Laserfiche WebLink
d ~ <br />I <br />• <br /> <br />• <br />:. <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />day, }!okestra ac`.ivities stopped as pa•r. of the agreement <br />to the injunctiol stipulati ai to the best of our knowledne. <br />On Jury 2nd, a Notice of He~rinq was p.•~_.ted and mailed to <br />Weld County. On July 22nd, Hokestra's ,.%h1ic~.~ki:?n and the <br />County's account of the history was sui~mitted to myself. <br />I <br />'Phat's n~orc or less a brief rundo;an and summary <br />of all the events since 1973 regarding veld Cour.t•:'. <br />i <br />operations and in particular, the Hokestra P.it. <br />DR. R7CHAFtD 41P.RU: The es s. -- on M~.•, Oth, <br />'20, there was a complaint. The esserce of that complaint <br />was what? s <br />h1R. JANL'S: The essence of the complaint. was <br />their concern primarily over the eff.erts of the mining <br />operation on the flood hazard. .Appar~~tly hiyhwat:ers had <br />occurred on the adjacent land owner's property, Mr. John <br />Slovek's property, and they were concerned that t'.• minims <br />operation could be directly related to that event end were <br />concerned that -- also, they were wit]: the understanding <br />that apparently the operation was legal and when t.ey found ~ <br />out that the operation was not legal, wont about eying to <br />find some kind of assistance and their concerns were <br />primarily with regard to the effects o£ the opr•r. e~. :.ion un <br />their property, if I have stated that correctly. <br />DR. itICF1ARD WARD: On June 2nd, you ~in:i Mark <br />inspected it an-1 found it was indeed operating? <br />. ~..e._ ...~, ~ . <. , <br />