Laserfiche WebLink
South Hinsdale Response to Objections <br /> 12 July 2022 <br /> (3) Claim: a lumber yard in Pagosa Springs wants to "cut costs" by having a local pit. As <br /> far as we know, none of the people associated with the South Hinsdale Gravel Pit have <br /> any connection with any lumberyard or other construction materials business in Archuleta. <br /> Hinsdale, or La Plata Counties. We do wish to point out that lower procurement costs <br /> generally result in lower prices paid by consumers for essential products. <br /> (4) Claim: other pits have been rejected because of impacts on residential areas (Two <br /> Rivers Pit, Oakbrush Hill) <br /> Response: Again, this project is unrelated to those, except that the failure of those two <br /> projects has resulted in both shortages and raised costs of materials needed by Pagosa <br /> Spring and surrounding areas and Hinsdale County South End. The Oakbrush Hill project <br /> was not "rejected"but was withdrawn because the landowner believed he was forced to <br /> sell the property to protect his family. The Two Rivers project was in a rural area and other <br /> than the landowners, the only "residence"within about a mile was a palatial compound on <br /> more than 1200 acres, intentionally built just a few hundred feet from the Constants' <br /> property. The Constants believed this to be done to intimidate them into selling their small <br /> ranch. The South Hinsdale Gravel Pit is not located in a residential area, and while some <br /> routes used to deliver materials from it will go past residential areas, the route (Piedra <br /> Road) is a primary route (collector or arterial) and has commercial traffic. <br /> Objections: <br /> (1) Objection: traffic/roads — gravel moved down Piedra Road and North Pagosa <br /> Boulevard See Section 5.3. There is NO plan to have any truck traffic on North Pagosa <br /> Boulevard unless material is being delivered to a location ONLY accessible by that street. <br /> (2) Objection: location — atrocity of destroying one of the most beautiful and beloved ... <br /> areas General, nonspecific based on an unsubstantiated claim. See Sections 5.4 and 5.5. <br /> and 5.11.3 <br /> (3) Objection: road conditions—overstressing two roads in Archuleta County already with <br /> heavy truck and trailer traffic See Section 5.1 and response in item (1) <br /> (4) Objection: property values —want to protect them See Section 5.9 <br /> (5) Objection: economic— impact on vacationers (tourists) See Section 5.9 <br /> (1) Threat: community will "ensure they are run out of business" We believe this is uncivil. <br /> rude, and can be viewed as a credible threat to the Texers, given today's political-social <br /> climate and the treatment of the landowners of the Dutton Ranch earlier in 2022. <br /> 3.18 Danyelle M Leentjes <br /> List of one (1) suggestion, two (2) claims, and six (6) objections. <br /> Suggestions: <br /> (1) Suggestion: "... protecting our open spaces, recreational areas, and quality of life in <br /> the San Juans should be of the highest interest for all."Agreed, and a key part of protecting <br /> those spaces and allowing their enjoyment is good access, which requires affordable <br /> materials. This proposed operation is a part of that. <br /> 5182-22-003 WAST£LINE, INC. Page 44 of 107 <br />