|
54
<br />May 4, 1987
<br />number of Hugo residents stating that their request to adopt a new mining
<br />ordinance was for the following reasons:
<br />1. To protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents.
<br />2. To establish reasonable and uniform limitations, safeguards, and controls
<br />in a community that is in transition from agriculture to urban.
<br />3. To control noise, dust, hazards, effects on adjacent property, and other
<br />factors related to an active mining operation.
<br />4. To provide for control of mining operations compatible with the surroundings.
<br />The proposed ordinance submitted by Mrs. Munthe was referred to the city's engineer
<br />and attorney for their review and comments. The City Council invited both the
<br />petitioners and the gravel pit owners/operators to attend tonight's meeting to
<br />discusss their concerns regarding this proposed ordinance.
<br />The following people were present at the meeting to express opposition to the
<br />proposal to amend the existing mining ordinance: Dean Atkinson, Richard Schuh,
<br />John Waller, Fran Miron, George Miron, Bill Wolfe, Kip Wolf, Gerald Hanson,
<br />Darrell Hanson, George Indykiewicz, John Erickson (Anderson Bros), Gerald
<br />Rehbein, Vern Peloqin, and Andy Goiffon.
<br />The following people were present to lend their support to the proposal: Sandy
<br />Malaski, Betty Cammack, Malcolm Cammack, Ann Munthe, and Sonja Irlbeck.
<br />Opponents of the proposal used the following reasoninfg: need of gravel for
<br />city roads, gravel pits have been there for a long timeU on y a seasonal operation
<br />thereby necessitating the need to operate long hours, benefits of pit exceed
<br />any complaints, obligation to provide gravel.
<br />Proponents stated the following: use of pit during'bummer hours" that conflict
<br />with their use of property, noise pollution, odors, and dust, "right" of homeowner
<br />to enjoy country living, allow commercial uses in basically a residential area.
<br />Sonja Irlbeck emphasized that it was not their intent to shut down the gravel
<br />pit operation, only make life more livable for people affected by the operation.
<br />The Council decided to take each proposal individually and decide for or against
<br />the proposal.
<br />Motion made by Peltier, Atkinson seconded, that 170-2, Subd. B(4) not be amended.
<br />VOTING AYE: Peltier, Potts, Vail, Atkinson
<br />VOTING NAY: Olson
<br />Motion Carried.
<br />Motion made by Peltier, Vail seconded, to not add Item 10 as suggested (170-2,
<br />Subd. B).
<br />VOTING AYE: Potts, Peltier, Vail, Atkinson
<br />VOTING NAY: Olson
<br />Motion Carried.
<br />Motion made by Potts, Peltier seconded, to enter "Mining shall not include
<br />blasting" as Item 10,(170-2, Subd. B),
<br />VOTING AYE: Potts, Olson, Vail, Atkinson
<br />VOTING NAY: Peltier
<br />Motion Carried.
<br />
|