OCR Text |
Show Citizens Protest the Expansion of United Concrete Pipe Plant The article in last week's Review Re-view expressed concern over the possibility that the United Concrete Pipe Plant may move from Pleasant Pleas-ant Grove due to the opposition to actively opposed expansion of - the plant. As property owners we have activel yopposed expansion of the plant in its present location and now take this opportunity to express ex-press our views. First we would like to point out that we have never asked the city council to "kick the plant out of the city." We have asked that their operations be controlled and that the plant not be allowed to expand their operations. We believe we are justified in these requests as we feel we have a right to live in reasonable conditions as to noise and dust; that our property should not be further depreciated. When the plant recently secured options on several pieces of prop-rty prop-rty on Third North street and requested re-quested a special use permit from the city council we protested the granting of this special use permit. The property owners in this section met with the planning commission and discussed our opposition to the granting of the special use permit. Feeling that local officials of the plant and the parent company should know of our opposition and the reasons for our opposition we had our attorney write a letter to these people explaining our stand in the matter. We also requested a meeting with the local officials of the plant. This meeting was held at which time plant officials, their attorney, a member of the planning plan-ning commission, a county planning plan-ning engineer, representatives of the property owners and their attorneys at-torneys were present. This meeting discussed the Interests of the plant, the proposed expansion plans and the opposition to this expansion by the property owners. The fact that the plant is operating on a special use permit in its present opera-t opera-t Ic ns -was brought out, also that the present plant is a rather com- plex operation when compared to the original plant. We realize the importance of industry to Pleasant Grove and Utah County. We are aware of the fact that originally the first plant was invited to come to Pleasant Grove. However, we have noted the expansion of the plant in the past few years with considerable apprehension. Since the farm owned own-ed by the Second and Fourth Wards was leased to the plant three years ago, living conditions in the northwest section have become be-come more unbearable' because of noise, dust and odor from the plant. Some industries could probably operate op-erate within the city limits without with-out undue annoyance to immediate residential ai-eas. Unfortunately the operation of the pipe plant is of such a nature that a good deal of noise, dust and odor results. In the article last week it was pointed out that for the plant to stay In Pleasant Grove additional areas would have to be zoned for industry. If the plant stays in its present location where is this industrial in-dustrial area to come from ? If the plant obtains land to the south this would move it closer than ever to main street. It might be pointed out that property owners in the northwest section have purchased additional sewer stubs from the city, but any residential development is at a standstill because of the plant's location. The city obtained a right of way from property owners to run a road through at Fifth North, promising the owners in writing that the street would be fenced and the grade surfaced. This was not done as the plant was using this right of way. As property owners we feel that our rights have been Infringed upon up-on by the plant. Our attorney advises ad-vises us that dust, noise and odor constitute a technical trespass, that we have recourse to a civil suit, we prefer not to use this means if it can be avoided. In considering the application of the pipe plant for a special use permit we feel that all the facts involved should be given proper consideration. That the future of Pleasant Grove as a residential area be kept under consideration. Further expansion of the1 pipe plant in its present location -will result In further conflict between the plant and the property owners. (Signed) Floy Taylor Wayne Holman Jack Cook S. Christensen |