[Vision2020] Gravel Pit--Response to Donovan Arnold
Tim Lohrmann
timlohr@yahoo.com
Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
--0-1641121900-1086906277=:51222
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
: Mr. Don Lazzarini, a retired criminal investigator and resident of the affected area, responds below to Mr. Donovan Arnold's contention that the decision of Messrs. Stroschein, Kimmel, and Nelson to OK the Gravel Pit operation was justified.
TL
Mr. Lazzarini writes:
In Reference to the Flannigan Creek Gravel Pit discussion:
There is not a gravel pit there. There is an infrequently used, decomposed granite/fill excavation site. That means no blasting or crushing on the site for the 9 years I have lived here. This current site sits lower on the hill placing it out of the view of some residents and between dirt and trees which block sound.
The site is in the county, miles outside of Potlatch city limits and does not have anything to do with the city of Potlatch. The "hours" were set by the Zoning Board and later adopted by the Commissioners. Mr. Arnold's desire to weigh in and inform visionaries while professing to follow "facts" has resulted in gross mis-information.
It is not running 24/7. In fact for the past 9 years a gravel surface mining operation has not run at all. Historically the old fill dirt site did not approach use of even 1 hour a week averaged over the past nine years. There will be approximately 6 weeks of 10 hour crushing days with this new permit. This level of noise and disruption is unprecedented in the little valley. Mr. Kimmell, Mr. Strochein and Mr. Nelson justified there decision by indicating that a passing truck makes about the same volume of noise as the crushing operation would. Depending on the truck, mufflers and use of Jake brakes this may be true in a very limited view. The problem with this approach is a truck passes the site in approximately 10 seconds (I timed them). At that point the sound returns to the natural level which is much quieter than residential neighborhoods in Moscow. The number of trucks it would require to achieve and sustain the level of noise created by a crusher would be 6 trucks per !
minute,
360 trucks per hour, 3600 heavy trucks per day and 18000 per week. A passing truck is not analogous to a crusher. I can't find anything in the ag/zone that compares to a crusher in both volume and sustained level of noise. Everything else moves away. The crusher will stay put for 10 hours every day, 5 days a week for 6 weeks minimum.
I can't find safety standards in the findings of fact unless a two wire fence falls under that definition. There are requirements in the zoning ordinance for dust abatement and noise control on the site. The problem is knowledge and enforcement. The applicant doesn't know the rules or doesn't believe they are his responsibility. The County Planning staff have a non-existent record of inspection, training and enforcement capability which means the rules won't be enforced and the neighbors will be responsible for calling and reporting violations. The outcome of that in the past is many complaints and one payoff to the county for $1500 dollars. This information is available to anyone who wants to call Latah County Planning.
The placement of the entrance to this pit has been moved approximately 30 feet closer to a Potlatch school district bus stop and turn around. The visibility of this entrance is very limited and is a real safety concern for vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Kimmell, Strochein and Nelson washed their hands of any responsibility for the safety of the access-egress by leaving it up to the highway district to authorize. This action was taken after extensive testimony was provided to Nelson, Strochein and Kimmell, based on interviews with the highway district employees who made statements that they have no engineering or safety component to their tax funded operations. The result is a road maintenence supervisor makes a traffic safety and engineering decision about the placement of this access point. Go look for yourself and decide if you think the new access point increases safety, the commissioners felt compelled to authorize this conditional use permit, so they passed an importan!
t safety
concern onto the the road maintenence crew. This is not within their scope of training or experience of the highway district employees and it would never occur to them to get engineering input.
Native gravel roads, contrary to Mr. Arnolds knowledge are dusty, except when wet rain or snow. The modern methods include magnesium chloride but that costs money to put down. Currently the Highway District bills individual residents to do "dust abatement" on county roads in front of their homes. There is nothing in the current findings or record that will require the new business to conduct dust abatement on Flannigan Creek Road. There are many residents in Latah County who can attest to gravel roads in Latah being dusty. IF the Highway District gets a contract with the new gravel pit, it has stated on the record it will mag chloride Flanningan Creek at "Highway district cost". What that means is tax dollars will treat Flanningan Creek. These tax dollars going into Flannigan Creek means they are not going elsewhere. When the Highway District is working on one section of road, it is not working on another. For those of you living on gravel roads apparently you need to get a !
gravel
pit contract with the highway district if you want your roads dust abated with tax dollars; otherwise pay for it yourself.
