My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV08641
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV08641
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:09:13 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:55:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977436
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
7/10/2000
Doc Name
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
From
BANKS AND GESSO LLC
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
AM1
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.
/
2
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 />• III IIIIIIIIIIIII III i <br />~~ Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.,Suite117 <br />^^ Lakewood, Colorado 80215 <br />(303)274-4277 <br />Fax (303)274-8329 <br />www. ba nksandgesso.com <br />.I~ly s, 200o RtC~;w~D <br />. ~~ ~'. 10 2000 <br />Bruce Humphries <br />Division of Minerals and Geology D+~;::° °' ti".ne~als 6 Ge•'~ ;v <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />RE: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION <br />Dear Bruce: <br />Banks and Gesso, LLC is currently processing two separate permit amendments to two <br />Gients. The first is an amendment to the CAMAS Tower Pit #1 (M77-438) and the <br />second is an amendment to the Castle Concrete Company Pikeview Quarry (need <br />permit numberJ. <br />Paul Banks mentioned to me that he had been in a meeting with you and the U.S. Forest <br />Service concerning the right to enter for the amendment to the Pikeview Quarry. Paul <br />said that he askedrf we could proceed with this amendment pending the right to enter <br />from the Forest Service. He said that your reply was that we could submit and proceed, <br />that the right to enter was not an application completeness issue but that it would be an <br />adequacy issue. <br />We now face the same exact situation with the CAMAS Tower Pit #1 Amendment. <br />Barbara Chiappone is interpreting the right to enter issue as a completeness issue. <br />Along with the amendment application we provided ir~onnation that we did have the right <br />to enter from one property owner however we have had some difficulty obtaining the <br />right to enter on the other two parcels since one landowner has been hospitalized and <br />the other should be completed shortly. We asked if we could proceed with the <br />application and that these two rights to enter be treated as an adequacy issue. <br />-r <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.