Laserfiche WebLink
~_ <br />7. John T Randerson <br />Withdrew Party Status <br />2/28/00 3/1/00 <br />8. John and Irene De De <br />Parties <br />The Division received comments from <br />1. Colorado Division of Wildlife <br />II. ISSUES RAISED BY OBJECTORS: <br />5/23/00 5/25/00 <br />Below is a list of issues received during the statutory comment periods from PARTIES continuing <br />their objection to the application. Following the issues are the name(s) of the objector(s) submitting <br />them. Following the issues that the Division believes are within the jurisdiction of the Board and <br />Division are the application exhibits they apply to and a discussion of the Division's Rationale for <br />recommending approval over those objections. <br />ISSUES THE DIVISION BELIEVES ARE NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE <br />COLORADO MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD AND THE DIVISION <br />The covenants do not provide for mining on lot 14. Linda Amory <br />2. Increased gravel extraction poses a threat to safety of residents due to <br />increased [tuck traffic. Linda Amory <br />3. Property will be devalued. Linda Amory <br />4. Noise Linda Amory <br />5. Object on the basis that extended or expanded use of the gravel pit will <br />degrade the quality of life (use and enjoyment of our community). Linda Amory <br />6. It was clearly the intent of Colorado City Development Company [o <br />utilize lot 15 for a limited supply of road base, while utilizing lot 14 <br />as a buffer between lost 15 and other lots. Linda Amory <br />7. The plan was to mine only the central portion of lot 15 thus allowing the <br />gravel pit to be virtually unnoticeable. The application fora 110 permit is <br />evidence that the 40 acre parcel was never intended to be used as a fully <br />commercial gravel pit. Linda Amory <br />8. It is visible for miles around. Linda Atnory <br />9. Colorado City Metropolitan District has failed to take action to assure that <br />they are in compliance with their current permit. Linda Amory <br />