My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV95789
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV95789
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:20:42 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:52:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1987038
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/1/1993
Doc Name
REGULAR OPERATION 112 RECLAMATION PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
Type & Sequence
AM2
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.
/
66
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
The Conmissio~s requested information regard hours of operation and the <br />change of action by the Planning Commission regarding the scoring of this project. Mr. <br />3 Bright explained that Mr. Gosney had stated at the Planning Commission Public Hearing <br />there was no wetlands on the. site. Therefore, the Planning Commission asked Mr. Bright. <br />to re-score the. project and although Mr. Bright's score was a negative, the Planning <br />6 Commission has the right to perform their own scoring and the score they reached was a <br />+7. Commissioner Klatt noted from the docinnentation presented that it appears that in <br />the past the applicant has not always done things as promised. Mr. Bright noted that <br />9 condition number two regarding all verbal, written and graphic representation of the <br />applicant is a condition of approval. He explained the course of action the Planning <br />Department takes upon canplaints if conditions are not enforced. The final action would <br />12 negate civil action if con~laints were founded and the applicant did not comply. <br />Regarding the hours of operation, Mr. Bright stated that Sunday operations would require <br />the applicant to contact adjacent property owners with a notification. Mr. Bright also <br />15 noted that as of this date, he has not received a call up aequest other than the one <br />presented by the Friedley's. Chairman Brown discussed the Friedley's indication of a <br />conflict of interest for this project since Gosney and Sons was a supporter in Chairman <br />18 Brown's recent unsuccessful re-election campaign. Mr. Graves, County Attorney, indicated <br />that he does not believe this is a conflict of interest after he reviewed the State <br />Statute on contributions. <br />21 Camrissioner Klatt stated that tl~e call up letter brought up a number of points <br />but the answers have been given today. He does not see sufficient reason to call up this <br />project. Corrmissionec Klatt moved to affirm the reccmnwndation of approval by the <br />24 Planning Commission of Project No. 92-154 Gosney and Sons Gravel Pit Master- Plan Class <br />II subject to the above outlined conditions and deny the request for a call up. <br />27 <br />Commissioner Klatt Aye <br />Commissioner Brennan Aye <br />Commissioner Brown Aye <br />Affirmation or Call Up - Project No. 92-187 Kinoshita Class I Land Use Permit - <br />30 The applicant is Gilbert Kinoshita and the surveyor is Goff Engineering. This is a <br />request for approval of two dwelling units, consisting of amain residence with a g~iest <br />house on a 6.88 acre parcel. This project is located in Handley Subdivision, Tract A-1; <br />33 Section 24, T37N, R9W; approximately 2110 feet north from mile mark 36 on U.S. Highway <br />550. <br />Ms. Erin O'Neal present the Staff Report to the Commissioners dated December <br />36 22, 1992. (Film CRII - ) She noted that no requests for a call up have been <br />received to date. In accordance with the La Plata County Permit System, the Planning <br />Staff has reviewed this project and approved the project with the following conditions: <br />39 1. That all representations of the applicants are <br />deemed conditions of approval. <br />2. The applicant is encouraged to work with the Animas <br />42 Fire Protection District. <br />3. The applicant shall meet the requirements of the <br />County Building Department. <br />45 4. That the duration of this approval shall be for the <br />period of three years as specified by Article 69 of <br />title 24, C.R.S. as amended and as specified in <br />Decemiber 22, 1992 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.