HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1975-09-03 2`P�41`/uh �' 3� I �l� � �?errw�
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 31 1975
ADJOURNED MEETING
An adjourned Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals was held in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall , 126 East Seneca
Street , ( second floor ) , Ithaca , New York , on Wednesday , September 3 ,
1975 , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Vice-Chairman Jack Hewett , Laurene Ripley , Edward
King , Edward Austen , Lawrence Fabbroni ( Building Inspector ) , Reynolds
Metz ( Assistant Building Inspector ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Mrs . Catherine Kellogg , Ruth A . Miller , Bruce
Haynes , Robert M . Kellogg . Sr . , Jane E . Hardy , Elnora H . Mead ,
Charles P . Mead , Robert M . Kellogg Jr . , Carmen Kerwin , Jean S .
Metz , Helene Backner , Rose Lafian , Francis Russell , Mary Russell ,
Milton Barnett , Helen Barnett , Ray Knuutila , August A . Knuutila ,
Janice Pack , John VanEpps , George VanEpps , Ruth Royce , H . Richard
Wait , Janet E . Rogers , Boyd Pack , Marguerite J . Pack , Thomas M .
Shea , Bill Mobbs , Emmett Bergman , Ruth Rice McMillan , Elsie McM .
Peterson , Edward J . Peterson , A . W . Blackler , Patricia Bergman ,
Mary Bergman , Emmett Bergman Jr . , Alan Goodman ( Ithaca Journal ) .
The adjourned Meeting was called to order by the Vice -
Chairman at 7 : 50 p . m .
4
APPEALS OF KARL BUTLER ( PARCEL NO , 6 - 33 - 1 - 24 . 2 ) , 270 ENFIELD FALLS
RD . , AND MRS , WM , D . McMILLAN ET AL ( PARCEL NO . 6 - 33 - 1 - 7 . 2 ) , 260
ENFIELD FALLS RD . , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENY -
ING A PERMIT TO EXCAVATE. GRAVEL FROM AND RESTORE THE LANDS IN ITHACA ,
NEW YORK . PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER
ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 70 ,
Vice - Chairman Hewett declared the adjourned Public Hearing in
the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 :' S1 p . m .
Mr . Fabbroni stated that this adjourned meeting had been
scheduled for September 10 , 1975 , as noted in the Minutes of the
Public Hearing held on August 27 , 1975 , on this matter . Mr . Fabbroni
stated that he had asked the Board to meet a week earlier than set up
in the previous meeting because he felt that it was most fair to both
sides - residents and Warren Brothers Company - - to get back as soon
as possible . Mr . Fabbroni noted that he had personally delivered
notices of the change in the date of the adjourned meeting to all the
neighbors and interested parties .
Mr . Fabbroni presented to the Board members six pictures that
had been taken by Mr . Metz of the site on September 2 , 1975 . Mr .
Fabbroni said that as a result of the last meeting he put together a
series of questions that summarize the points brought up by the
residents and by the Board themselves . He read the 13 conditions to
be met as follows :
Zoning Board of Appeals - 2 - September 3 , 1975
1 . Before and After Plan and Contours of Area .
® 2 . Type of Gravel and Other Soil Types to be Excavated or Regraded . .
3 . Amount of Gravel to be removed from Site .
4 . Time Limit : when will excavation start ; when will it end .
'5 . . What will be the operating hours during the day .
6 . What in detail will be the processing method and machinery .
7 . What provisions will be made for stream protection .
8 . State Permit for Gravel Mining must be presented .
9 . Restoration of site should proceed concurrently with gravel
extraction and stated as a condition of permit .
10 . Owner should stipulate that after the present permit expires
this site will never be used for gravel extraction again .
114 . It should be stated and understood that the contractor is only
to extract and process material from the site in question for
sole use on the present upgrading project of SR327 from SR13 to
SR79 and for no ther project whatsoever .
12 . What type of revegetation , reforestation , etc . , might be done as
part of restoring this site , by whom , and according to what time -
table . Will processing of excavated material leave soil totally
unsuitable for growth of ground cover ? ' Could a very inexpensive
ground cover be sown at the time of restoring by regrading ?
13 . A Performance Bond should be required or some fair substitute .
Mr . Jack Zasada of Warren Brothers Company in Syracuse and Mr .
Jack Nichols of the same company were present and also Mr . Bill Mobbs ,
acting as Mr . Butler ' s liaison person . The above - listed items were
discussed in detail .
