Laserfiche WebLink
South Hinsdale Response to Objections <br /> 12 July 2022 <br /> Response: Section 5.3 and Section 5.10, and above discussion for item (12) above. As <br /> discussed above, the assumption is incorrect: virtually all traffic will NOT go south. <br /> Archuleta County is aware of the project and will take action as the County deems <br /> necessary, which is not a DRMS or Hinsdale County matter. The USFS is also aware of <br /> the action and a road permit application has been submitted and is in review, but a final <br /> permit would not be issued until other permit applications are approved. <br /> County Specific Comment 18) duplicates DRMS Comment (13)above. <br /> Response: Same as above. <br /> (14) Exhibit F1 Item 4 Truck traffic and school buses —discussed with school district <br /> Response: Section 5.3 <br /> County Specific Comment 19) partially duplicates DRMS Comment (14) above. <br /> Response: Same as above. <br /> (15) Exhibit F2 Item 4 (15a) Use of paved portion of Piedra Road or North Pagosa <br /> Boulevard, (15b) USFS grant (15c) lack of traffic impact study <br /> Response: Section 5.1 and Section 5.3 <br /> County Specific Comment 20) appears to duplicate both Mr. Dilione's County General <br /> Permit 2) and DRMS Comments (15) and (16). <br /> Response: Same as above. As with DRMS, County special use permits may have <br /> conditions, and procedures for amending permits. <br /> (16) Exhibit F1 Item 4 (15a) No current traffic study (15b) Memo of 16 DEC 2021 on road <br /> impact (15c) addressing impact on Archuleta County road (15d) actions take to address <br /> impacts? <br /> Response: See Section 5.1 and Section 5.3. <br /> County Specific Comment 20)generally duplicates DRMS Comments (14), (15), and (15). <br /> Response: Same as above. <br /> Due to the complexity of Mr. Dilione's comments and objections, Appendix D to this letter <br /> has an index of his comments both to the State and to the County. <br /> 2.11 Kathleen McFadden <br /> received May 29, 2022— *See also Section 2. <br /> "I object to allowing a gravel pit so close to the environmentally sensitive Piedra River <br /> area. ... preserve one of the few pristine and beautiful locations we have left near <br /> Pagosa..." <br /> List of three (3) items. <br /> (1) noise pollution <br /> Response: Section 5.7 <br /> (2) air pollution - including known carcinogenic particulates <br /> Response: Section 5.8 <br /> (3) water contamination <br /> 5182-22-003 WASTELINE, INC. Page 21 of 107 <br />