My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2003-05-14_REVISION - M1992016 (4)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1992016
>
2003-05-14_REVISION - M1992016 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:33:29 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:30:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1992016
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
5/14/2003
Doc Name
Pre-hearing Conference Meeting held 05/07/
From
June A. Mramor
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
AM2
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.
/
11
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
Mr. James Dillie - 2 - May 12, 2003 <br />bought from the Estate of Maurine Clevenger who passed away in August of 2000, <br />The land stretched almost to Hardscrabble Creek, where our property has been <br />referred to as being near. The purchaser stated "he'd like ~o see some of the land <br />added to the recreation area west of.Lake Pueblo State Park, and we assumed that <br />would be done with that property.. <br />The Chair was not interested and said one cannot believe what is in the news- <br />paper and implied it had nothing to do with our meeting. <br />I showed an article where a Retired FBI Agent and his wife were planning to <br />develop a community in the northeast portion of Pueblo West; and suggested that <br />would be an ideal project for. the area.involved instead of spoiling it by start- <br />ing a gravel mining project. That, too, had no bearing at the Hearing. <br />Since there were some homes in that area-when we checked bh`this:land some time <br />ago, the question was asked if the homes were still. there and, if not, what <br />happened to them? -There was no response. <br />The Chair gave the Floor to Mr. Mangone who: <br />1. placed a.ma"p on the wall and showed where the activity was taking <br />place and-how far down it would reach our property; <br />t2_ that the°mining~:project=was starte8'in 1.992`(so this~~may`not'be-the <br />same property as described in the newspaper clipping.j'-Mr`,"°Billy'~ <br />Peetz purchased the property in April, 2001. <br />- 3. Stated':the gravel ^.^,IiRing"eper~fion mey"last oiiTy"1O~years"; <br />4. stated a cement plant mpy!~be~aonsidered'Rn'ahe"fu~tnre°so,iTf-.arid~ivhen <br />a cement plant is started,.it also may pollute the air with toxins. <br />5. stated they would rehabilitate the land after the mining operation <br />ceased. <br />No reference was made to the DEFINITIONS mentioned in your Packet; however, comments <br />on this subject are mentiohed in my Summary on Page 4. <br />CANON CITY PLANNING & ZONING: <br />1. You stated that-Canon City Planning & Zoning returned my mail because <br />it should have been addressed to Fremont County Planning & Zoning. <br />2. lbu then .questioned me that if I received mail that was addressed to <br />someone else;_wou]d I open it. Naturally I would not if it was addressed <br />to someone else and not me. <br />3. TKe letter-was correctly addressed to Canon City Planning & Zoning and <br />they should have opened it. <br />4. Why would they state it should have been sent to Fremont County Planning <br />&'Zoning when they did not know the contents of the letter? It is <br />possible it could have contained information regarding the City. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.