Laserfiche WebLink
<br />It is obvious that neither the Board of Commissioners or the Planning <br />Commission has considered all the statutes applicable to this project. <br />It is any belief that the promise of United Companies to build a short <br />stretch bike path and eventually make available an excavated area for <br />reclamation, has influenced county administration to whitewash <br />regulations. <br />The Mesa County Land Development Code was evidently created to better <br />serve and control the county; the code content compiled after years of <br />experienced need and application. But what good does it serve if the <br />administrative bodies in control elect to disregard or ignore the <br />legislative content? <br />For example: When initially approaching Jacklynn Gould, staff engineer <br />in charge of flood plain permits, she advised that the application had <br />not been received, however "as soon as I get it, I will approve it." <br />Nothing about review or investigation or compliance with Mesa County <br />Land Development Code rules regarding flood plain permits. On a second <br />contact, when inquiry was made about an appeal hearing, there were no <br />predesignated board or administrator. <br />For example: United Companies promise to pave, create pedestrian <br />shoulder and maintain 30 Road before the end of the 1989 construction <br />season. In the file, C-89-29, a one line inter office memo from the <br />County Road Dept., that 30 Road was inspected, and met the Board of <br />Commissioners directive in this regard. To this date, one short area <br />has received asphalt, which in fact was overlaid on a section of <br />pavement which was not damaged. In the meantime haulage has continued <br />from Golden Pond, further deteriorating the road from that egress point <br />to D Road. <br />'fhe Board of Commissioners have seemed to disregard a large segment of <br />residents who will be directly affected by this project because there <br />are only 5 adjacent residences, even though a petition in the immediate <br />~n ci~_ es-ulted in 3v diccon~to the project, and represents~oTly a <br />'sma por ion of residents that wi e e ec ed by the project. <br />lfhe Board of Commissioners recently denied a conditional use permit for <br />expansion for a gravel pit near 31 and C Road at the request of reported <br />100 dissenting residents. Personal inspection of that area revealed no <br />immediate adjacent residents, and definitely not 200 within an - 2 mile <br />radius. Board of Commissioners comments regarding the 30 Road project <br />Mres that the recommended industrial advance of such projects to the <br />benefit of the county as a whole, and, as one member stated "The <br />importance of the development of "Precious minerals" to that end. Why <br />the denial of an isolated project to one in the midst of a residential <br />z,nd agricultural community. <br />United Companies presently have seven pits from which to draw. Their <br />preference of course would be develop a pit which allows them a shorter <br />haulage route. <br />