Laserfiche WebLink
II. ISSUES RAISED BY OBJECTING PARTIES DURING THE INITIAL COMMENT <br />PERIOD: <br />Issues raised by objecting parties are listed below, along with the names of the objectors. The Division's <br />response to objection issues follows. Issues are listed under the section of the Construction Materials Rules <br />and Regulations to which they pertain. Issues that the Division believes are not within thejurisdiction of <br />the Division or Board are listed afterwards. <br />A. ISSUES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION AND BOARD <br />1. Rule 1.6.2 (11(e)(ii) -General Applicant Procedures <br />The letter from Ron Dent indicated that the City ofDurango/La Plata County (Owners of the <br />airport land) were not notified of the permit application. <br />Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) Responses <br />The questions raised by the above comment is related to Rule 1.6.2(1)(e)(ii) of the Construction <br />Materials Rules and Regulations, regarding the requirement of the applicant to mail or personally <br />serve a copy of the notice immediately after Che first publication to the Owners of Record of all <br />land surface within 200 feet of the affected lands. <br />The applicant did, in fact, send a notice to La Plata County regarding the permit application, on <br />August 9, 2005. The applicant did not notify the City of Durango at that time. The subsequent <br />notices, however, relating to the amendment to the application, were sent to La Plata County, the <br />City of Durango, and the Durango/La Plata County Airport. The application for amendment, in <br />fact, resulted in a new comment period and all of the entities notified for the original application <br />were also re-notified regarding the amendment. <br />Division Comment <br />The Division has determined that adequate notice was served to all the owners of record of land <br />surface within 200 feet of the affected lands. <br />2. Rule 6.4.5(21(b) Exhibit E -Reclamation Plan <br />The letter received from Ron Dent included an objection to the proposed reclamation plan for <br />the site. The reclamation plan proposed the development of 76 residences on the reclaimed <br />land. The letter states that the Durango-La Plata County Airport is opposed to this proposal as <br />it is not compatible with the current use of land in the vicinity and is located within the "Traffic <br />Patten Zone of the airport. <br />• In their letter, the Gundersens expressed a similar concern related to the proposed post mining <br />land use for the site. Additionally, the Gundersens objected to the proposal for high-density <br />