Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br />June 18, 1985 <br />Daniel's Pit 2 <br />C. Farrell <br />Item 2 - This map illustrates that the permit boundaries come within <br />200 feet of permanent man-made structures owned by: <br />a. Mr. John Bowman and Edward htcCormick, <br />b. Ms. Eleanore C. Honeke, <br />c. Fountain Mutual Ditch Company, <br />d. Colorado Division of Highways, and <br />e. The company concerned with the Power poles lines <br />traversing the property. <br />As per Minerals Rules and Regulation Number 1.56(5) "A permit shall not <br />be denied except for one or more of the following reasons: <br />(5) The mining operation will adversely affect the stability <br />of any significant valuable, and permanent man-made structures <br />located within two hundred feet of the affected land, except <br />where there is an agreement between the operator and the <br />persons having an interest in the structure that damage to the <br />structure is to be compensated for by the operator;". <br />Please provide a copy of the agreements reached within each of the <br />aformentioned "structure-owners" detailing: <br />1. The distance between Daniel's Sand Company affected land <br />boundary and the structure in question; and <br />2. The compensatory measures proposed by Daniel's Sand <br />Company if the structure in question is damaged. <br />Alternatively, you may submit "proof" that the proposed mining operation <br />will not adversely affect these structures. <br />Board consideration of the application will be contingent upon receipt <br />of the documented agreements or proof as described above. <br />RESPONSE: Sde wish to first point out that there is a difference <br />between our designated permit boundary and the affected land boundary. <br />We have defined the permit boundary by land ownership lines. The <br />affected land boundaries have been defined by a mining limit which <br />provides for a suitable buffer between the limit of extraction and the <br />permit boundary. In most situations either the possible affects on <br />nearby valuable man made structures have been taken into account in <br />defining the affected land boundary or in at least one instance it is as <br />it has been for many years. We also wish to point out that some of the <br />valuable structures were built through the operation after it had been <br />started and therefore it seems reasonable that the structures were built <br />in such a way that they would not be affected by the mining operation. <br />It does not seem reasonable to us that a mine operator can be held <br />responsible for damages to valuable structures built adjacent to his <br />operation after his operation has begun. Pre-existing structures, yes; <br />but if someone wants to build a valuable structure through or adjacent <br />to a mine then it seems to us that it is their responsibility to take <br />the mine into account in designing their structures. <br />