My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2017-12-21_PERMIT FILE - M2017049 (105)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2017049
>
2017-12-21_PERMIT FILE - M2017049 (105)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2021 2:02:30 AM
Creation date
12/21/2017 1:00:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2017049
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/21/2017
Doc Name
Objection
From
Steven Mulliken
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
Objection Received
Email Name
AME
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mulliken Weiner Berg &' Jolivet P.L. <br /> Ms. Amy Eschberger <br /> December 19, 2017 <br /> Page 5 <br /> Application, is whether the proposed mining will violate private property rights held by the <br /> property owners who are benefitted by the existing easement over Little Turkey Creek Road <br /> established by a 1968 court decree. The Second Application indicates that notwithstanding the <br /> new boundaries of the mine, Little Turkey Creek Road will need to be closed periodically, at <br /> least during blasting. The objectors benefitted by that easement have persuasively argued that <br /> closure of the road would violate the terms of the recorded easement. The terms and restrictions <br /> imposed by the recorded easement are clearly binding on the land owner, and are equally binding <br /> on Transit Mix which takes its rights through and under the property owner. During the <br /> processing of the First Application, the Board expressed serious concern with this easement <br /> issue. Scott Schultz, the Assistant Attorney General who is counsel for CDRMS, acknowledged <br /> that CDRMS lacked any jurisdiction to resolve the issue and requested that the Board condition <br /> any approval on the applicant either getting an agreement with the owners benefitted by the <br /> easement or obtaining a declaratory judgment from a court which resolved this issue. Over a <br /> year later, Transit Mix has neither obtained that agreement from the benefitted owners nor filed a <br /> declaratory judgment action with a court to resolve this issue. CDRMS should require one or the <br /> other as a prerequisite to processing the Second Application. To not impose that requirement is <br /> to accept an incomplete application, waste staff time and resources, and require the objectors to <br /> expend substantial further time and incur more expense. <br /> Conclusion <br /> The Trust objects to the Second Application and urges you to deny it. The proposed <br /> mining site is adjacent to areas previously recognized for their special environmental <br /> characteristics which have already been designated for preservation. The proposed mining area <br /> itself holds those same ecological characteristics, including abundant wildlife and critical <br /> wildlife habitat, and should be similarly treated and protected, a fact formally recognized by El <br /> Paso County. The area should not be mined with the predictable adverse impact on the <br /> surrounding areas and its numerous residents. The proposed mining would (i) adversely impact <br /> the hydrologic balance, likely permanently injuring wells in the area, and (ii) adversely and <br /> unacceptably impact wildlife in the area. The proposed mining would also have an adverse <br /> impact on the adjoining Ingersoll Ranch, and be destructive to Mr. Ingersoll's plan for the <br /> perpetual conservation of the Ingersoll Ranch, a plan which is now irrevocably set forth in Mr. <br /> Ingersoll's Trust. <br /> Although the Trust was an objector to the First Application and a current litigant, the <br /> Trust was not provided written notice of the Second Application, and reserves the right to <br /> supplement this response. <br /> The Board and CDRMS were very considerate when processing the First Application to <br /> hold the meetings and hearings in Colorado Springs. Due to the large number of objectors to this <br /> Second Application, we would respectfully request that all meetings and hearings on the Second <br /> Application again be scheduled in Colorado Springs. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.