Hello neighbors. So I know I promised you a website update by today… however there is one more stall. The county’s response to our CAB presentation is out. You can read it here: County Recommendations.
It addresses many of our issues… but not all, and not all to satisfaction. BUT, before posting any of our remaining concerns and details on the development, our group needs to get together to review all the changes and make sure we are accurate. We will do so tomorrow night. So we still plan to get an update done this week.
For now, there are some “wins” in these recommendations, and if you don’t have time to read a 400+ page document, I will post some highlights below. (we’ll reveal more information as we study the documents). We should point out that the June 6th meeting is for approval of the tentative map. If that map is approved, there are still many things that the developer will be required to do for final approval, and “it is not the function of a tentative map review process to determine whether 225 residential units at this location is an appropriate use of the land.” So June 6th is not the end of this journey.
The county states that:
The developer will be required to work with the NDOW on a wildlife management plan.
Maintains that some 600,000 yards of excavated materials will not need to be removed via our road systems and the developer will not be permitted to do rock crushing on site. It is suggested that materials will be used in construction and/or stored on premises, in piles shorter than 6 feet, to be used during construction of phase 2.
They state that there will not be need for extensive blasting (though we disagree and will present our case) and are required to present a blasting mitigation plan for any blasting that is needed.
They will be required to do a final geotechnical investigation including field exploration, soil testing, rock rippability study, and recommendations are required and will be prepared with submittal of the final map. They will not be allowed to build on any discovered active faults and required to do appropriate set backs.
Unfortunately, the code we referenced in buffering requirements are expired and there is no specific required buffering distance. They propose that the 40′ buffering area meets the Forest Area Plan requirements.
These are just a few things that we can clear up from the previous incarnation of our presentation. there are still more changes, and more concerns that have not been answered.