GENERAL42430 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Therefore, it is imperative [hat if County Planning is to have authority over us, it only seems appropriate that Planning not continue to act solely upon its own unders ding, but demonstrably match our level of understanding about the technical and dyn c nature of the pemuts upon which we will be judged. It is imperative that Planning di roguish its interests and authority respective of other State and Federal agencies, regu [ions, and Since compliance is a perceived value, it is fundamental that those perception be shared, and evidenced by correspondence, since a misunderstanding will most certainly be adverse against the Operator. We aze concerned that this pairing of perceptions has yet occur. For example: Under the present interpretation of the Findings and Resolution o 9 October 1998, how could the changes, as approved by the DMG on 1 April 1998 under the included Technical Revision, and subsequent designation by DMG of Substitut Lands and Areas of Release which affect the location and extent of mining, the allocatio of the 25 acres of maximum disturbed land at any given point in time, and related issues, so directly attended to by Planning and the Board of Commissioners, and so potentially an nforceable concern for County Planning, item for item, proceed without an item for i[e comment from County Planning? The expectations of the Operator is that the County will comment specific ly to each change at the State level as to its relevance to the Special Use, and not leave ach change open to interpretation later. If State and County permits are specific and d tailed, and attending and required changes are specific and detailed, comments by Pl Wing staff should be equally clear, specific and detailed as to each identifiable item or than e. True, as Carol Evans indicates in her correspondence of 8 April 1998, local iss es must be considered separately from State regulations, but how do the changes approved y the State influence County issues, and how are those changes as approved by the Stat perceived relative to the approved Special Use? Since the Technical Revision has eady been approved by the Division, the Operator is not requesting comments to alter th t approval, but to detemvne what is required by the County relative to those changes n order to implement them over the quarry area as indicated. It should be remembered that all changes approved by the DMG by Technical Revision, and subsequent Annual Repo 'ng to the DMG to reflect on-going movement of quarry activity across the perntitted bo ndazy, are provided for as part of the approved Special Review. If there are any departures in understanding, or need for further clarification, it ould seem mutually desirable to determine them before the fact. Proving our innocence i the future will be easier if we are never accused of being guilty. Our intentions must be nderstood and confirmed by Planning so that when our intentions manifest themselves on a ground, Planning does not view them as a departure from they understanding, and b default, a violation of the Special Review. In other words, any change we make with ano er agency or pemut must be ratified or validated in some manner by Planning or the c ange is by default already a departure from the Special Review and subject to enforcement y Planning if manifested on the ground, absent of such a determination. Of course ere is an alternative. Planning could cooperate with other regulatory agencies instea of micro- managing the quarry. Planning could in fact divorce itself from the affairs within the quarry, and co tern itself with any effects outside of the quarry, except where internal activities otherwi governed by the County are not otherwise regulated by the State or Federal government. his is our Tuesday 17 November 1998 Correspondence in the matter of Special Review File 97-ZR0961 Rocky Road Quarry, to Carol Evans, Larimer County Planning Department, from Douglas J. Bachli, ice- President, Rocky Road Investment, Inc.