Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />would not have created a negative or deleterious impairment to the <br />same Conditions. <br />of <br />We believe the failure of Planning to make distinctions with and acknowled ent of the <br />DMG Permit and Technical Revision, coupled with the desire of Planning to engage the <br />authority of other agencies, must be confronted. We believe it forces individual within the <br />County to function outside of their authority, and quite possibly beyond they airing and <br />ability. We believe it is fundamentally the cause of errant County actions. ctions that <br />have impaired and injured us fmancially. <br />Frankly, the matter fills us with dread that the County has applied itself in 's manner <br />against us. For us, it is a misapplication of governmental power. If it were of so, why <br />has the County so aggressively assaulted our vital interests when less intro ive actions <br />would have equally cured the matters at hand? <br />We feel compelled to seek relief from the County without further delay. A onflict will <br />inevitably surface if the issue is ignored. We have no choice but to engage it ow before <br />the issue becomes more entangled and difficult to unravel with the passage of ti e. <br />If you have any questions regazding this, please contact me at 970/498-7688. <br />Since 1986, we can identify three attributes in the manner and method in whi h Planning <br />conducts its affairs that have contributed to our past and ongoing swggles: <br />1. Planning has no established system of acknowledging and providing necessary <br />proofs for receipt of information required, or submitted. <br />2. Planning has no established system of replying to correspondence wit 'n statutory <br />or other well defined time frames. <br />3. Planning lacks any well defined Rules and Regulations concerning o rations of <br />this nature that distinguish its roles and responsibilities from other governing b ies. <br />For example: The State DMG date stamps and files all papers received. Corr spondence <br />and permit applications are replied to within statutory or other well defined tim frames, or <br />else the operator's correspondence or permit application is automatically trmed or <br />approved. Planning would improve its role and avoid a great and unnecessary order if it <br />would imitate the state's protocols relative to Planning's own umbrella of respo sibility. <br />We earnestly desire a sound and cooperative relationship with all of our regula <br />partners. Our reply is intended to assert, not to offend. If or where we are err nt, we <br />respond in a responsible and cordial manner. We only ask the same from ur Cot <br />government. With reasoned oversight, the quarry will continue to produce dive se bent <br />to the people of Larimer County and Colorado. <br />Our continued commitment to conservation is advanced by this sophistic red pe: <br />initiative. We believe it has no equal within Larimer County. A shared under tandin€ <br />all concerned will better serve to manifest its diverse benefits. To that end, if we can <br />the Board, Planning, or Engineering with their understanding of the distinct IemenC <br />this operation and its respective permits, we are more than willing to d so, t <br />individually, and in cooperation with the Colorado Division of Minerals and Ge logy. <br />9 <br />Tuesday 17 November 1998 Correspondence in the matter of Special Review File 97-ZR0961 Rocky <br />Road Quarry, [o Cazol Evans, Larimer County Planning Department, from Douglas J. Bachli, ice- <br />President, Rocky Road investment, Inc. <br />