There is nothing in the record to indicate creating a new surface mining operation will save the tax payers money. There is evidence on the record from different highway and civil engineers that heavy trucks damage roads at a rate of 600 to 1 over cars. Putting a gravel pit only accessed by chip sealed county roads and gravel roads places heavy stress on these surfaces causing them to break down faster. Such wear will require more frequent maintenance or citizens putting up with potholes, ruts, washboards for longer periods of time until the highway district thinks some work is needed or it can afford it. The current conditional use permit allows 60 loads per week. This is equivalent to the impact of 36,000 cars in this same time period of one week. There is limited money in the Highway District funding and they have verbally committed to spending it on Flanningan Creek Road to support this private rock pit if they purchase rock from there. Kimmell, Strochein and Nelson hear!
d all of
this and chose to ignore it so they could support a "new business" or didn't fully understand what all this really meant in terms of actual costs to tax payers. On the other hand "excess impact of traffic" has been used to deny small residential property splits and brought up in small bed and breakfast permit hearings as a concern by the zoning board and County Commissioners.
There is no evidence that putting this rock pit, next to the existing decomposed excavation will benefit or produce cost savings to tax payers. As indicated in the above paragraph it will result in increased cost to tax payers and less maintenance on other county roads. As to creating new jobs, there is no evidence it will create jobs beyond that of the applicant. This pit is in direct competition with three other pits located within two to three miles of the new site (as the crow flies). Those people who buy gravel will have one more gravel pit to choose from. A new gravel pit does not increase the need for gravel. In effect, if we buy from the new pit we stop buying from the existing ones. Truck drivers will haul from existing pits so no new jobs there. No new crushing companies. No new blasters. The existing pits by the way are located on State maintained highways designed for heavy truck traffic. Since the Highway District is seeing a reduction in gas taxes you can expec!
t to see
a reduction in "paving" and maintenance on existing county roads. Why increase the wear and tear on county maintained roads? Does one "job" justify the adverse financial impacts?
There are rules in the zoning ordinance which govern non-conforming uses like the existing fill dirt excavation. The existing excavation is non-conforming but pre-dates the adoption of these ordinances. The ordinances limit the growth and use of such a grandfathered excavation, but again that would require the planning and building government employees to enforce these ordinances and they have not historically done that at least when it comes to surface mining. Commissioner Kimmell in response to enforcement concerns commented it was the job of the county to spend the money to provide those services. Again more cost to the tax payers but Kimmell doesn't have much concern for tax payer money as long as it goes to support business and the chambers work. Since Mr. Kimmell was aware of these gaps in enforcement several years ago due to violations by North Idaho Crushing it is cavalier for him to pretend he will spend the money to correct these problems within County Planning and
Building. If he hasn't in the past five years what will change things now?
As a resident who has observed the use and impact of the existing excavation location almost daily for the previous nine years I can without reservation state the old use has been limited and out of compliance with the zoning ordinance. For the existing excavation to continue in compliance with the zoning ordinance would not create additional adverse impact on the residences. It would be consistent with the buyer’s knowledge and experience of their residences when they bought and for the many years they have lived there. If the current situation was continued for another 20 years the residents around the existing excavation would have no reason to complain for this did pre-exist them. This argument does not hold true for a new rock crushing and a gravel pit.
This new CUP on the other hand will create a variety of new adverse effects which by their very nature increase risk and adverse effects. The new CUP will not improve existing safety issues with the old excavation. Unlike mathematics where two negatives equal a positive, that is not the case for this new surface mining and gravel crushing operation opened next to an out of compliance old surface excavation operation. The noise, crushing, increase in heavy truck traffic, air pollution and increased risks would not be there if it would not for the decision of Kimmell, Nelson and Strochein. Anyone who buys a home within the ag-forestry zone is at risk of having their quality of life severely impacted by Conditional Use Permits authorized by two farmers and a son-in-law of a farmer/chamber of commerce director. Many comments were made during the hearings by the commissioners indicating they were confused. This led to them voting their guts and not their brains. It does not bear !
well for
the future of home owners when our County Commissioners have such limited and biased backgrounds.
