DCPCUP-2017-02405 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Dane County Zoning & Land Regulatioaconunittee February g, 2018 Page 2 Pines Bach LLP These significant impacts to neighboring Property values demonstrate that Mr. Cmot cannot not meet the County's criteria for granting CUP 42405, and further dcmonstralcs that the County should revoke CUP # 2175 due to ta0ure to comply with the ctinada. Sewn ¢. in response to mr¢rns expressed at the January meeting that Ms. Caunfits existing mine has not been reclaimed, we common drat reclamation was supposed to have been completed WFall 2014 for the norther portion of the site, under a permit issued by the Dane County Land & Water Resommn Department (See Attnctme st Z) It has not bcrn reclaimed and remains a large, open, unsightly, disturhed area that is bothersome to neighbors. Dane County Zoning has not enforced this permit and has instead stated that it cannot order reclamation if the sire is still being mined. Without debating the merits of this argument, Mr. Canall sorted at the Committee's January meeting that he was using the nolthcm portion of the site for recycling. He has also stated at prior meeting that (be existing site is exhausted for aggregate, needed for concrete. There does not appear an be any mining occurring at dhc normem portion of the site, and it should he reclaimed as de Lard & Water Resources Department required. The ZLR Committee should not consider funding CUP #2405 unW these problems are resolved. Third, Mc Catlett made representations to you in January regarding his plans Por the new CUP situ that ate conmined nowhere in his application for CUP #2405, such as that he intends to reforest the eastern portion of the site when mining is cumple red. The record is replete with examples of Mr. Cattail promising one thing in meeting, then doing another in actual operations.' If do Committee relies on any of these statements as a basis for issuing the permit, it most include them as parent conditions. Howcvm, the be=hiference from this track record is that bh. Cattell mount show he meals the County's standards for issuing CUP 92405, and has not met the standards for keeping CUP #2175. CUP #2105 should he denied. The Committee shouW revoke CUF #2175, or at a minimum, hold a hearing on the llkieudorfs' ravoation request, 1 For example, Mr. Cattell promised the Town of Cattage Grove when the concrete plant was originally proposed that M would not generate concrete for highway project (Attachment 3), but then he took highway Projects and night work that have dumsbed the plant's neighbors, as shown in the Takiendorfe' prior submissions.