2003-04-14_REVISION - M1992016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,- `• r ~. April 12, 2003 RECEIVED APR 1 41003 ~•~ Glvlslan of Minerals and Geolosy Mr. James Dillie ~ ~ Environmental Protection Specialist ~" ,~ 1313sShermanMStreets Room 215y /^ /°~ ~/© (~, pv~ Denver, Colorado 80203 ~~,~..'v~ ~R ~~ Re: Rocky Mountain Materials & Asphalt Inc. ~~j~Q`~ Life of the Mine Permit Dear Mr. Dillie: Thank you for your l.etter_of April 1., and the Information Packet, which was post- marked April 5 and which we received April 8. We realize your Board's Jurisdiction does not include land use decisions; however, after I received the Public Notice from Rocky Mountain, I called the Fremont County Clerk & Recorder's Office for more information. I was told I could obtain more information from them and to call Canon City Planning & Zoning, which I did. Since it was stated in the Public Notice that comments must be sent to you in writing by a certain time, I wrote to your office. I did not think it was necessary to write a separate letter to Canon City Planning & Zoning as it would be a repeat of the concerns and objections in letter to you, so I sent them a copy of same. The copy was sent to them on March 28, 2003. They accepted the mail by signing the Return Receipt on March 31; however, after it was accepted, they then refused it and returned the mail (unopened) to me. See copies enclosed. As a Public Servant, would it beyethical for a Zoning Department to refuse any type of mail not knowing what it contained? It might be important or it may not be im- portant; but it seems reasonable to assume that any mail written to them should be opened. Surely, one would wonder why was it refused? Is it possible they might have known that the letter contained objections and concerns regarding Rocky Mount- ain's intent of starting a mining project; and is it possible someone did not want any problem that might arise to stop the issuance of a permit as, if there were objections, it might delay the issuance of a permit? I did call them, as mentioned above, so they may have been aware of my concerns. By their ac•t of not accepting this mail and ,. therefore, not noting and considering our objections, we feel we were ignored and discriminated against. In your letter, you questioned whether or not our land was within 200 feet of the proposed affected land area. Apparently it is, as Rocky Mountain states in their letter that "as an owner of property that adjoins our property", etc. Adjoining their property means that our property is next to or borders upon, so this does affect us and we are concerned about having a mining operation next door to our property. In my March 28 letter to you, I mentioned an article in the April 26, 2001 issue of the Pueblo Chieftain and am enclosing a copy of it. We believe it is possible that our property is somewhere in that Tocation.