be subject to Development Plan
approval by the Commission as provided in Section 20I. 8
7. Other factors that are appropriate under this Ordinance or the
Comprehensive Plan.
Rationale: This section as proposed does not appear to provide any substantive criteria by
which the Commission would approve or deny a proposal for rezoning. Thus, several specific
criteria are proposed for consideration by the Commission, including among others
requirements that: (i) the proposal comply with the Ordinance's buffer provisions; (ii) adequate
transporation facilities are available and accessible to the proposed district; (iii) a
hydrogeologic study demonstrates that mining operations at the proposed district will not cause
a significant adverse effect on quantity or quality of ground water available to surrounding
property owners or public utilities; and (iv) a Development Plan is submitted which is
approvable. The hydrogeologic study deserves highlighting as a specific criterion for approval
apart from other environmentally related issues addressed by commitments in a development
plan since the potential adverse impacts of a mining operation on ground water quantity and
quality should be considered as a potentially significant locational factor for a ME-l District
vis-a.-vis existing uses and planned uses under development at nearby properties.
20I. 7.2 Commitments by Owner. In the case of a rezone proposal which will also
necessitate approval of a Development Plan (OP) for a new or
expanded EMR Operation, the Council shall, before approving such
rezone, require the applicant to make written Commitments
respecting the followine: items.' which Commitments shall
demonstrate at minimum compliance with any ordinance of the
City which ree:ulates EMR Operations as well as applicable state
and federal laws:
8
Preliminary Comments of Kingswood Mining Committee
February 17,2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-I Zoning Ordinance
(a) methods of operation;
(b) hours of operation;
(c) .
Rationale: For clarity, this section should expressly state that the commitments to be provided
in a Development Plan must show compliance with the City's ordinance regulating mining
operations as well as with state and federal law.
201.8 Development Plan - Submittal Requirements:
4. Dust Control. The application must include a list of equipment to be used for
dust abatement, along with a written summary of the applicant's fugitive
dust requirements pursuant to current rules of the Indiana Air Pollution
Control Board D8I'ar.mellt ef Rw/inmftllmtal ManageftlglN: and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
Rationale for proposed revision: The reference to the state agency which establishes rules for
controloffugitive dust should be corrected.
7. Blasting. [Future comments will be provided on this topic.]
9. Surface and Ground Water Pollution Control. The application must include:!!l a
summary of the applicant's proposed compliance with all ret!ulatorv
reQuirements for water pollution manat!ement., dischart!e and monitoring
ana ';,rliBte kanaling FeflUifeftlelN:S (such as but not limited to the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management's ana the Unitga 8tatea .
Ew:ifenmglltal Pretegtiell .^.ggIl8j' National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit prot!ram and the Indiana Water Pollution
Control Board's t!roundwater standards); .Qtl the details of any expected
use or disturbance of any lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, @fcreeks, and/or
undert!round aQuifers. or the creation of any dikes, impoundments.
and!rl the details of any proposed use of underground storage tanks.
Rationale: Revisions are proposed for clarification, to establish informational requirements
pertaining to ground water impacts, and to delete references to waste handling in favor of a
separate paragraph on that topic as provided below.
9
Preliminary Comments of Kings wood Mining Committee
February 17, 2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-I Zoning Ordinance
10. Solid Waste Manaeement. The application must include a summary of the
applicant's proposed compliance with all reeulatorv requirements
pertainine to the manaeement of solid and hazardous wastes (includine
but not necessarily limited to those of the Indiana Solid Waste
Manaeement Board and the IDEM).
Rationale: This proposed paragraph addresses another aspect of potential environmental
impacts from the EMR Operations of the propoed district.
11. Reclamation Plan. The application must include a written description of a
Reclamation Plan that promotes. . . .
201.9 Reclamation - Minimum Performance Standards:
3. Slopes. All spoil materials shall be placed. .. A final stable slope of
unconsolidated material shall less (numerically) than a ratio of one foot
vertical to 3 feet horizontal 0:3) te elle feet ~.'eftieal (3:1). Final reclaimed
slopes steeper than 1 :3 ~ may be permitted if . . . .
Rationale/or proposed revision: The revisions are proposedfor clarification of the technical
meaning of the phrase that the "final. . . slope. .. shall be less than. . . "
7. Berms. [This paragraph does not include any specifications for minimum height
of berms to be constructed in compliance with the ordinance. It seems
reasonable that a minimum height specification should be included.]
201.13 Transitional Provisions.
This Section applies to any application for a special use to authorize mineral extraction ( .
. . ) which is pending before the Board on the effective date of this amendatory ordinance.
The applicant or any interested party may request, within sixty (60) days after the
effective date of this amendatory ordinance. that the Board treat such a special use
application as if it were a proposal to rezone the subject parcel to the ME-l Mineral
Extraction District filed pursuant to Section 201.7 above. If the Board grants such a
request, in its sole discretion. the application shall then be transferred . . . This Seetitm
2(1.:'!.3 €m~iJ.;es eRe ~'ear trem tile effeeti':e date ef this amelldatery eF€MllaR@@.
Rationale/or proposed revisions: To avoid uncertainty in the implementation of this Section, it
is recommended that a specific timeframe (e.g., 30 days) be established for submittal of requests
to reconfigure pending special use applications as a proposal to rezone. The insertion of
express reference to the Board's discretion in acting upon requests under this Section is
10
.
Preliminary Comments of Kings wood Mining Committee
February 17, 2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-l Zoning Ordinance
t
probably implied but is more clear with the explicit statement. Also, in order to avert potential
interpretative issues, it is recommended that the one-year expiration provision be deleted.
Otherwise, it is certainly possible that a party could mount a judicial challenge to an action by
the Board granting a request to consider a pending application as a rezone proposal which
might take in excess of the one-year period to resolve. If this Section has expired in the
meantime, questions could arise as to what ultimate disposition could be made of the special use
application.
11