My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2019-05-08_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - P2013002
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Prospect
>
P2013002
>
2019-05-08_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - P2013002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/18/2024 6:44:19 AM
Creation date
5/9/2019 1:45:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
P2013002
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
5/8/2019
Doc Name
Correspondence
From
RGPP
To
DRMS
Email Name
TC1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
easement. This same road was the subject of a 2006 lawsuit brought by a Mr. Pesavento against <br /> Celtic Minerals USA, Inc. Mr. Pesavento felt that the subject road was his to legally cross to <br /> access his property due to a prescriptive easement. Celtic Minerals (with whom Zephyr Minerals <br /> is closely linked) at that time stated unequivocally that the road was not a public road and that no <br /> prescriptive easement existed. The Fremont County District Court presided over by Judge Julie <br /> G. Marshall ruled on January 16, 2008, in favor of Celtic Minerals stating that the "prescriptive <br /> easement claim was groundless because there was little or nothing in the way of evidence to <br /> support the claim." There was no appeal of the ruling. How can the County Commissioners and <br /> the County Attorney ignore their own County Court's ruling and arbitrarily decide that eleven <br /> years later the road that was not Mr. Pesavento's to use through a prescriptive easement is now <br /> available to Zephyr to use through a prescriptive easement? <br /> As stated previously the RGPP is very concerned that, in the case of Zephyr, a variety of <br /> environmental protection stipulations were, rightly so, placed on a CUP granted to Zephyr by the <br /> Fremont County Commissioners. What concerns the RGPP is that it appears that compliance <br /> with some or all these very specific stipulations may have never been accomplished. If this in <br /> fact the case, then the CUP for Zephyr should be canceled immediately and not renewed until <br /> such time as the Board of County Commissioners can show that Zephyr has lived up to the letter <br /> of the protective stipulations that they agreed to when they accepted the permit and that they <br /> actually have a legal easement to cross private property as well as documented rights-of-way <br /> across public lands. <br /> Your review and response to the aforementioned concerns is in the interest of the community at <br /> large and will be greatly appreciated by our corporation. <br /> Sincerely- <br /> a y eterson <br /> Board Chairmen <br /> Royal Gorge Preservation Project <br /> Cc: (1) Tim Cazier, Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (NOl Permit No. P2013002) <br /> (2) Tony O'Rourke, City Administrator, Canon City <br /> (3) Sean Garrett, Fremont County Planning and Zoning <br /> (4) Bureau of Land Management, Royal Gorge Field Office <br /> (5) Jamie Connell, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.