My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2006-05-17_REVISION - M1982015
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1982015
>
2006-05-17_REVISION - M1982015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 2:49:25 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:53:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1982015
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
5/17/2006
Doc Name
Emails between DMG Jodi Villa Meurer & Assoc. Inc.
From
Meurer & Associates Inc.
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
AM1
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.
/
48
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
showing our proposed and "new" proposed boundary? <br />I planned on including the public notice proof with the comment responses, <br />so it looks as if I'd better get that to you sooner. I've been waiting for <br />the "proof of publication" from the paper, but it hasn't come. I'll follow <br />up with that. <br />Thanks for your help and quick response to my questions! <br />Jodi <br />-----Original Message----- <br />From: Gonima, Deb [mailto:deb.gonima@state.co.us] <br />Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 5:28 PM <br />To: 'Jodi Villa' <br />Cc: Mount, Carl; Gonima, Deb <br />Subject: RE: Bayshore Permit <br />Jodi, <br />I reviewed the notice you attached. It looks good, so please send that <br />notice to ALL owners of record in the ALTA title search - this would include <br />the ditch owners. <br />Please clarify your question for me about the northern permit boundaries. <br />Are you talking about including ANY new area into the permit boundary? Or <br />simply reducing the acreage across the northern boundary? Please send us <br />maps comparing the following 3 areas ASAP - pre-amendment request permit <br />boundaries, originally proposed amendment permit boundaries (the boundaries <br />you first submitted to us), and now the currently proposed permit boundaries <br />(the ones you proposed in your voicemail to me), so that I can compare them <br />to see. I can't make a call until I see a map displaying all three <br />variations. <br />Also, to answer your question - no, no objectors, no public comments period. <br />You have a copy of our Rules & Regs, right? If not, let me know & I can send <br />them to you. At this point we need you to send us proof of public notice? <br />See Rule 1.6.5(2) "Within 10 working days after the last publication or as <br />soon thereafter as proof has been obtained, the Applicant shall mail proof <br />of the publication required by Rule 1.6.2(1)(d) to the Office. Proof of <br />publication may consist of either a copy of the last newspaper publication, <br />to include the date published, or a notarized statement from the paper. An <br />application may not be approved until such proof has been obtained." <br />Thanks, hope this helps. <br />-Deb <br />-----Original Message----- <br />From: Jodi Villa [mailto:JVi11a~Meurer.com] <br />Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:17 PM <br />To: Deb Gonima (E-mail) <br />Subject: Bayshore Permit <br />Deb, <br />Attached is my notificiation letter to the utility companies. Per my voice <br />mail to you, do I have to send it to ditch companies that have surface <br />rights over the property, but do not actually exist on the property? <br />So, did we have any public comments from our last notification? Today is <br />the final day. <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.