® 1 . Mr . Fabbroni noted that the map was presented at the last meeting .
but one item that needs to be shown is what the final grading for
the excavation area would be . Mr . 0Zasada said that the left side
would be 1 : 3 to 1 : 4 and the right side to McMillan would be 1 : 2 .
Mr . Zasada stated that they are only going to take out 20 , 000 cu .
yds . and that they have done testing that think that they can get
it out of a very small area . In less than an acre they should
- ' _ get - every bit of material out of there and that is the only area
- ::. they are going to touch with the exception of reclaiming the rest
of the land in question .
Mr . King asked Mr . Zasada to explain what he meant by " reclaim-
ing " the land . Mr . Zasada stated that it is useless land and almost
vertical . Their company will take out the mounds , work the slopes ,
bring material down , and in general work the material around to make
a constant slope . He said that they possibly would wait until after
this fall ' s and next spring ' s rains to do this . Mr_ . King asked over
what period would they take out this 20 , 000 cu . yds . ' of. gravel . Mr .
Zasada said that they would like to process the material by the end of
fall , restore the area from which it is taken out and do the rest in
the spring . Mr . King asked if by restoration do they really mean
stabilization . Mr . Zasada said that there will no longer be erodable
slopes except of course in extreme conditions .
2 . Run of bank gravel which is relatively clean will be removed . Mr .
King asked what it is going to be used for . Mr_ . Zasada said that
it will be for stabilized _gravel shoulder. , pipe back fill and 2 , 000
cu . yds . for stabilized gravel on the shoulder . Mr . King asked what
they have to do to this material to use it . Mr . Zasada said that
. they either have to screen it or crush it . Mr . King asked if they
Zoning Board of Appeals - 3 - September 3 , 1975
have to wash it and Mr . Zasada said that they did not . Mr .
Fabbroni asked to what extent will this process create dust .
Mr . Zasada stated that not much dust will be created because the
material Is not like lime . Mr . King asked if the crushing would
not produce dust . Mr . Zasada said that it really would not because
of the screen . He noted that 100 of the material is large stone
so there would not be much dust and further it is' rather moist
material .
3 . 20 , 000 cu . yds . will be removed .
Mr . King asked what would happen to the excavated material that
is too large to use . Mr . Zasada said that there is some use for it on
the project and also for slope protection and area build up .
4 . Time limit : Mr . Zasada said that they would begin relatively soon
and go until ' December 1976 . The operating hours would be from
7 : 00 a . m . to 5 : 00 p . m . in good conditions , meaning good dry weather .
Mr . Hewett pointed out that there had been some concern stated about
the school busses . Mr . Zasada said that at this time all the
traffic would be internal except for one time when the equipment
is brought in . They will process material and store it on the site .
They would operate 5 days a week .
7 . Mr . Fabbroni asked what protection there would be for Steep Hollow
Creek from run-off and sedimentation . Mr . Zasada mentioned a berm
and/or a sluice way . Straw bales may be used and perhaps a screen .
A ditch may have to be dug to the road along Route 327 . He noted
that . on Mrs . McMillan ' s property there is a depressed area
where they plan to process the % material . The water from the area
to be excavated and the processing area above -mentioned would be
directed to the berm and dam described above . The water from the
reclaimed area will be directed to the roadside ditch area to a '
pre - existing culvert under Enfield Falls Road ,
8 . Mr . Fabbroni asked what is the status of the State Permit for
gravel mining . Mr . Zasada stated that they have presented the
first two pages of the application to the State and Mr . Mobbs has
the reply to that .
Mr . Hewett stated that the $ 100 . 00 fee has been sent to the Dept .
of Environmental Conservation , Mr . Hewett read the letter to
Mr . Mobbs , dated August 22 , 1975 , from John J . Dragonetti , Chief ,
Bureau of Minerals , N . Y. . S . D . E . C ,
9 . Mr . Fabbroni asked what the timetable is for . the restoration of
the site . Mr . Zasada stated that they will be restoring the area
that they are working immediately as they are working it . They
will be pushing material down . The rest of the area from which
they are not going to extricate material will wait until after the
® spring rains .
