My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2022-07-18_PERMIT FILE - M2022018
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2022018
>
2022-07-18_PERMIT FILE - M2022018
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2025 6:18:01 AM
Creation date
7/18/2022 12:53:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2022018
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
7/18/2022
Doc Name
Objection Acknowledgement/Response
From
Wasteline, Inc / South Hindsdale Sand & Gravel LLC
To
DRMS
Email Name
LJW
THM
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.
/
113
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
South Hinsdale Response to Objections <br /> 12 July 2022 <br /> 3.9 Nita Niece <br /> 64 Saturn Drive, Pagosa Springs <br /> List of one (1) claim and three (3) objections. <br /> Claims: <br /> (2) Claim: replaces Oakbrush Hill - "heat [heart-sic?] breaking" dreadful impact on <br /> neighbors This project in no way replaces or is associated with the Oakbrush Hill Gravel <br /> operation which was withdrawn from State and County consideration in February 2022. <br /> The applicants are different and unrelated, the expected life of the operations is completely <br /> different, the anticipated market is somewhat different, and the annual production <br /> proposed at the South Hinsdale Gravel Pit is much less than that of Oakbrush Hill. <br /> Objections: <br /> (1) Objection: traffic- use of Piedra Road to Hwy 160 See Section 5.3 <br /> (2) Objection: traffic- noise, dust, and impact See Section 5.3 <br /> (3) Objection: road conditions: not designed for such repeated heavy loads - poor repair <br /> See Section 5.3 <br /> 3.10 Richard Larsen <br /> List of one (1) claim and two (2) objections. <br /> Claims: <br /> (1) Claim: Piedra Road already a mess and Archuleta County does not have money to <br /> repair it See Sections 5.3 and 5.9. <br /> Response: One reason for funding shortfalls for the Archuleta County Road and Bridge <br /> Department is the very high cost of hauling construction materials, such as gravel, long <br /> distances. <br /> Objections.- <br /> (1) Objection: use of Piedra Road for gravel truck use from "Hinsley [sic] County" <br /> Response: As a simple matter of geography, and the limited number of roads and <br /> highways in mountains, ALL traffic to and from the South End of Hinsdale County must <br /> pass through Archuleta County and use Piedra Road, even to travel to the other part of <br /> Hinsdale County. Much of the impact on Piedra Road will be offset by providing Archuleta <br /> County a more affordable (closer) source of material for maintaining and improving Piedra <br /> Road and other County and USFS roads in the northern portion of Archuleta County. <br /> (2) Objection: Piedra Road is 2-lane and very little "side surface" [shoulders] - more <br /> dangerous See Section 5.3 including discussion of funding, costs, and road standards <br /> 3.11 Landon Walker <br /> List of one (1) general remark, one (1) suggestion, and four (4) objections. <br /> General Remarks: <br /> (1) General: comment on County Administrator We thank you for your positive approach. <br /> 5182-22-003 1+ ASTELiNE, INC. Page 35 of 107 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.