REV90267 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7. John T Randerson 8. John and Irene De De Withdrew Party Status Parties 2/28/00 5/23/00 3/ t /00 The Division received comments from 1. Colorado Division of Wildlife II. ISSUES RAISED BY OBJECTORS: 5/25/00 Below is a list of issues received during the statutory comment periods from PARTIES continuing their objection to the application. Following the issues are the name(s) of the objector(s) submitting them. Following the issues that the Division believes are within the jurisdiction of the Board and Division are the application exhibits they apply to and a discussion of the Division's Rationale for recommending approval over those objections. ISSUES THE DIVISION BELIEVES ARE NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COLORADO MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD AND THE DIVISION The covenants do not provide for mining on lot 14. Linda Amory 2. Increased gravel extraction poses a threat to safety of residents due to increased truck traffic. Linda Amory 3. Property will be devalued. Linda Amory 4. Noise ~ Linda Amory 5. Object on the basis that extended or expanded use of the gravel pit will degrade the quality of Life (use and enjoyment of our community). Linda Amory 6. It was clearly the intent of Colorado City Development Company to utilize lot 15 for a limited supply of road base, while utilizing lot 14 as a buffer between lost 15 and other lots. Linda Amory The plan was to mine only the central portion of lot 15 thus allowing the gravel pit to be virtually unnoticeable. The application fora 110 permit is evidence that the 40 acre parcel was never intended to be used as a fully commercial gravel pit. Linda Amory 8. 1t is visible for miles around. Linda Amory 9. Colorado City Metropolitan District has failed to take action to assure that they are in compliance with their current permit. Linda Amory