10 . Referring to the continuance of the operation , Mr . Mobbs stated
that it is Mr . Butler ' s intent not to use this site as a gravel
operation again . Mr . Mobbs stated that he did not see how , as the
question reads , it could be guaranteed that the site would NEVER
Zoning Board of Appeals - 4 - September 3 , 1975
be used as a gravel pit again for eternity . Mr . Austen asked if it
would be feasible to open it up again . after it is reclaimed . Mr .
Mobbs . said that it would be very difficult and probably economically
prohibitive to use the site again . Mr . King asked about the over
burden and Mr . Zasada said that that would be soil and clay . Mr .
King asked if the other documents have been submitted to the State .
Mr . Zasada stated that they have not because they wanted to see if
they would receive a permit from the Town to do this . Mr . Fabbroni
noted that one of the requirements of Mined Land Reclamation Law is
a form from the local municipality also . Mr . Fabbroni also noted
that if the Board decides to pass on this request they could put on
conditions to any approval . It is essentially a round robin - the
State cannot approve until the municipality does and the municipality
may not wish to approve until the State does .
11 . Agreed .
12 . Mr . Fabbroni asked what the applicant and/or Warren Brothers propose
to use for the restoration material on the slopes and what does either
of them envision as the end product with regard to growth on the
slopes . Mr . Mobbs stated that this was not provided for in the
original agreement between Butler and Warren Brothers . He noted that
there are about six acres involved - - 3 for Butler and 3 for McMillan .
Mr . Mobbs stated that he did not know what would be suitable to the
two parties . At this point this question has not been resolved .
Originally it was felt that the flattening of the slopes would provide
a place for growth naturally . Mrs . Ripley wondered if they were
going to leave it just as it is graded . Mr . Mobbs said that that has
not been worked out with either party yet . Mr . King asked if the Board
has a copy of the agreement and Mr . Mobbs presented the Appendix to
the legalistic agreement as attached to the Appeal form .
" Appendix A
The party of the first part agrees to the following :
1 . Clean up and reclamation work will be completed by December 15 ,
1976 , to the satisfaction of William Mobbs , owners representative .
2 . Material will be processed from only the existing pit area .
3 . Warren Brothers ' Company will accomplish the reclamation work
as per agreement , regardless of quantity of material processed .
4 . The party of the first part will use -the processed material in
the following New York State Department of Transportation ' Items ,
15304 . 0104 , and 15302 . 01 .
5 . The party of the first part will hold harmless the party of the
second part situations arising out of the party of the first
parts operations during the time period from start of material
processing to completion of reclamation .
Mrs . Peterson stated that thev have talked with Warren Brothers
and Mr . Mobbs . They ( Mobbs and Warren Bros . ) have suggested an
agreement that would be suitable for them and for Mrs . Peterson and
some of the family . Mrs . Peterson said that she has since then talked
with their lawyer who has suggested some modifications that might be
wise . She said that she cannot say right now that they are ready to
sign the agreement . The whole family must sign for this to be binding .
A
Zoning Board . of Appeals - 5 - September 3 , 1975
If all of the restrictions that safeguard the land and avoid the
®
runoff that would be a problem for the neighbors and there are
absolute assurances that this is a one time thing , Mrs .'
Peterson
thought that they/ will all sign it . She said that if the neighbors
are satisfied then they would be too .
13 . Mr . Fabbroni said that he can speak to his conversation with the
State Engineer in Syracuse . The contractor has bonds for this
contract . The performance bond is for the full amount of the contract
which is 1 . 5 million dollars . As part of this also , the contractor
would be required to submit to the State Engineer a plan for
regrading and just how he is going to leave the property . . That ties
in directly to that bond . A copy of this agreement should be for -
warded to their office in Syracuse and that agreement made a part
of the performance requirements of the job with the understanding
that a letter of acceptance from the Town would have to be delivered
to the State to retire that bond . Mr . Zasada noted that the Field
Engineer has stated and it is also noted under Bid Item # 901 of the
project that if any particular condition is not satisfied there is
no . payment for that part . The owner says how he wants his property
left . Mr . Zasada referred briefly to the borrow area . Mr . King
asked if the D . E . C . requires a separate bond for the borrow area .
Mr . . Zasada stated that they do . Mr . Fabbroni commented with regard
to the mining and reclamation act , that it seems to be held in a
lot higher esteem than it should be claimed . They are understaffed
in administering this law . They can just identify the areas being
mined . The best assurance : . is still the local D . E . C . and the Soil
® and Conservation Service , Mr . Mobbs pointed out that if the local
municipality imposes more strict rules than the State , the State
rules do not supersede the local municipality ' s .
