Laserfiche WebLink
• Ms. Gaston has also questioned the availability of water for the site. This question has been <br />answered as stated above. <br />• The amount of topsoil required to reclaim the existing disturbed area was questioned by Ms. <br />Gaston. This issue has been explained in previous text. <br />5. Gladys S. Bennett -Norwood, Colorado (April 4, 1996) <br />• Many of Ms. Bennett's concerns are within the realm of local government. She has stated that, <br />as she understands it, there will be no reclamation to be considered with this operation. The <br />applicant has submitted detailed information regazding reclamation in the original application <br />package, and in this response submittal. <br />6. John Baldus -Montrose, Colorado (May /S, /996) <br />Mr Baldus has objected to the required amount of set back, primarily for environmental <br />reasons, such as health, safety, and welfare. United believes that the limits of disturbance, as <br />detailed in the Mining Plan, are adequate. <br />He has also stated that reclamation should be completed in each phase before another phase <br />is begun. United believes that the Reclamation Plan that was originally submitted and the <br />clarifications that are presented in the response to the Division's adequacy concerns regarding <br />reclamation are adequate to satisfy Mr. Baldus' concerns <br />Stephetr B. Johnson -Telluride, Colorado (July 3, 1996) <br />Abby Altshuler -Norwood, Colorado <br />Mr. Johnson has brought into question the issue regarding county permits. Although this is not <br />an issue within the authority of the Division of Minerals and Geology, it is relevant to the <br />degree that Exhibit M requires the listing of all other permits and licenses. San Miguel does <br />not require an operating permit for this site. If the operator were to expand the scope of <br />current activity on the portion of the site that is in San Miguel County, then a Special Permit <br />would be required. An example of this is that if an asphalt plant were to be situated in that <br />azea, a permit would be required. It is not the intention of the applicant to expand the use of <br />that area beyond that which has been demonstrated to be a facility of record. <br />The Montrose County Zoning Resolution, Section N.8.6.(5), Amendment No. 20-94 provides, <br />as a use -by-right for the "mining of sand and gravel or other minerals existing at the time of <br />adoption of Zoning Amendment No. 20-94 (October 13, 1994) or subsequent exoansion of <br />existing operations within property boundaries." Consequently, no county permits are <br />required. <br />Ms. Altshuler has requested that the applicant consider the construction of a large earth berm <br />along the west boundary of Phases 1 and 5, and the northern boundary of Phase 5. To do so <br />would require a tremendous quantity of topsoil. An adequate amount of topsoil in not available <br />for this purpose. The applicant does not believe it to be necessary at this time. <br />13 <br />