|
that Tennessee state law addresses mineral issues }ike coal mining
<br />but says nothing specifica}ly about limestone quarries.
<br />
<br />Gravel Pit, Anyone?
<br />Western Michigan hosts a number of extractive industries that, like
<br />limestone, involve low-value, locally marketed commodities.
<br />Kenneth C. Dettlofl; planning director for the Wilkins and
<br />Wheaton Engineering Company in Kalamazoo, has worked on
<br />zoning issues in the region involving sand, gravel, and cia3, mining.
<br />(Clay is commonly used for bottom lining in landfills to deter
<br />leakage into groundwater.)
<br /> One recent dispute in Kalamazoo Charter Township involved a
<br />gravel pit that abuts a residential subdivision. The pit was operating
<br />long before the subdivision plat was established, Dettloff says, but as
<br />the operation grew, the mining moved closer to the homes.
<br />Residents protested, but the attorney for the Thompson-McCully
<br />Company quickly convinced the township planning commission
<br />that prohibiting such an existing use would constitute a taking.
<br />Instead, last year the township and the firm negotiated a contract
<br />that laid out a set of'performance standards the company agreed to
<br />meet. Although "the residents obviously are not thrilled," Dettloff
<br />says, "I had the feeling that the gravel-mining operation really went
<br />the extra mi}e/' Thompson-McCul}y, he notes, is far closer to a
<br />residential area than any other extractive operation in the township.
<br /> The township's zoning ordinance lays out a number of perfor-
<br />mance standards for "earth removal, quarrying, gravel processing,
<br />mining, and related mineral extraction businesses." Such operations
<br />renew their special use permits yearly unless township zoning
<br />officials feet that complaints they have received justin, renewals on a
<br />more frequent basis to ensure better compliance.
<br /> The Thompson-McCully contract, however, established specific
<br />details, including an earthen berm 12 feet high, topped with pine
<br />trees that will create an added buffer by the time the company's
<br />operations approach the property boundaries. Mining operations
<br />are limited to 30 days per year. Dettloffexplains that modern
<br />technology allows the company to stockpile enough material in that
<br />time to supply its customers for the entire construction season. And
<br />the contract specifies the access roads that the company must use to
<br />avoid conflicts with nearby residential traffic'. In short, the contract
<br />was built atop the existing regulatory framework of the ordinance to
<br />work out what Dettloff, the township's consultant, views as the
<br />optimal arrangements for the affected parties.
<br />
<br />Gaslc issues
<br />Communities whose zoning ordinances have not adequately
<br />anticipated the issues associated with extractive land uses are
<br />most at risk of suffering political batdes when neighbors discover
<br />that the law that ought to be is not in place. Fortunately,
<br />examples of good standards and permit procedures are easy to
<br />find. Chelan County, Washington, for instance, has had a simple
<br />and straightforward ordinance since 1984 that requires a set of
<br />plans and project descriptions sufficient to allow county agencies
<br />to judge the wisdom of granting a mineral exploration permit,
<br />Some basic issues recur in most such ordinances: dust abatement,
<br />traffic control, hours of operation, buffers and setbacks, and
<br />limits on noise and vibrations.
<br /> It is important to remember that mining is often a necessary
<br />economic activity, but one whose impacts, under the proper
<br />conditions, can be tightly controlled through proper permitting and
<br />inspection. There is no question, however, that local government
<br />(except when preempted by state law) has the authority to regulate
<br />such uses to protect the public health and safety, and that strict
<br />performance and reclamation standards can serve that end. Effective
<br />
<br />ordinance language dealing with special exceptions, variances, and
<br />conditional uses will give zoning boards and zoning administrators
<br />the tools they need to ensure that mining uses can coexist with
<br />surrounding development.
<br />
<br />Shopping for
<br />Approval
<br />
<br />By Debra Schwartz
<br />
<br />Charlotte, North Carolina, is confronting a classic problem of
<br />zoning and politics~keeping a master plan responsive to the
<br />community in the face of high-powered development proposals. In
<br />February, six of 10 city council members approved the development
<br />of three "power" shopping centers within two miles of each other.
<br />One member abstained, citing a conflict of interest.
<br /> "Power" centers contain groupings of discount or moderately
<br />priced stores such as Wal-Mart, Ksnart, and Sam's warehouses.
<br />Malls rend ro eater to niche markets, with an array of'boutiques
<br />anchored by two or three department stores.
<br /> Access to the area consists of two main roads and an interstate
<br />highway. The council action rezones to commercial, office, hotel,
<br />and homes 160 acres that previously were designated for
<br />multifamily residences with some offices. The city council vote
<br />brings to four the number of power shopping centers the council
<br />has approved for the area. Some planners and residents say the
<br />action nullifies an important segment of the Northeast District
<br />Development Plan, which the council adopted in 1990. The
<br />district plan covers a 509-square-mile area in Mecklenburg
<br />Count-), and followed five years of research by the 14-member
<br />Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission.
<br /> "The only reason this was done was the political power of one
<br />particular developer," says Patricia Dayton, a Charlotte Realtor who
<br />opposed the action. Collectively, the centers would provide 2.4
<br />million square feet of retail shopping area for a metropolitan
<br />population of about 1 million. The district plan calls for 1.4 million
<br />square feet,
<br /> "There's not enough market to support two power centers, let
<br />alone four," says Walter Fields, staff land development manager for
<br />the Charlotte/Mecklenburg Planning Commission. When it
<br />appeared that the council would increase the number of power
<br />shopping center sires and let the market control their destiny, the
<br />planning staffconducted a special study to determine the ratio of'
<br />approved retail space to areas set aside for future residential
<br />development. "We discovered that our community's development
<br />standard was half again the national standard," Fields says. "The
<br />national standard is 18 square feet per person retail. Ours was
<br />approaching 30 square feet per person,"
<br /> The planning commission's two committees, zoning and
<br />planning, each have the final say over matters that come before
<br />them. Four of the zoning committee's seven members voted to
<br />recommend increasing the number of sites. One was absent.
<br /> But the full 14.-member commission rebelled, voting 9-4 to send
<br />a letter to the Charlotte Observerstrongly suggesting that the city
<br />council support the district plan. Never before has the commission
<br />been so divided on an issue, Fields says. "The four zoning members
<br />who voted for it tended to be more receptive to the arguments of
<br />the petitioner than stuff," he said. "Every member had been
<br />contacted by the petitioners beforehand."
<br />The district plan designated as regional shopping hubs the
<br />previously approved 55-acre Mc. Adams-Norman Properties site and
<br />
<br />
<br />
|