Mr . Zasada noted that according to this law , they only have to reclaim
the area that they disburb , but they have agreed with Mr . Butler to
reclaim the whole area .
Mr . Charles Mead spoke against the approval of a permit for
gravel extraction . He referred to Item # 6 - - processing method and
machinery - - and the 10a large stone to which Mr . Zasada referred
in connection with possible use of a crusher . Mr . Mead read Article
X , Section 47 of the Zoning Ordinance wherein the use of a stone
crusher is only permitted by special approval 'of the Zoning Board of
Appeals . Mr . Mead stated further that he did not want a precedent
set by approval of this request . He said that restoration should be
done by the private owners . He stated emphatically that there is
other gravel available in the Town and nearby .
Referring to Item # 8 - the D . E . C . permit . He asked if the
Board has thought about how long this process would take . He said
that he thought that work could not be done until a permit from the
D . E . C . is in hand . Mr . Zasada said that that was not the case . Mr .
_ Mead pointed out that as far as restoration is concerned the weeds ,
the poplars and time have restored the land about 60o anyway .
Mr . Ernest Hardy stated that he went to the tax office and
checked into the assessments in the area . He said that the land in
question is assessed very low - - $ 3 , 300 . 00 . He noted that it is not
assessed as a gravel pit . Its value is about $ 8 , 000 . 00 . In addi -
Zoning Board of Appeals - 6 - September 3 , 1975
tion , Mr . Hardy stated that he was informed by the assessor that if
this pit operation goes in , the residences in the area would have
their assessment reduced by loo to 250 . Mr . Hardy figured that
this would mean a reduction in Town of Ithaca tax revenues of
around $ 1 , 300 . 00 a year . The Town would lose all this for one
person .
Mr . Tony Blackler stated that he respected Mr . Zasada and his
concern for the environment and what he wants to do . However , he
felt that this type of operation is a direct violation of the concept
of the zoning ordinance for the Town of Ithaca . He cited the
blighting of the area by such places as Beaujolais restaurant ,
Millbrook Bread , Salino Electric , etc . , and now this proposal would
strip away the sound screen of trees that protects his home from
such eyesores all for what the County considers " upgrading " Enfield
Falls Road . He would prefer a dirt road . He does not want those
trucks going up and down that hill tearing dirt and gravel out of
. the land . He further resents the upgrading of Rte . 327 in the first
place . Mr . Blackler comments were followed by applause from the
citizens present .
Mrs . Catherine Kellogg pointed out that the proposed gravel
extraction operation is right between the two entrances to Robert
Treman State Park . The government says that they want to keep the
natural state of the road and the entrances , so she cannot see how
a gravel pit would add to the beauty . She also said see how it
could be more costly to open up this gravel pit again some day if
it were closed down after the upgrading of Rte . 327 than it would
be in other places where pits are first opened .
It was Mrs . I:ellogg ' s opinion that another owner would open it up
again .
Mr . Mead now stated that the petitioners still oppose the gravel
pit and added that they now find that they are going to have a pro -
cessing plant there also . He felt that there should be a separate
permit for that alone . He said that it is improper to include that
in a request for extraction . He stated that the people feel that it
would be inappropriate to allow this operation without full approval
from the Department of Environmental conservation . These should run
concurrently . He further noted that nothing has been brought out to
satisfy the question in the original petition . There would be a
precedence set here . Past experience should be considered . When
Lynch was excavating there certain conditions were set up and none
observed or enforced . They object firmly to any change from the
existing permitted uses . He pointed out that another pit could be
opened up 100 yards to the west . He stated that they do not see
any compelling reason either public or private for the granting of
the applied for variance . He cited the decreased value of lands
adjacent to and near the pit . He felt that a professional opinion
would bear this out . He said that the people are thinking of the
steadfastness of the zoning laws and hope that they mean something .
Any variance issued again in that area would not contribute to their
welfare and well - being . He said that they will continue on to the
next level of review because that is their right . He concluded by
saying that they are very much opposed to a zoning variance in this
matter .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 7 - September 3 , 1975
® Mr . Mobbs stated that he would like to speak not as a
representative of Mr . Butler but as a neighbor in the area . He
stated that he is the one most affected by the gravel pit since it
is right next to his home . He has been there four years now . That
gravel bank is a problem for him and his .family . It is a lovers '
lane . It is hidden from the road . Under this plan it would be
opened up and not usable for this purpose . His children play there
and he has built a berm to keep them from falling down a 20 ' bank
and into the pit . It is used for target shooting . He himself has
been hit by bird shot . His neighbor has had barn windows shot out
by shots . It was his opinion that the problem is the past errors
and he thought that something can be done to rectify these errors .
