Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />January 28, 1999 <br />Highway 85. It also avoids Nome, 132ntl, and 124'" (the areas you suggested where <br />problems exist). <br />Adams County Planning and UDFCD are enthusiastic about working with CAMAS -Cooley <br />in order to straighten out a somewhat historical problem. We have also had preliminary <br />discussions with Scott Carlson and there seems to be no major obstades pending some <br />further negotiations concerning the easement. <br />As you ran see, the majority of the property involved is in unincorporated Adams County with <br />the lone parcel being in Brighton. We needed to contact you regarding this 10 acres and <br />your thoughts concerning how it fds with the Cooley preliminary plans and with Brighton plans <br />and concerns. We could possible avoid the 10 acre parcel, place the plant on the <br />southeasterly triangular parcel, and ship out East 136"'thereby avoiding problems with <br />Brighton however, this is not as satisfactory a solution for all of the property concerned. <br />Please take a look at this and give me your thoughts as soon as possible. <br />If CAMAS- Cooley go forward with the acquisition, they would immediately begin the re- <br />permitting process and would look forward to working with you and the other permit agencies. <br />Sincerely, <br />Paul G. Gesso <br />• Page 2 <br />