Cemex Requests Hearing Delay
Cemex has asked for a postponement before a controversial mining expansion at its Brooksville, Fla., site in Hernando County, was set to go before county commissioners at a public hearing. Cemex has asked for a postponement until Dec. 9.
The action comes one week after planning and zoning board members shot down Cemex’s request to amend the county’s future land use map on a 730-acre tract along State Road 50 and Fort Dade Avenue. County commissioners will formally vote on the postponement at their Aug. 12 meeting.
County Commission Chairman Wayne Dukes said the postponement makes sense from the company’s standpoint. “They’re trying to put their best foot forward and I can’t blame them for that,” Dukes said.
In a letter submitted to the county, Cemex said the delay will better address citizen concerns brought up at the planning and zoning meeting last week. Cemex also plans to complete additional topographical and survey work and create a video to present a virtual rendering of what the mine will look like from Cortez Boulevard and Fort Dade Avenue.
Goodale Can Continue to Mine
Goodale Construction, Vineyard Haven, Mass., can continue to mine its property for sand and gravel without special permitting from the town, following a vote of the Oak Bluffs board of appeals. At a recent public hearing, the board voted unanimously not to regulate the sand and gravel pit, overturning an order from the town building inspector requiring the company to apply for a special permit.
Mining for sand and gravel has taken place on the property since before zoning laws were enacted in 1948, but since then houses have settled the region around the plant.
As the Goodales exhausted mining opportunities on the southern and eastern limits of their 100.2-acre property, work has begun in areas closer to the neighborhoods, inciting concern from abutters about noise, dust and visual impact of the mining operations.
In a letter to owner Jerry Goodale this spring, building inspector James Dunn ordered the company to apply for a special permit after he found that the sand and gravel operation had exceeded its nonconforming use.
Goodale Construction appealed the ruling to the zoning board, claiming a grandfathered right to continue work on the property without a permit and disputing the claim that the use of other parts of the property qualifies as an expansion.
Rogers Group Files for Exemption
Rogers Group, which hopes to build a quarry near Americus, Iowa, has cleared one more step in the approval process, according to wlfi.com. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management has issued a permit allowing wastewater associated with the quarrying operation to go into the Wabash River as well as an unnamed tributary nearby. The permit expires in 2019.
Tippecanoe County commissioners passed an ordinance that would ban construction of the quarry. Rogers Group has filed for a zoning exception with the Board of Zoning Appeals.
The new application proposes to restrict 24-hour operations to no more than three months in a 12-month period, and it would generally have blasting operations only between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., and no later than 5 p.m.
To keep the dust down, trucks hauling limestone from the proposed quarry would have to be tarped, and Rogers Group would construct a fence around the processing area.
Addressing the neighbors’ concerns over their wells, Rogers Group commits to “repair, replace or compensate any neighbor for any substantial impairment to a nonsignificant groundwater well.”
Tennessee Quarry Gets Permit
A special judge has ordered Shelbyville, Tenn.’s board of zoning appeals (BZA) to issue a permit to Wright Paving for the operation of a rock quarry, according to the Times Gazette. Senior Judge Ben Cantrell of Nashville ruled that Shelbyville's BZA “acted arbitrarily and capriciously” by denying the application for the quarry on grounds “that are not supported by any material evidence.”
Issues such as blasting, noise, vibration, dust, compatibility with the area, public health, safety and welfare and the region not being sparsely developed were cited as reasons for rejection by the BZA last year.
However, Cantrell ruled that the BZA's holding on those issues “is not supported by material evidence,” also stating that “there is no proof that the use (of the quarry) will adversely affect other property in the area.”