It is a wasteland . The Zoning Board hears appeals for those
situations where discretion in administration of the zoning ordinance
would work to the betterment of the community . Mr . Mobbs felt that
with improvement of the area his property taxes would go up . The
proposal to reclaim the area appears to Mr . Mobbs not - to be a detri -
ment but a rectification of the past errors .
Mr . Mead pointed out that Mr . Mobbs bought his property after
the pit was there . He stated again that any particular restoration
could be done by private parties without the profit involved in
selling 20 , 000 cu . yds . of. gravel . He stated that the citizens are
now being asked to subsidize a restoration program and receive one
year of turmoil and loss of taxes .
® Mr . Hardy said that they had to raise their children with
r� those trucks there and the pit there . He stated that the residents
dread the idea of another gravel pit operation in that area .
Mr . King asked how recently the property in question was used
as a gravel pit . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it was from 1965 to 1969
under Lynch Excavating Co .
Mrs . Jane Hardy pointed out that the question of noise volume
has not been made clear . She stated that she lived there when the
other pit was in operation with the exception of the crusher . The
noise could be heard from the pit to the lower Park entrance . She
noted that the residents have learned to accept the trucks because
Enfield Falls Road is a State road . She stated that she opposed
unalterably any opening of this gravel bank .
Mr . Haynes of Enfield Falls Road stated that he was in sympathy
with Mr . Mobbs and the fact that he does have to live with the previous
mistakes of the past , but - - that was under the permit of the Zoning
Board of Appeals granted in 1965 . Mr . Haynes stated that he opposed
firmly this request .
Mr . King asked if there were anyone present in favor of this
proposal . Mr . Mobbs stated that he was . All of the other people
present , with the exception of the press , were opposed .
. Mr . Hewett asked if there were any further questions . Mr . King
asked Mr . Zasada if they do not use this property for a borrow pit ,
where would they get their material from ? Mr . Zasada said that they
simply do not know . Mr . King asked if they knew of any other sites
available . Mr . Zasada said that they have not looked into this question .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 8 - September 3 , 1975
Mr . Mobbs noted that the reference has been made that this
proposal is no different from any other operation that has gone on
there before . Mr . Mobbs maintained that it is vastly different .
He pointed out that there is a limit set on the completion of the
highway thereby necessitating an end to the extraction . He stated
again that it is different from any other operation that is going
on in the County .
Mr . King noted that no variance or re - zoning is mentioned by
the statute ( zoning ordinance ) . This is an application for a special
permit which would be a one - time , limited use , permit . This Board
is given the responsibility of deciding whether a certain amount of
gravel can be taken from this area and if so under what conditions .
It really is not a request to open it to continuous usage as a gravel
pit . Mr . King stated that he made this statement merely as a
clarification and not as an indication of how he feels about this
proposal .
Mr . Mead commented that this is a non - conforming use . There
was no comment from the Board .
Mrs . Kellogg stated that there is gravel available just up
Route 13 in Newfield at Landstrom ' s and also in West Danby ,
The Vice -Chairman asked again if there were any further
questions from the floor or from the Board . There being none , the
_ Vice -Chairman declared the Public Hearing in the Butler Appeal
adjourned at 9 : 00 p . m . and the Board retired into Executive Session ,
At 9 : 20 p . m . Vice - Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing
on the matter of a permit for gravel extraction on property owned by
Karl Butler duly in session . Vice - Chairman Hewett stated that the
Board met in Executive Session and discussed the pros and cons of
the request and following a 20 -minute discussion took a vote . It was
the vote of the Zoning Board of Appeals with four affirmatives and
no negatives that the requested permit be denied , it being the
consensus of the Board that there exist other means for rehabilitating
this land and that the proposed operation would be a definite
detriment to the residential neighborhood and that there are other
nearby sources of gravel .
The Public Hearing was closed at 9 : 25 p . m
Respectfully submitted
Nancy M . Fuller ,
Secretary .
