Laserfiche WebLink
IIIIVIIIIII{IIIIIII • n,. <br />sss -- ~ ~ `~ .- - <br />L11C1 ~„ support Of <br />L ` ~j 6 <br />WILLOW BEND SANDPIT APPLICATION ~~ `_ -__ <br />La Plata County, Colorado EB 2 7 19$7 <br />Project No. 86-210 <br />Applicant, by his attorney submits the following bri f in <br />support of approval of the application for the sandpit a Willow <br />Bend in the Animas River. <br />FACTS <br />1. The application has been duly filed and processecj and <br />hearing held. On a split vote from the planning Commiss on the <br />ultimate decision lies with the commissioners. <br />2. The applicant as per his testimony has complied itii ail the <br />State Mined Land Reclamation requirements set fortis in ~ hibits A <br />and B. <br />3. Also, the planning staff's report and recommends ion <br />demonstrates that the applicant has complied with all of:er <br />provisions of the application and the rules and reguiati ns of La <br />Plata County. In addition, the Division of Wildlife as er Exhibit <br />F concurs with the granting of the application. <br />4. At the County Commission's hearing several oeopl opposed <br />the granting of the permit and their main concern was th t it would <br />devalue the value of their land. Larry Simmons submitted a <br />statement entitled an "appraisal" that claims a decision to allaw <br />the pit would devalue the adjoining land 2p°s to 30°s (Exhibit P). <br />5. Ninety-two people at the hearing (as per a headcount by one <br />Patricia Worrell) for no particular reason indicated they were <br />against the granting of the approval of the permit. <br />6. A petition was filed with the commissioners in o osition to <br />the sandpit which indicates in part that the pit was inconsistent <br />and incompatible with the character of the neighborhood nd that uo <br />to 70,000 tons of sand could be extracted each year. Th petition <br />supposedly has 300 signatures. It is unknown how many o these <br />persons actually reside in the Animas Valley. <br />7. Some people, other than the applicant and his fa,dily, <br />supported the approval of the pit. <br />8. Several letters and written statements were submitted <br />before, during and after the Commission's hearing on Feb uary 17, <br />1987 which are mostly in opposition but some (three) are for <br />approval. <br />9. Numerous photographs and a video tape are on fil showing <br />some of the various adjoining properties and uses consis ing of <br />residential, agricultural and other commercial uses incl ding other <br />sand and gravel pit operations within the valley. <br />v'`. <br />