Mr. Arnold encourages you to contact the court house for your facts as he did. Unless he was to listen to 30 plus hours of taped testimony the only thing he will see is the findings of fact the County Commissioners signed. That document was written and prepared for the Commissioners signature by Planning and Building Staff and it is written with the goal of a persuasive essay (to justify the decision they made). By picking, choosing and giving credence only to the testimony that supported their goal of authorizing this permit it leaves those with no knowledge of the hearings to come to Mr. Arnold’s conclusions. It is the goal and purpose of those writing for their bosses to justify the decision and based on Mr. Arnold’s reaction they did a good enough job to convince him. It would be equally possible to justify denying the permit using the same process, except there would be much more evidence in support of the denial. Sometimes you have to dig for the truth instead of accep!
ting what
is provided on a silver platter. That goes for Mr. Arnold's version, the County Commissioners or mine.
Don Lazzarini
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
--0-1641121900-1086906277=:51222
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000" color=#0000ff><EM>:</EM></FONT><FONT color=#0000ff><EM> Mr. Don Lazzarini, a retired criminal investigator and resident of the affected area, responds below to Mr. Donovan Arnold's contention that the decision of Messrs. Stroschein, Kimmel, and Nelson to OK the Gravel Pit operation was justified.</EM></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><EM><FONT color=#0000ff> TL</FONT></EM></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT color=#0000ff>Mr. Lazzarini writes: </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In Reference to the Flannigan Creek Gravel Pit discussion:</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">There is not a gravel pit there. There is an infrequently used, decomposed granite/fill excavation site. That means no blasting or crushing on the site for the 9 years I have lived here. This current site sits lower on the hill placing it out of the view of some residents and between dirt and trees which block sound.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The site is in the county, miles outside of Potlatch city limits and does not have anything to do with the city of </SPAN><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City><st1:place><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Potlatch</SPAN></st1:place></st1:City><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">. The "hours" were set by the Zoning Board and later adopted by the Commissioners. Mr. Arnold's desire to weigh in and inform visionaries while professing to follow "facts" has resulted in gross mis-information. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">It is not running 24/7. In fact for the past 9 years a gravel surface mining operation has not run at all. Historically the old fill dirt site did not approach use of even 1 hour a week averaged over the past nine years. There will be approximately 6 weeks of 10 hour crushing days with this new permit. This level of noise and disruption is unprecedented in the little valley. Mr. Kimmell, Mr. Strochein and Mr. Nelson justified there decision by indicating that a passing truck makes about the same volume of noise as the crushing operation would. Depending on the truck, mufflers and use of Jake brakes this may be true in a very limited view. The problem with this approach is a truck passes the site in approximately 10 seconds (I timed them). At that point the sound returns to the natural level which is much quieter than residential neighborhoods in
</SPAN><st1:City><st1:place><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Moscow</SPAN></st1:place></st1:City><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">. The number of trucks it would require to achieve and sustain the level of noise created by a crusher would be 6 trucks per minute, 360 trucks per hour, 3600 heavy trucks per day and 18000 per week. A passing truck is not analogous to a crusher. I can't find anything in the ag/zone that compares to a crusher in both volume and sustained level of noise. Everything else moves away. The crusher will stay put for 10 hours every day, 5 days a week for 6 weeks minimum.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I can't find safety standards in the findings of fact unless a two wire fence falls under that definition. There are requirements in the zoning ordinance for dust abatement and noise control on the site. The problem is knowledge and enforcement. The applicant doesn't know the rules or doesn't believe they are his responsibility. The </SPAN><st1:place><st1:PlaceType><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">County</SPAN></st1:PlaceType><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> </SPAN><st1:PlaceName><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Planning</SPAN></st1:PlaceName></st1:place><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> staff have a non-existent record of inspection, training and enforcement capability which means the rules won't be enforced and the neighbors will be
responsible for calling and reporting violations. The outcome of that in the past is many complaints and one payoff to the county for $1500 dollars. This information is available to anyone who wants to call Latah County Planning.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The placement of the entrance to this pit has been moved approximately 30 feet closer to a Potlatch school district bus stop and turn around. The visibility of this entrance is very limited and is a real safety concern for vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Kimmell, Strochein and Nelson washed their hands of any responsibility for the safety of the access-egress by leaving it up to the highway district to authorize. This action was taken after extensive testimony was provided to Nelson, Strochein and Kimmell, based on interviews with the highway district employees who made statements that they have no engineering or safety component to their tax funded operations. The result is a road maintenence supervisor makes a traffic safety and engineering decision about the placement of this access point. Go look for yourself and decide if you think the new access point increases!
