GENERAL42430 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• . a better approach, since we can only guess, is for the County to tell us what its specific concerns aze. Given that no substantive chan es are antici aced what Coun Health and Safe issues remain or are antici ated b reconsideration of the Sou u ? S cificall what assurances are re acted of the razor to abate these conce s? Carol's concluding remazks. Also, just as a reminder, condition #7 requires conswction of a paved commer ial apron at the entrance to County Road 27 on or before August 1, 1998. Please be sure t have your plans approved by County Engineering and obtain an access permit prior to con traction. This apron was constructed and approved as of 2 July 1998. We would like nfirmation from Lonnie Sheldon to this effect in writing. Lonnie has personally o erved and inspected the apron and can confirm this understanding. The copies of correspondence from the Colorado Division of Minerals and eology aze good to have. Thank-you for including them. The letter from Thomas Sc einer dated Apri12, 1998 indicated that additional bond was needed before the technical rev Sion would be final. Please advise this office regazding the status of your state permits. All bonding issues were completed with DMG and the Technical Revision, rel aced lands, and substitute acreage calculations are now in effect with that agency. We in m would like to know how Planning views the status of our state permits respective of the Special Review. When and under what terms can we implement them? Since Plannin has yet to respond to the DMG Technical Revision, our standing as to the impleme tion of it remains clouded. Dces the County have any objections to the implementation of the appr ved DMG Technical Revision? If not, please respond to that effect in writing. If concerns remain, why were they not expressed at the time the Technical Revision was der review by the DMG? Simply referring us back to the Findings and Resolution ument is inadequate given the history of this matter. The activities under the approved State permits will duectly influence th County's perception of compliance with the approved Special Review. The dearth of c mment by County Planning regazding the approved DMG Technical Revision renders th Technical Revision useless, since to implement it without acknowledgment by County P ning is a violation of the Special Review! The vagary places us in the difficult and unpleasant position of having to unravel an enigma. Essentially, we are still operating under the restrictions placed upo us by the Planning Department since October 1996! Since the communications aze for the most part so disjointed, corresponding passage of time left issues unclear, protocols vague, so as to undercut our confidence and h ighten our concern that we will be held to blame, since we are responsible for all activities at the site. The Findings and Resolution approving the Special Review, as signed by th Board of County Commissioners on 9 October 1998, presently stipulates under part l: Any changes to the operation as specified in Exhibit A or in conditions of app vat would require approval by Ilrrimer County. Exhibit A is identified as a copy of the application and subsequent information submitted by the Applicant on Apri114 and 29, /9 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Tuesday 17 November 1998 Correspondence in the matter of Special Review File 97-ZRt7961, Rocky Road Quarry, to Carol Evans, Latimer County Planning Department, from Douglas J. Bachli, ice- President, Rocky Road Investment, Inc.