Laserfiche WebLink
Frascona, Joiner, Goodman and Greenstein, P.C. <br /> September 14, 2017 <br /> Page 2 of 5 <br /> suspicion that it may have neglected to provide notice to other Owners of Record as required by <br /> Rule 1.6.2(1)(e). The DRMS should not approve Summit's application if it failed to meet all <br /> applicable notice procedures. <br /> II. Expansion of the Mine will negatively impact the public's health, safety, and <br /> welfare. <br /> Ms. Stuart-Bullock has significant concerns regarding the application's impact on the <br /> public's health, safety, and welfare. Ms. Stuart-Bullock rightfully worries how additional truck <br /> traffic, increase in noise/exhaust/dust from machinery and traffic, and compromised <br /> safety/security of the worksite and neighboring properties might affect the well-being of her and <br /> her neighbors. <br /> Most notably, Ms. Stuart-Bullock fears approval of Summit's application will result in a <br /> decrease in neighboring property values. The expansion of the Mine will force neighboring <br /> owners to settle for lower prices from prospective buyers faced with the inconvenience of <br /> increased traffic, exhaust, noise, and risk of industrial accidents. Mr. Hanratty, a licensed and <br /> active appraiser, also shares Ms. Stu art-Bullock's decreased property value concern and is <br /> willing to provide his professional opinion at a public hearing. The DRMS should strongly <br /> consider the burdens it will place on the community if it approves Summit's application. <br /> III. Summit's application provides an inadequate explanation of compliance with <br /> Colorado water law. <br /> Rules 6.3.30) and 6.4.5(2)(c) require permits to specify how the permittee will comply <br /> with applicable Colorado water laws and regulations governing injury to existing water rights. <br /> The DRMS provided Summit with a letter dated April 30, 2010 (attached hereto as Exhibit 1) in <br /> which DRMS notified Summit that it may not have appropriate permit conditions to address <br /> certain reclamation liabilities arising from impacts to water resources (the "Compliance Letter"). <br /> In the Compliance Letter, the DRMS classified the Mine as an operation that potentially <br /> exposes groundwater, and as such, required Summit to obtain a well permit from the SEO <br /> pursuant to Section 37-90-137(11) of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of <br /> Construction Materials (the "Act"), obtain a water-court approved augmentation plan, and/or <br /> provide sufficient bonding to provide an alternative method to mitigate injurious stream <br /> depletions that result from mining-related exposure of ground water. DRMS gave Summit until <br />