Laserfiche WebLink
B. PRESENTATION BY JOHN VIDOVICH (CONTINUED) : <br /> Ihr <br /> he was willing to modify his plans but needed some direction to do <br /> this. Mr. Vidovich listed the following as possible positive aspects <br /> to this proposal : 1) quarry will be closed; 2) a lake will be in the <br /> quarry' s place; 3) if the property is annexed to the Town, the project <br /> will be under the control of the Town; 4) the water system for the <br /> Town will be better; and 5) property values will increase. <br /> Karl Tiefert, 10490 Albertsworth Lane, expressed his concerns about <br /> the proposed grading and stated his opinion that the trailer placed on <br /> the property by Mr. Vidovich was very offensive. Mr. David Anderson, <br /> 24696 Olive Tree Court, inquired about the visual impact of the houses <br /> proposed along the ridgetop. Mr . Ellis Catton, 11310 Magdalena, Mr. <br /> Russell Wilson, 11240 Magdalena Avenue and Dr. Howard Martin, 11666 <br /> Dawson Drive, each noted their concerns about the impact of this <br /> project on Hale Creek. Mr. Rein Luik, 10439 Lone Oak Lane, commented <br /> that it appeared that the open space referred to by Mr. Vidovich would <br /> be the steep areas while the development would take place on the flat <br /> areas of the property. Ms. Christine Cole, 23219 Ravensbury Avenue, <br /> expressed her concerns about the closing of High Meadow and the impact <br /> on trails and housing for horses. Mr. R.S. Cashman, 24925 Oneonta <br /> Drive, inquired whether Mr. Vidovich was owner/operator of quarry at <br /> this time and, if so, when did he plan to close it down. <br /> C. PRESENTATION BY EIP ASSOCIATES OF THE SITE ASSESSMENT FOR THE <br /> QUARRY HILLS DEVELOPMENT: <br /> Mr. Mark Trembley, Project Engineer, noted that the Environmental <br /> Assessment Study on the Quarry Hills Project had been completed and <br /> copies were on file at Town Hall . He noted that this document was an <br /> early warning tool ; it was not an environmental impact report. Mr. <br /> Trembley commented that each of the representatives present from EIP <br /> Associates would address the particular aspect of the report in which <br /> they were involved. After the presentation, a question and answer <br /> period would follow. <br /> Mr. Mark Trembley made the following comments concerning the <br /> geotechnical studies: no highly constrained areas, no massive <br /> landslide areas and no active faults. Regarding visual analysis , Mr. <br /> Trembley reported that there were high visual constraints regarding <br /> this project, especially south of the quarry. <br /> Mr. Don Dean reported on slope density stating that 71 of the proposed <br /> 80 lots do not meet the slope density formula. Mr. Dean further <br /> reported on noise and air quality by quoting from the summary sections <br /> of the report: ' . . .Before approval of the project, an acoustic <br /> survey should be performed to determine existing noise levels in the <br /> vicinity of the quarry. If the survey shows that existing noise <br /> -2- 8/18/87 <br />