My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE53498
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
600000
>
PERMFILE53498
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:56:55 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 3:47:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1996049
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
10/11/1996
Doc Name
ADEQUACY RESPONSE FOR MARYLAND CREEK RANCH PN M-96-049
From
TUTTLE APPLEGATE INC
To
DMG
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.
/
8
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
<br />Ms. Christina Kamnikaz <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />October ] 0, 1996 <br />Page 5 <br />Designated End Land Use <br />The applicant, being both the landowner and the operator, has determined that rangeland is the <br />appropriated end land use category. The permitted azea will always remain integrated with the <br />remaining 800 acres in the ranch operation. <br />Written Objectors <br />On October 2, 1996 we attended an informal conference with the written objectors. At that meeting Mr. <br />Bruce Htunphries indicated what objection topics could be considered by the Mined Land Reclamation <br />Boazd. In this adequacy response we will address those topics. <br />1) Ms. Gertrude Young withdrew her objection. <br />2) Mr. Robert Wyler raised the following pertinent topics: <br />a) Sloping of the lake at 3:1 and 2:1 is standazd grading procedure absent any unusual soil <br />conditions which is not the case at this site. <br />b) The financial warranty will be revised by [he applicant to include wetland construction <br />costs. Enclosed is a revised Exhibit L. <br />c) Our information regarding the stormwater detention time and ponds, is included in this <br />letter. <br />3) Summit County has raised the following topics: <br />a) Finish grades of 3:1 and 2:1 have been addressed above. <br />b) The applicant has included the wetland construction costs in the revised Exhibit L. <br />c) The costs of installing tree/shrub clusters in the maximum disturbed area will be included <br />in the financial warranty estimate. <br />We hope the above responses answer all the adequacy issues in your letter. <br />Cordially, <br />TUTTLE APPLEGATE, INC. <br />~;~ .~ T~~ <br />Gary Tuttle <br />GJT/cr <br />Encs. <br />cc: Denny Staebell, L. G. Everist, Inc. <br />Summit County Clerk, Certified Mail <br />c:\wp\96137\adeq.res <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.