safety,
the commissioners felt compelled to authorize this conditional use permit, so they passed an important safety concern onto the the road maintenence crew. This is not within their scope of training or experience of the highway district employees and it would never occur to them to get engineering input.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Native gravel roads, contrary to Mr. Arnolds knowledge are dusty, except when wet rain or snow. The modern methods include magnesium chloride but that costs money to put down. Currently the Highway District bills individual residents to do "dust abatement" on county roads in front of their homes. There is nothing in the current findings or record that will require the new business to conduct dust abatement on </SPAN><st1:Street><st1:address><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Flannigan Creek Road</SPAN></st1:address></st1:Street><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">. There are many residents in </SPAN><st1:place><st1:PlaceName><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Latah</SPAN></st1:PlaceName><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> </SPAN><st1:PlaceType><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">County</SPAN></st1:PlaceType></st1:place><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> who can attest to gravel roads in Latah being dusty. IF the Highway District gets a contract with the new gravel pit, it has stated on the record it will mag chloride Flanningan Creek at "Highway district cost". What that means is tax dollars will treat Flanningan Creek. These tax dollars going into Flannigan Creek means they are not going elsewhere. When the Highway District is working on one section of road, it is not working on another. For those of you living on gravel roads apparently you need to get a gravel pit contract with the highway district if you want your roads dust abated with tax dollars; otherwise pay for it yourself.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">There is nothing in the record to indicate creating a new surface mining operation will save the tax payers money. There is evidence on the record from different highway and civil engineers that heavy trucks damage roads at a rate of 600 to 1 over cars. Putting a gravel pit only accessed by chip sealed county roads and gravel roads places heavy stress on these surfaces causing them to break down faster. Such wear will require more frequent maintenance or citizens putting up with potholes, ruts, washboards for longer periods of time until the highway district thinks some work is needed or it can afford it. The current conditional use permit allows 60 loads per week. This is equivalent to the impact of 36,000 cars in this same time period of one week. There is limited money in the Highway District funding and they have verbally committed to spending it on
</SPAN><st1:Street><st1:address><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Flanningan Creek Road</SPAN></st1:address></st1:Street><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> to support this private rock pit if they purchase rock from there. Kimmell, Strochein and Nelson heard all of this and chose to ignore it so they could support a "new business" or didn't fully understand what all this really meant in terms of actual costs to tax payers. On the other hand "excess impact of traffic" has been used to deny small residential property splits and brought up in small bed and breakfast permit hearings as a concern by the zoning board and </SPAN><st1:place><st1:PlaceType><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">County</SPAN></st1:PlaceType><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> </SPAN><st1:PlaceName><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial">Commissioners</SPAN></st1:PlaceName></st1:place><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">There is no evidence that putting this rock pit, next to the existing decomposed excavation will benefit or produce cost savings to tax payers. As indicated in the above paragraph it will result in increased cost to tax payers and less maintenance on other county roads. As to creating new jobs, there is no evidence it will create jobs beyond that of the applicant. This pit is in direct competition with three other pits located within two to three miles of the new site (as the crow flies). Those people who buy gravel will have one more gravel pit to choose from. A new gravel pit does not increase the need for gravel. In effect, if we buy from the new pit we stop buying from the existing ones. Truck drivers will haul from existing pits so no new jobs there. No new crushing companies. No new blasters. The existing pits by the way are located on State maintained hig!
