Laserfiche WebLink
South Hinsdale Response to Objections <br /> 12 July 2022 <br /> 3. RESPONSE TO COUNTY PUBLIC COMMENTS <br /> Dear Commissioners and Ms. Hines: <br /> Please find our review and response to comments provided to us on 25 June 2022 by email. We <br /> are responding to these in the same order as they were received, as much as possible. We have <br /> not contacted or responded to any commenter unless they attended one of the Texer meetings. <br /> Task: Provide responses to specific comments sent to Hinsdale County Commissioners, <br /> Administrator, and Planning Commission, <br /> Conditions: Given that an application for any required County Special Use or other <br /> permits was submitted to Hinsdale County on 26 April 2022; 61 pages of comments from <br /> various entities were provided to WASTELINE, Inc., on 28 June 2022, totaling 42 <br /> comments (including several duplicates and at least two by the same person), of which 40 <br /> are objections, 1 is in support of the project, and 1 made recommendations for <br /> improvements in the planning and execution. These were provided in advance of a <br /> presumably scheduled meeting of the County Planning Commission on 21 July 2022. <br /> Standards: Provide as specific responses as possible, integrating as much as possible <br /> with responses to DRMS Comments (from individuals and agencies) to reduce review <br /> time, citing regulatory restraints and requirements, sound environmental and engineering <br /> standards and practices, compliance with local, State, and Federal regulations, and <br /> indexing like concerns. Minimize duplication responses to identical or very similar <br /> objections, but treat all comments professionally and answer as completely as possible. <br /> Performance Measures: <br /> Identify the person(s) and issues, cross-referencing pages 1-61 of the PDF provided by <br /> Hinsdale County. As much as possible, identify and group related objections under <br /> general subject, and link to Section 4 responses to multiple objections. Respond to unique <br /> objections in the individual person(s paragraph 1-42 below). <br /> Cross-index objections which were received both by the County and DRMS. <br /> General Response: We understand that the people who are commenting and objecting <br /> to the proposed pit are worried about the potential impacts of the proposed activities on <br /> their lives, the environment, safety and health, and other issues. Unfortunately, some of <br /> those fears are based on incorrect information and misunderstandings of what is proposed <br /> — as well as promotion of fear and hysteria. In our responses, we do identify erroneous <br /> information, claims which are not valid, and misunderstandings of what is proposed and <br /> the situation. At the same time, we DO address the issues raised, even if the concern is <br /> based on these matters. We respect the right of people to voice their opposition to <br /> anything, and nothing in our response is intended to show disrespect. Our object is to <br /> answer the objections in a way that will allow the concerned persons to, if not support, <br /> then work with us to accomplish a public purpose and good without any negative impacts <br /> that are not mitigated. <br /> 3.1 Robert D Lindner, Jr. <br /> List of two (2) general remarks and seven (7) objections. <br /> General Remarks: <br /> (1) General remarks regarding Upper Piedra vision statement and plan. See Section 5.1 <br /> 5182-22-003 WASTELINE, INC. Page 29 of 107 <br />