Jcyck Hewett , Vice - Chairman
Z nFof
g Board of Appeals
T I ITHACA
l
K . TOWN OF ITHACA
mo / 07G E. sepme4 Ste
ITHACA, NEW YORK
14850
September 3 , 1975
Mr . Gordon Behn
Assistant Hydraulic Engineer
Department of Environmental Conservation
Box 1169
Cortland , New York 13045
Re : Gravel Extraction
Enfield Falls Road
Dear Gordon :
In conjunction with the New York State Department of
Transportation upgrading of SR327 ( Enfield Falls Road ) from
SR13 to SR79 , which consists of minor pavement and shoulder
widening and isolated culvert replacement , the Warren Brothers
Co . would like to excavate approximately 20 , 000 cu . yds . of
gravel from the site shown on the enclosed drawings . The pit
was mined from about 1965 to 1970 when the operation went
bankrupt leaving . the site unrestored and in a sorry mess for
the neighborhood .
.The present proposal is to mine the required gravel
from the shaded existing area of the pit , to restore that area
to a 1 : 4 to 1 : 5 slope and to restore existing steep slopes ( too
steep for vegetation to take and with continuing erosion around
the 'rim ) to the grades 1 : 3 , 1 : 4 , and 1 : 2 as shown on the enclosed
drawing , such that vegetation , wild or planted , would be able to
take .
With the scars of the past the neighborhood is very
concerned about the solvency of the current operation and /the
end of gravel mining once restoration is accomplished ; a matter
up to the Town to insure through bonding or . some other legisla-
tive action .
Of great concern as well is the protection of the
Steep Hollow Creek . There are two swales that were carved out
in the previous mining operation . Much of the site runoff would
follow the northernmost swale . It would also be in this area
where screening , processing , and stock piling of materials would
occur which , when combined with reopening the pit , makes erosion
and stream sedimentation a concern . The contractor has proposed
to build a dike or berm to provide a holding and settling area
for rapid runoff of intense rainfall . He proposes a channel
outlet through the dike across which would be constructed a
y
Mr . Gordon Behn - 2 - September 3 , 1975
wire fence with a dam of hay acting as a filter . It appears
this would be an adequate settling area and filter for
sedimentation and filtration and that with the distance of the
dike to the stream the water would be traveling the same , if
not slower , than it does now when it reaches the stream some
distance away .
The Town would like an opinion from your department
of the sufficiency of the above proposal as well as any addi -
tional comments that you may have in regard to erosion and
stream protection .
Sincerely yours
/)Vag)
Lawrence P . Fabbroni , P . E .
Town Engineer
LPF /nf
enclosures
. ;
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation .
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York iM 12233
Btu%eau of Minerals Ogden Fuld
elephone ( 518 ) 457-7480
Commissioner
AugiLst 22 , 1975
Mr . William Mobbs , Eng .
272 Enfield Falls Road 793 - 30 - 112
Ithaca , *NY 14850
Dear S.
This letter ac}�oviledges receipt of your application and perr►i.t fee in the
amount of $ 10 Your submittal satisfies the minimum requirements
for an accept le application for a permit to mine and constitutes oo m-
pliance with the application requirements of 'the New York State Mined Land
Reclamation Law . '
In addition to the application , you should submit the following items for
approval as soon as they can - be properly prepared .
Notification Form # 85-12-2 ;
Adjacent Nmers Notification ( section 10 of the instructions );
11inirag Plan Form X85-15- 2 and map ;
Reclamation Plan Form # 85-15- 3 and map .
( If you have already submitted these items please disregard this directives )
Upon receipt of these above items you will be notified of the correct bond
amount for your operations . -
After review and approval of the submitted documents and reclamation bond , or
acceptable substitute , the Department will issue a . permit to mine . Should you
submit an incorrect or incomplete application , you will be informed of the dis-
approval of your application and the reasons . for such disapproval .
All operations may continue to function beyond the effective date of the law
(April 1 , 1975 ) , unless othert•rise directed _ by the bepar•tment .
Sincerely
lJ John J . Dragonettl
Chief Bureau of Minerals
JJD/ lcc
- -- - -- - ---
r
.400
� iI�j /
F
i
� ' �• ��,c� --�� -�•- 3 � � 70-cam,
20,0
� � - -- - - - - -
s �
Coe rk,8,
Moe
1 , VV 4t,
I
�, �
W •< ,' _ �/ . �f► �;. r � �1 �c` Lal feats
i
rmp} or .r jr 4e.
i