Laserfiche WebLink
South Hinsdale Response to Objections <br /> 12 July 2022 <br /> (7) Claim: Texers not good neighbors because they knew what outcry there was for Toner <br /> Ranch Pit The denial of the County permit for Cynthia Toner's improvement work, to build <br /> ponds for her ranch while providing material to the community and making the work <br /> possible (funding it), is one of the reasons the Texers decided to try and develop this <br /> project. Their initial inquiries of various persons in the South End indicated that while there <br /> would be opposition, it would be less than for Cynthia's project. They and many other <br /> people in the South End need affordable construction materials, which were denied them <br /> by the permit application denial in 2021. We believe this sort of ad hominem attack on the <br /> Texers has no place in civil society. <br /> (8) Claim: Purpose of this type of operation is only to make money for owners, not provide <br /> any benefits to residents As with claim (7) above, we believe this allegation to be rude <br /> and untrue, and this should have no place in this discussion. As discussed throughout the <br /> permit application and these responses, the proposed pit will provide many significant <br /> benefits to all the residents (year-round and seasonal) and visitors/tourists in the South <br /> End, as well as benefits to landowners, including ranchers and residents in the nearer <br /> areas of Archuleta County, and benefit taxpayers who support the various government <br /> agencies who need this material. <br /> (9) Claim: Proposal does not align with the intent and spirit of the Upper Piedra <br /> Comprehensive Plan. Please see the discussion in Section 5.1. <br /> Objections: <br /> (1) Objection: socio-economic impacts -degrade quality of life and "solitude" See Section <br /> 5.1 and Section 5.9 <br /> (2) Objection: roads—degrade roads See Section 5.3 <br /> (3) Objection: visual impact of pit and traffic See Section 5.4.1 <br /> (4) Objection: noise — "four-year nightmare" — rock crusher noise will degrade quality of <br /> life See Section 5.7 <br /> (5) Objection: traffic — Piedra Road already busy during the months pit operations See <br /> Section 5.3 <br /> (6) Objection: road conditions See Section 5.3 <br /> (7) Objection: air quality— road dust See Section 5.3 <br /> (8) Objection: trucks will crowd the roadway and cause a dangerous situation (narrow <br /> lanes): Piedra Road cannot sustain this increase in traffic See Section 5.3 <br /> (9)Objection: location/water quality—near Piedra River, uphill, wastewater generated See <br /> Section 5.2. The only potential generation of"wastewater"would be water used to wash <br /> gravel-if that is even done. This water would be contained on-site and not discharged. <br /> (10) Objection: stability of containment — will eventually end up in the river See Section <br /> 5.2. All sediment basins are proposed to be dug in, and NOT constructed by construction <br /> of dams, berms, or containment structures. If fuel is stored on-site, even for short periods <br /> (other than on vehicles), secondary containment would be provided to comply with <br /> regulations by using double-walled tanks, and not by earthen or concrete containment. <br /> (11) Objection: Pit is "incompatible commercial operation" See Section 5.1 <br /> 5182-22-003 WASTELINE, INC. Page 39 of 107 <br />