GENERAL42430 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• We do not understand the dates indicated since our submittal to Planning, in r sponse to a finding of violation, occurred in January of 1997. Regardless, until otherwise orrected, if ow understanding of the core document as it is presently written is in any m er different from Planning's understanding of it, and we act upon our understanding, an ac usation and possible finding of a violation could result as a matter of perception, not ne essarily by fact. This concern is justified in fact. We aze uncertain as to whether the Planning D using a method of omission to gain leverage over ow operations as a means of and control. A pattern of this nature is manifest in the previous finding of vic contrasted with subsequent correspondence. Neither can the Operator i County's silence as acceptance. Quite the contrary. Since 1986, the Planning Department remained silent for over a decade, 'n spite of numerous amendments and revisions fded with the DMG, as conveyed to the County by Public Notice and by direct transmittal to Planning. Then, in the Fall of 199 ,Planning, reacting to a single complaint, disregarded all of our previous DMG re isions and corresponding notifications to the County, and caused the County Commissio ers to find ow operations in violation with our 1986 permit! Ow pleas that Jerry White of the Planning Department had received all relevant nformation in 1990! but never replied to them, were considered moot by Planning and the County attorney by October 1996. We assumed we were OK with the County over th a previous ten years because Planning never replied to any DMG amendment or revisio or related communication concerning the quarry. To this date, we find the County's actions of October 1996 errant, inappr priate, and injurious. We do not believe due process was followed. Planning acted nits own understanding. Planning: 1. ignored any co-responsibility for communication over the previous d de and its attending effect on ow perceptions of compliance; 2. ignored Colorado law respective of the authority of the Division of erals and Geology, to oversee and regulate issues not within the jurisdiction of the Coun ; 3. enforced an ancient document that even one inspection by Planning i ten years would have revealed had changed; and, 4. did not fully advise me as to my rights, including my rights to attorney. Subsequently, my quarry was said to be `found' to be in violation. Fearing at fighting the determination could prove more devastating, we voluntarily obliged, but at nsiderable loss. Threatened with termination, we were forced to severely curtail our tivities and consequently lay off lazge portions of ow work force. Ow ability to supply d meet our contract obligations began to fail. The loss of revenue continues to the present ay. The County absolutely disregarded that status of ow operations with the State f Colorado in its action against our quarry, and now it's following the same pattern of o ~ssion, and we simply cannot suffer it! In light of the objections to this conduct by this erator, it is difficult to perceive that the continuation of this conduct on the part of PI ning is an oversight. 6 Tuesday 17 November 1998 Correspondence in the matter of Specia] Review File 97-ZR096 ,Rocky Road Quarry, to Carol Evans, L.arimer County Planning Department, from Douglas J. Bac li, Vice- President, Rocky Road investment, Inc.