2003-05-14_REVISION - M1992016 (5)

Home Browse Search

REPORT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: May 2, 2003 RE: Rocky Mountain Materials & Asphalt, Inc. Application fora Regular 112 Construction Materials Operation Permit Reference is made to Mr. James' Dillie's following letters in which it is stated: . 4/DY/03 - Objection to Issuing a RECLAMATION PERMIT, Amendment Application (AM-02) Penrose Ranch"'Pit""M=19 2e 016; and 4/24/03 - Objections to an Amendment Application (AM-02) Penrose Ranch Pit, M-1992-016. Is there a difference in the permits or~~was~the RECLAMATION PERMIT noted in the 4/1/03 letter inadvertently omitted in the 4/24)03"l~tt~2r3' Following are statements in Mr ..D.illie's 4/24/03 letter and comments in answer to same. MR. DILLIE'S STATEMENTS: FIRST: The Division of Minerals &:;Geology does not regulate local land issues and has no idea what the county policy is to- wards accepting or refusing any type df mail: COMMENTS: We were aware of .this regulation; and that you.may not be familiar with county policies regarding mail; however, it is assumed that all Public Servants are responsible people and should accept all mail, The fayt that Canon City Planning & Zoning refused my mail was brought to your attention as information Cnly. If you feel you have been discriminated a- gainst I would.~uggest you contact your county officials and discuss your problem. SECOND: Yes your land does abut the south side 6f the proposed affected land boundary. This is the reason you received notice of the amendment application. The Division received necei'pt which was signed by you on Mar~b 14, 2003. THIRD: Most of the reclamation permits that are issued are "L.ife of the Mine" permits. .The term is set by Statute: C.R.S. 34-325-103(11). FOURTH: Putilic Notice was published in the Canon City Daily Record for four con, secutive weeks beginning on February 26, 2003 with final publication on March 19, 2003, The publication complied with state. requirements. This is not my problem. It is their problem for refusing my mail. AND, whatever their reason was for notee¢ceptfing-my,mail, I was refused the right to be heard by them to voice my objections - whether this is an act of discrimination or what - I do not know. How- ever,,I have no intention of further contacting them. We knew our land bordered the proposed affected land. as Rocky Mpuntain's letter stated: "As an owner of property that adjoins our property." I did.not receive an'' amendment a lication from Rocky Mountain - I rece ved a PUBLIC NOTICE for filing; an application fora permit as noted above. I do not know if there is a difference. Also, the receipt I signed should have been received by Rocky Mountain as they sent the Notice; however, you state the Division re- ceived the receipt. We object to the issuance of a "Life of the Mine" permit that could last 50 years or more; as this would UPSET any plans the family may have in the future for their land whether it is building'~homes or whatever; and we object to having this type of opera- tion fora neighbor, We do not doubt that public notice was published i,n compliance with state require- ments; however, the print on public notices is usually so small that very few people are able to read them, So, if there were no ob- jections, it is very likely this notice went unnoticed by the residents in the Canon City and Florence areas.