My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL41062
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL41062
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:00:10 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 11:00:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2004044
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
11/22/2004
Doc Name
Letter of Comments to Adams County
From
Mike Lloyd
To
DMG
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.
/
11
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
completed as a park, such park would benefit the residents of <br />Adams County. <br />Item 2. I would like to know what increased taxes are being <br />referred to in this statement. The damage to public highways, the <br />environment and to residents will far outweigh any taxes derived <br />from the property. I totally disagree that this proposed project will <br />have negligible impacts on the area. The project has the potential <br />of having devastating impacts on property values, the appearance <br />of the area, nature habitat, water and on and on unless the County <br />imposes restrictions on AI that will prevent this from happening. <br />Item 4. I also totally disagree with AI's statement that the request <br />would not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of <br />adjacent properties or residents in the area. I think they have <br />proven otherwise at the Tucson Pit. <br />17.Summary paragraph <br />In short, I do believe the mining plan as presented will allow for <br />the complete extraction of available sand and gravel and I also <br />believe that it will benefit AI. However, I do not believe the plan <br />as presented will be beneficial to the residents of Adams County <br />and will especially be detrimental to the Adams County residents in <br />the area of the proposed operation. <br />City of Aurora - A representative of the City of Aurora was present at the initial <br />public meeting AI conducted to present the community with the mining plan <br />being submitted to DMG. Since that meeting, I have not heard any comments <br />being made by or about the City of Aurora. Because Aurora is the purchaser of <br />the water storage resulting from the reclamation of the proposed mining area, I <br />believe it would be incumbent on the County staff to be in contact with <br />representatives of the City of Aurora in order to fully understand any positions <br />they may have with regard to this proposed mining operation or the ultimate <br />water storage they will be purchasing. <br />I acknowledge the need for the materials to be produced by the proposed <br />Tucson South operation and I am not so naive as to believe that a sand and <br />gravel mine will not be on my doorstep. However, when private industry wants <br />to mine for profit, I believe they should be required to benefit (and definitely not <br />harm) the county's citizens and their property. This project has the potential to <br />provide great benefits to Adams County residents and to our neighborhood if the <br />County requires it to be done right and done in 5 to 8 years rather than 17 or <br />more years. At least as one of the individuals that will be required to put up with <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.