My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352 (11)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1978352
>
_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352 (11)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2022 2:33:32 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:04:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1978352
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Name
AFFIDAVIT OF MARK A HEIFNER 79-CV-1633
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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
5. On November 22 , 1978 , Nottingham Sand and <br /> Gravel Company submitted an extraction and development <br /> permit application for their Eagle Pit operation near Avon, <br /> Colorado. <br /> 6. I was assigned to review and evaluate the per- <br /> mit application, copies of which were available for public <br /> inspection .at the Division .offices. <br /> 7. During the course of my review of the appli- <br /> cation I had numerous contacts with representatives of <br /> Nottingham Sand and Gravel Company and was informed by them <br /> that the required newspaper notice of the application, as <br /> well as notice by certified mail to adjacent landowners, had <br /> been effected. <br /> 8 . On approximately February 20, 1979 , shortly <br /> before the close of the comment period on the Nottingham <br /> Sand and Gravel permit application, the Division received a <br /> letter from Mr. Robert Stemwedel, an attorney who raised <br /> certain objections to the Nottingham Sand and Gravel Company <br /> application on behalf of the Eagle River 1978 Trust. A copy <br /> of Mr. Stemwedel ' s letter is attached as Exhibit "1" . This <br /> letter was the only document submitted by or on behalf of <br /> the Trust regarding the Nottingham Sand and Gravel Company <br /> application. <br /> 9. The objections in Mr. Stemwedel ' s letter were <br /> vague and lacking in . specificity. In an effort to further <br /> investigate and quantify the objections, I contacted Mr. <br /> Stemwedel by telephone and asked him to elaborate on the <br /> objections. Mr. Stemwedel was, however, unable to give me <br /> any specifics concerning the objections. <br /> 10. Mr. Stemwedel did not at any time request a <br /> hearing on the Nottingham Sand and Gravel Company applica- <br /> tion. <br /> 11. Shortly before the March 1 Board meeting in <br /> which the Nottingham Sand and Gravel Company application was <br /> -2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.