My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV03955
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV03955
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:01:57 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:13:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977393
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
7/21/1995
Doc Name
VARRA COMPANIES INC JENKINS SITE PN M-77-393 RESPONSE TO THE INFORMAL CONFERENCE OF FRIDAT 07-14-95
From
VARRA COMPANIES INC
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
TR2
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 />84 sequence of events under which the issues were exaggerated and distorted by <br />ss the City of Boulder. <br />s6 <br />s~ 1. As acknowledged by the City in its correspondence to the Office of <br />ss 21 April 1995 [page 1 -second paragraph], field conditions leading up to the <br />s9 technical revision were evident nine years ago, before the City purchased the <br />9o property from Varra. <br />91 <br />92 <br />93 <br />9a <br />95 <br />96 <br />97 <br />98 <br />99 <br />100 <br />101 <br />l02 <br />103 <br />loa <br />los <br />l06 <br />log <br />tos <br />109 <br />]lo <br />111 <br />ll2 <br />113 <br />114 <br />ll~ <br />116 <br />u~ <br />]Is <br />119 <br />lzo <br />121 <br />122 <br />Izs <br />124 <br />2. As recently as 13 August 1993, the City was on-site with the Office, <br />as evidenced in the Offices' inspection report of that date. No "Alarm," but <br />some concern expressed, along with the City's misplaced blame, concerning <br />weeds on the property. <br />3. In fact, the first communication to the Office by the Cit•/ expressing <br />"Alarm," did not occur until 25 January 1995. <br />QUESTIONS <br />IF: <br />a. the City did not object to conditions present at the site at the i:ime of <br />purchase; and <br />b. no substantial changes to the site occurred in nine years; anti <br />c. no Alarms occurred during the entire span of time from the time of <br />purchase to the correspondence of 25 January 1995: <br />(THEN: <br />What caused the City to decide it was "Alarmed," and pursue the sort of <br />action it is presently engaged in? <br />Iii Does the City have other issues with Varra concerning this site <br />iii If so, did these issues arise nine years ago, and fester; or, dicl they occ <br />close to the date of the 25 January 1995 correspondence? <br />iv Are the motives and concerns of the City, as expressed in their <br />subsequent correspondence and actions, free of bias and ill vvill <br />respective of this consideration? <br />v Is this an appropriate use of government against an individual? <br />vi Is this an appropriate expenditure of City and State resources? <br />vii Is it fair and above board to Varra or a form of harassment in ~~rhich the <br />City is utilizing another government agency to inflict discomfort? <br />Correspondence to Bruce Humphries, Colorado Ot~ice of Mined Land Reclamation, of 2l July 1995 3 <br />for Varra Companies, Inc. from Bradford Janes, Professional Forester. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.