2014-02-12_REVISION - C1983059 (2)

Home Browse Search

O' HAYRE, DAWSON be NORRIS, P.C. ArrORNEYS AT LAW DIRECT (970) 64 1-3326 EXT.3 EMAIL: MDAWSON(a)GUCLAW.COM MICHAEL C. DAwSON Alan Hassler The Hassler Law Firm, P.C. 2829 North Ave Ste 205 P.O. Box 40386 Grand Junction Co 40386 WWW.GUCLAW.COM February 11, 2014 Re: Intermountain Transport, LLC /Terror Creek, LLC Load Out & Access Issues Dear Mr. Hassler: 1 20 N. TAYLOR STREET P.O. Box 179 GUNNISON, CO 81 230 TELEPHONE (970) 64 1-3326 FACSIMILE (970) 64 1-30(D4 Via email only 17,044 In follow -up to our meeting on January 9, 2014, we wanted to re- address the issues regarding access. As shown in the attached map, and after walking the site on January 9, 2014, there were 2 separate access points Mr. Hutto was using on the property. The first, labeled the Upper Access was in the vicinity of the former gate location on the 1.02 acre parcel, and the second, labeled the Lower Field Access, was instead on Terror Creek's larger parcel to the east, and beyond the former gate location. The Lower Field Access is not included in the reserved access rights over the 1.02 acre parcel in Book 512 at page 713 as it originates on the Terror Creek parcel to the east. In my review of the title for the Terror Creek parcel, there is not an easement for the Lower Field Access. Given this new information, my client reiterates its offer to replace the gate with an electric gate at its sole cost & expense in the current location, or to provide your client a separate key and lock to the existing gate, and to agree to remove and relocate this new gate when and if an access road (to county standards) is constructed within the easement over the 1.02 acre parcel. If this is acceptable, we would prepare an easement from Terror Creek to the Trust outlining the new terms of the access easement, which would include use of both the Upper Access Easement and Lower Field Access, and requiring Terror Creek to maintain and replace the gate under the terms outlined above going forward. If a new, non - exclusive appurtenant easement was in place for both access points, this would also provide your client better certainty about the scope, allowable uses, and location of its access rights. Given that the Lower Field Access is beyond the former gate location, it makes no sense to move the gate back to that location. Please let me know any questions or clarifications you have on this letter. We would appreciate a response by February 21, 2014 so we can avoid another extension of the permit decision. /I MCD cc: Terror Creek, LLC