Laserfiche WebLink
a <br /> T <br /> c. As referenced in response to Items (3), (d) and (e), information regarding <br /> the number of acres to be seeded with each seed mix as well as the seed <br /> bed preparation methods, seeding methods and rates are detailed in <br /> Exhibit F. Additionally, specific erosion control information, including <br /> the proposed Erosion Control Plan, is detailed in Exhibit G. <br /> 8. Exhibit Q - Proof of Mailing Notices to Board of County Commissioners and <br /> Conservation District; Rule 6.4.17 <br /> a. In response to the Adequacy Review, new notices were mailed to the <br /> Garfield County Board of County Commissioners and the Bookcliff <br /> Conservation District. Proof of mailing is attached as Exhibit J. <br /> 9. Exhibit S - Permanent Man-made Structures; Rule 6.4.19 <br /> a. Scott Contracting has communicated with all adjacent landowners and <br /> provided multiple copies of structure agreements covering any permanent <br /> mand-made structures within the 200-foot boundary on all sides of the <br /> property, along with a explanations regarding the purpose of the <br /> agreements and why they a required for the DRMS permit. Despite these <br /> efforts, only the Colorado Department of Transportation and the <br /> Shidelerosa LLP have provided executed agreements (Exhibit K). <br /> b. The "tailwater ditch" on the property is not owned or managed by any <br /> entity, whether incorporated or otherwise. One or more of the comments <br /> provided by neighboring landowners indicated the tailwater ditch was <br /> owned and/or managed by the Loesch and Crann Ditch Company, which <br /> operates the Loesch and Crann Ditch, also known as the Last Chance <br /> Ditch; however, the president of the Loesch and Crann Ditch Company, <br /> Mr. Jim Snyder, stated the tailwater ditch was not part of the Loesch and <br /> Crann/Last Chance Ditch, nor was it managed by the Loesch and Crann <br /> Ditch Company. Accordingly, there is no owner or managing entity of the <br /> tailwater ditch, and therefore no access agreement or other permission is <br /> necessary or required prior to relocating the ditch. <br /> Additionally, in its objection, Island Park LLC referenced the Roaring Fork <br /> Club v. St. Jude's Co., 36 P.3d 1229 (Colo. 2001), in support of its claim <br /> that Scott Contracting cannot relocate the tailwater ditch without consent <br /> or approval from the ditch owner. However, unlike the circumstances in <br /> the Roaring Fork case, there is no owner or easement right holder exists <br /> regarding the tailwater ditch. Accordingly, no consent or approval is <br /> necessary or required to relocating the tailwater ditch. <br /> 10. Addendum 1 - Notice Requirements; Rule 1.6.2(1)(b) <br />