hways
designed for heavy truck traffic. Since the Highway District is seeing a reduction in gas taxes you can expect to see a reduction in "paving" and maintenance on existing county roads. Why increase the wear and tear on county maintained roads? Does one "job" justify the adverse financial impacts? </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">There are rules in the zoning ordinance which govern non-conforming uses like the existing fill dirt excavation. The existing excavation is non-conforming but pre-dates the adoption of these ordinances. The ordinances limit the growth and use of such a grandfathered excavation, but again that would require the planning and building government employees to enforce these ordinances and they have not historically done that at least when it comes to surface mining. Commissioner Kimmell in response to enforcement concerns commented it was the job of the county to spend the money to provide those services. Again more cost to the tax payers but Kimmell doesn't have much concern for tax payer money as long as it goes to support business and the chambers work. Since Mr. Kimmell was aware of these gaps in enforcement several years ago due to violations by North Idaho!
Crushing
it is cavalier for him to pretend he will spend the money to correct these problems within </SPAN><st1:place><st1:PlaceType><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">County</SPAN></st1:PlaceType><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> </SPAN><st1:PlaceName><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Planning</SPAN></st1:PlaceName></st1:place><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> and Building. If he hasn't in the past five years what will change things now?</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">As a resident who has observed the use and impact of the existing excavation location almost daily for the previous nine years I can without reservation state the old use has been limited and out of compliance with the zoning ordinance. For the existing excavation to continue in compliance with the zoning ordinance would not create additional adverse impact on the residences. It would be consistent with the buyer’s knowledge and experience of their residences when they bought and for the many years they have lived there. If the current situation was continued for another 20 years the residents around the existing excavation would have no reason to complain for this did pre-exist them. This argument does not hold true for a new rock crushing and a gravel pit.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">This new CUP on the other hand will create a variety of new adverse effects which by their very nature increase risk and adverse effects. The new CUP will not improve existing safety issues with the old excavation. Unlike mathematics where two negatives equal a positive, that is not the case for this new surface mining and gravel crushing operation opened next to an out of compliance old surface excavation operation. The noise, crushing, increase in heavy truck traffic, air pollution and increased risks would not be there if it would not for the decision of Kimmell, Nelson and Strochein. Anyone who buys a home within the ag-forestry zone is at risk of having their quality of life severely impacted by Conditional Use Permits authorized by two farmers and a son-in-law of a farmer/chamber of commerce director. Many comments were made during the heari!
ngs by
the commissioners indicating they were confused. This led to them voting their guts and not their brains. It does not bear well for the future of home owners when our </SPAN><st1:place><st1:PlaceType><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">County</SPAN></st1:PlaceType><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> </SPAN><st1:PlaceName><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Commissioners</SPAN></st1:PlaceName></st1:place><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> have such limited and biased backgrounds.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Mr. Arnold encourages you to contact the court house for your facts as he did. Unless he was to listen to 30 plus hours of taped testimony the only thing he will see is the findings of fact the </SPAN><st1:place><st1:PlaceType><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">County</SPAN></st1:PlaceType><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> </SPAN><st1:PlaceName><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Commissioners</SPAN></st1:PlaceName></st1:place><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> signed. That document was written and prepared for the Commissioners signature by Planning and Building Staff and it is written with the goal of a persuasive essay (to justify the decision they made). By picking, choosing and giving credence only to the testimony that suppo!
rted
their goal of authorizing this permit it leaves those with no knowledge of the hearings to come to Mr. Arnold’s conclusions. It is the goal and purpose of those writing for their bosses to justify the decision and based on Mr. Arnold’s reaction they did a good enough job to convince him. It would be equally possible to justify denying the permit using the same process, except there would be much more evidence in support of the denial. Sometimes you have to dig for the truth instead of accepting what is provided on a silver platter. That goes for Mr. Arnold's version, the </SPAN><st1:place><st1:PlaceType><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">County</SPAN></st1:PlaceType><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> </SPAN><st1:PlaceName><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Commissioners</SPAN></st1:PlaceName></st1:place><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> or mine.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Don Lazzarini</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></o:p></P></DIV></DIV><p>
<hr size=1><font face=arial size=-1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>Friends. Fun. <a href="http://messenger.yahoo.com/">Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger</a>
--0-1641121900-1086906277=:51222--