DCPCUP-0000-01262 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COMPOSITE REPORT - Page 2 APPLICATION NO. STAFF COMMENTS REGIONAL PLANNING Revised CUP 1262. At the public hearing in July, the applicant withdrew his request for rezoning, since the intent is to return the site to agricultural production after the quarry operations are completed. The following comments relate to CUP 1262 with reference to materials submitted to date (October 17, 1995): 1. Time Schedule. The opening of the quarry is proposed for the year 2000, unless the adjoining Carpenter quarry ceases operation prior to that time. Thus the opening is flexible between the town and the applicant. The time of the permit begins at approval by Dane County. The town indicates a 10-year permit from the date of approval by Dane County with 5-year renewals. This appears to be a reasonable approach to such a large site. With a proposed limestone consumption rate of two to five acres per year, the site as approved by the town (85 acres) could last from 17 to 34 years. If you consider the original proposal (190 acres), the site could last from 38 to 95 years. 2. Site Plan. There appears to be continuing discussion of what is considered the "site" to be included in the permit. The town recommends 85.acres, while the applicant wants the whole 190 acres. Since a site plan is a basic requirement for the permit, there needs to be a general agreement to proceed to consider a specific area (such as the 85 acres) by the ZNR Committee, then ask the applicant to prepare a site plan which reflects other relevant parts of the proposal, which are discussed in the written materials (berms, plantings, etc.). 3. Topographic Reclamation Plan. This has not been submitted and is basic to the application for a mineral extraction operation conditional use permit (Section 10.19[2]) of the Dane County Code of Ordinances. 4. Protection of Existing Homes. The town's proposal for setbacks, berms and planting of evergreens appears to be a reasonable approach. 5. Protection of the Substation. Apparently WP&L is satisfied that their interests are protected. Obviously, they need to be involved in the notification and review of blasting levels and frequency. 6. Magnitude and Frequency of Blasting. The town proposes to negotiate the number of holes shot; however, that is very difficult to administer as a condition of the permit. There need to be specific limits in terms of magnitude and frequency. The size of blasts should be limited by both noise level and vibration which can be monitored as they occur. 7. Hours of Operation. The hours of operation proposed by the town appear reasonable, if they are locally acceptable.