My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE33603
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE33603
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:43:59 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 1:50:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1994113
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
7/18/1996
Doc Name
REASON TO BELIEVE LETTER PATHFINDER PIT PN M-94-113
From
DMG
To
PATHFINDER DEVELOPMENT INC
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.
/
3
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
~ M <br />plant operations, the ssociation requests that the MLRB conduct a review f the Permit and require <br />the applicant to corr ct the deficiencies in the initial application d to obtain appropriate <br />amendments to the Pe it before any expansion of activities not expre sly authorized in the initial <br />Permit is allowed. <br />Please direct your response this letter to Mr. Andy Spodek, Pre dent, San Bernardo Homeowners <br />Association, Inc., Box 2704, Telluride, CO 81435, with a cop to my office. <br />Very truly yours, <br />BENDELOW & DARLING, P.C. <br />'~~~%~ <br />Stephen B. Johns <br />c: Andy Spodek <br />Matt Allen <br />Scott Smith, Pathfinder Development, <br />Charlie Knox <br />P.S. I have been advised that the applican re en <br />for :m asphalt batch plant at the site. Co ty I< <br />about this operation for the first time hen r <br />activities. Does your office not routin y inquire <br />whether local permits are required fo the activit <br />for the initial application? If not, by not? WI <br />Division with regard to the necess' y of local pet <br />obtained a "Technical Revision" to the Permit <br />ing Director Charlie Knox appazently teamed <br />wing monthly summaries of Division permit <br />the applicant, or local planning officials, as to <br />proposed for a Technical Revision, as it does <br />if anything did the applicant represent to the <br />[~ in relation to the Technical Revision? <br />Why does your office not feel ' necessary to require new notice and Permit amendment for an <br />asphalt batch plant at this site, articularly when numer s inquiries have been made to you about <br />the operation from local resid t and Association Director art Allen and from my office, and when <br />the application is at direct v 'ance with statements in the o 'ginal application that any future batch <br />plant would be "off-site"? The approval by your office of asphalt batch plant as anon-noticed <br />Tec}utical Revision, co ry to applicant's own representa 'ons in the original application, and <br />without any opportunit for prior public cotnment, is nothing ess than outrageous. <br />I am informed by S Miguel County Planning Director Charlie ox that the applicant's President <br />Scott Smith has b n verbally advised by Mr. Knox to obtain a nnty Special Use Permit before <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.