DCPCUP-0000-01484 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COMPOSITE REPORT-Page 10 Application No. CUP 1484 caused by operations would be compensated by the operator according to a revised claims procedure submitted in the April 15, 1998 letter from Mr. Buglass. The proposal also includes a claims procedure for any damage to basements resulting from the operation. Some residents, particularly along Riverside Drive, are concerned that changes in groundwater elevations will flood basements. The operator indicates that there was intentionally no limit or definition placed on the term"damage." b) The operator would implement a groundwater monitoring system on the subject property to annually test for changes in petroleum based contaminants (BTEX) and groundwater elevations (see again April 15 letter). If sample results show BTEX exceeding safe drinking water standards, the operator would notify the County Sanitarian and appropriate remedial steps would be taken. The operator will also be required to submit and have approved by Dane County an erosion control plan addressing surface water issues; such plan would have to be in place throughout operations. The proposal not to conduct activities closer than 500 feet from the Badger Mill Creek is important to ensure the quality of that resource. DNR staff have suggested a procedure to compensate for any lost groundwater flows to Badger Mill Creek, and the operator has agreed to implement that procedure should it become necessary. Dust has been raised as another health concern. The applicant has revised the fugitive dust control plan in response to staff concerns. The County Sanitarian indicates that airborne particulates are not of concern to that office. In relation to public welfare,residents of nearby neighborhoods have suggested that the noise, visual impact, traffic, fear of water contamination and loss of property values would impair their quality of life. The concern has also been raised that this is the first of several extraction proposals likely in the area, and that the combined effect would have a major impact on the environment, health, safety, and welfare. 2. That uses, values, and enjoyment of other properties in the neighborhood will not be substantially impaired by the conditional use. There are several residential properties close to the subject property. Many neighboring residents believe that the operation will negatively affect the uses, values, and enjoyment of their properties. Locating an extraction area close to residential uses and vice versa is generally not advisable and can lead to adverse impacts. Careful attention to minimizing the following impacts is required if this situation is allowed to occur: a) Visual: The project will change the rural landscape in the immediate area, and will affect the rural character of Highway 69. The berms and proposed landscaping will mitigate the visual impact of operations, however they could create a"tunnel"effect on Highway 69. Because of changes in elevations, some property owners in the Manhattan Drive area will find some operations visible (e.g. draglines, stockpiles) even with 15 foot berming and landscaping and the proposed 35 foot berm blocking the