PERMFILE57379

• Permit No: M2005012
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 6/8/2005
• Doc Name: MEMO FROM BOB THOMAS
• From: Bob Thomas
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~.
,_ .
Law Offices of Cashen, Cheney and Thomas
400 So. 3rd St., P.O. Box 387
Montrose, CO. 81402
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
MEMO FROM BOB THOMAS
DATE: June 7, 2005
TO: Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
ALSO FAXED TO RUSS MEANS AT 241-1516
SUBJECT: Gray Pit No. 2, 112 Permit Application (Montrose County)
Your file number M 2005-012
ALSO Reference Your file number M-2004-019'
Dear Mr. Means:
JUN 0 8 ZCG~
nivision of Mircrxl5 G EeulopV
As you know, our firm represents Lazy A Corporation. We had previously filed an objection to
the 2004 filing for Gray Pit No. 2, which is referenced above as your case number M-2004-019.
This prior objection was filed because of the fact that we believed that Mr. Gray, the applicant
herein, does not have legal commercial access at the access point as proposed in M-2004-019.
Said access, we believe, crossed my client's property and thus required appropriate easements or
a court decree allowing for such uses at such location. While I understand M-2004-019 has been
withdrawn or otherwise is no longer in effect, a legal proceeding is still pending regarding the
access which had been proposed for such application, said case being Montrose District Court
case number 2004 CV 95.'
While the current application in M 2005-012 appears to indicate Mr. Gray's intent to use a
completely different access point, one which comes from the other side of Mr. Gray's property off
Miguel Road and which therefore would not seem to involve any of the contested points of access
along Kinikin Road , my client still wishes to register his objection and to be given notice of all
further proceedings in this matter. It is my client's belief that given the length of road and grade
that is necessary to bring the current proposed road from Miguel Road to the point of mining, and
given the specifications and/or safety factors necessary to safely serve the type of traffic
anticipated to use such road, my client's concern is that Mr. Gray has no real intent to build such
' I note, parenthetically, that in yet a prior application for Gray Pit No. 2, which was earlier than
the 2004 application, Mr. Gray proposed yet another access point on Kinikin Road. This location became
the subject of litigation, Montrose County District Court Case No. 2002 CV 03, involving Mr. Gray and
Lazy A Corporation. In that case, Judge Patrick entered an order enjoining Mr. Gray from using said
access point. Tliis case was appealed and there is yet a final order, so it is possible that some modifications
to the order may be made, but none that we think will change the overall result.