Laserfiche WebLink
South Hinsdale Response to Objections <br /> 12 July 2022 <br /> (2)General remarks about importance of local sources. The comment is an important one, <br /> with the price of transportation for residents of the South End now 4 times or more the <br /> cost of the sand and gravel they need, and the environmental impacts attributed to the <br /> long hauls now necessary. <br /> Objections: <br /> (1) Objection: General - "Intrusive and damaging operation ... considerable cost to those <br /> living in the area" See Section 5.9 <br /> (2) Objection: Noise — disturb the cherished quiet by excavation, sorting, loading, hauling <br /> See Sections 5.3.4 and 5.7 <br /> (3) Objection: Visual impacts —"degradation of the viewshed and its intact natural quality" <br /> See Sections 5.4.1 and 5.5.1 and related discussion in Section 5.9 <br /> (4) Objection: Traffic — "increased amount of traffic which currently involves little heavy <br /> equipment' See Section 5.3 <br /> (5) Objection: Air quality— increased amount of dust produced See Section 5.8 <br /> (6) Objection: Water quality — "potential ground water impacts and water quality" See <br /> Sections 5.2, 5.4.3, and 5.5.3 <br /> (7) Objection: location — inappropriate "one of the most populated and visible area" See <br /> Section 5.1 <br /> 3.2 Gary Lindauer <br /> We appreciate these comments, which explain several of the reasons that this project is <br /> proposed. The issues Mr. Lindauer raises are addressed in several sections, including <br /> Section 5.9 <br /> (1) In complete support <br /> (2) Dire need of material in South Hinsdale and Archuleta <br /> (3) Distance to other sources and cost of transportation <br /> 3.3 David and Lisa Wood <br /> 93 Lucas Blvd, Pagosa Springs <br /> List of two (2) claims and five (5) objections. <br /> Claims: <br /> (1) Claim: Oakbrush Hill was stopped "due to overwhelming resident outrage" See Section <br /> 5.11. The Oakbrush Hill proposal was withdrawn by the decision of the landowner to do <br /> so after receiving multiple threats, not through any governmental agency action. <br /> (2) Claim: This project will fly "under the radar of the locals" See Section 5.11 <br /> Objections: <br /> (1) Objection: location - North Pagosa is purely a residential area <br /> Response: see Section 5.1. There is no intent to use North Pagosa Boulevard to haul <br /> materials from this operation. Piedra Road serves a mixed land use area including <br /> residential, forestry, ranching, commercial and some industrial, particularly in the first four- <br /> 5182-22-003 WASTELINE, INC. Page 30 of 107 <br />