Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Exhibit N <br />1. The Commissioner will hear our case on December 30, 1985 <br />and we anticipate no problem with approval, but have no <br />objection to conditional approval by your Board. The only <br />disagreement we have with the County is we still desire to <br />have the 2H:IV to 5' above water line, then 3H:1V to 10' below <br />water level, then back to 2H:1V to [he depth of the pit. <br />This will require a Roard of Adjustment variance through the <br />County, which we will process after your Board's and the <br />County Commissioner's hearing. If denied our elopes would be <br />3H:1V to a depth of 10', then 2H:1V to the depth of the lake. <br />However since these slopes would be more restrictive, we would <br />still be in conformance with NLRB's approval of this plan. We <br />understand that conditional approval would he subject to <br />submit of the financial warranty and the Commissioner's <br />approval on December 30. <br />I believe all of the above adequately answers your concerns, if <br />not please let me know. <br />Sincerely, <br />Robert N,~e~ q <br />cc: Robert L. Siegrist, Colorado Sand and Gravel Company <br />Ann Rockenkamp, Adams County Planning Department <br />Phil Spano, Henderson Development Company <br />L15:S.LET.54..81.9A <br />