2003-05-14_REVISION - M1992016 (5)

Home Browse Search

SUMMARY: - 3 - ROLE OF THE OFFICE: Nb comment. ROLE OF THE APPLICANT: No comment. THE ROLE OF THE CITIZEN: 1. Any person that submits a written statement supporting or objecting the application, etc. becomes involved. in the process. a. Letters of objection were written on April 28, 2003 to .Division of Minerals and Geology.; and on .April 12, 2003 to Mr. James Dillie, the .Environmental Specialist. 6. Again it is noted the Board does not make land use decisions and this is understood. c. It is stated, "It is also helpful,. when you can, provide the Board with possible solutions.or suggestions as to how the application may be conditioned to solve or mitigate your concern. However, it must be within the Board's Jurisdiction:" SUGGESTION: l.. It would be a.good idea'if.Rocky Mountain would find another location for their'mining.operation-which would be nearer their .company in Colorado,.Sp.rings. 2. .There is'a lOt of SlApBnt;'.jrouAd:~iD_easter"o'Coldrado:°Springs.where, I feel sure, there is .plenty of.gravei.tb..mine and where the distance is not so far and which would be more :feasible for them .to operate since. it would be.nearer their company., 3. We cannot understand why Rocky Mountain`wbuld want to operate a mining project in an area .so ,far from. their company: 4: .Is there a possibility hat this ma.tter~may..have.been.checked into and, perhaps, the City of.Colorado-Springs may bade rejected a permit as they may not .want .the. pollution:.a~mining operation would create? Do yo,u".think it is fair to pollute the air in .Canon City and Florence when a company has its business in CoJorado.Springs7 THE ROLE OF OTHER AGENCIES: It was stated that when an application i. s. received; and considered .filed, the Office sends a notice of. the filing of.an.appli.cat,ion:to various local, state and federal agencies. Inc.luded:in those mentioned were the County Commissioners and Planning and .Zoning Departments. COMMENT: Since a. notice of filing an application was sent•to Planning and Zoning De- partments, is it safe to.assume:.they were aware-that this mining operation would produce po,lluti.on and toxins?: If so, should-not the~re3idents of: Canon City and Florence been notified that a LIFE 6F MINE operat.on;:was'being:considered:in.that area; and were they made aware of an ensuing dangers^t hat may .be immtneht~'fcom`that'aype:ofoperd= tio.n possibly creating pollution which would have .an affect on their health? Copy of my .March 28.letter.was..sent,,to-Canon City Planning & Zoning which, as stated, they signed the return receipt and then refused to accept the mail. by returning it: Is it not their responsibility to be concerned about such matters and, perhaps, accepted my letter and considered the objections and concerns contained therein? A copy was also.sent to Florence .Planning & Zoning who also accepted the mail 6y signing the return receipt: To date, I have heard nothing from them. THE 112 RECLAMATION PERMIT PROCESS: No comment, PAGES 50 through 57 PERTAINED. TO CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS RULE.