Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~~ Banks and Gesso, LLC <br />^^ <br />* iii iuiiiiiiiiii iii <br />720 Kipling St.,Suite' <br />Lakewood. Colorado <br />(303) 274-4277 <br />Fax (303)274-8329 <br />www. ban ksandgesso.com <br />July 5, 2000 <br />Bruce Humphries <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />RE: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION <br />M-c~Z r- zr ~ <br />Dear Bruce: <br />`~Gl,l ~~~GF <br />~~, ° O <br />~n_~ <br />Banks and Gesso, LLC is currently processing two separate permit amendments to two <br />clients. The first is an amendment o-the_C~S Tower Pit #1 (M77-438) and the <br />second is an amendment to th Castle Concrete Co p rTy i eview uarry~(nees// <br />permit number). <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 Quany. Paul <br />said that he asked if we could proceed with this amendment pending the right to enter <br />from the Forest Service. He said that your reply was That we cau{d subrtiil 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 infomtation 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 />