Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />i <br />~~~ III Illillllllllllll RECEivED <br />MAR 1 5 1991 <br />flAined Land <br />Gr-,F'.F 1 EL. n c L T I Z ENS fit-L 1 Ar~r_EReclamation Division <br />hE`;F'CtNSE, TCl G!-1RFIFLi:i L:OIII`dT`r 1='LAI••Ih1ER"r~ F'DSITOYJ C)I`d STS=iTi-iS <br />OF EA"T t31 ^E COAL " ~ F'ERI°i I T <br />The Garfield Citizens Alliance SLlppprt5 Garfield <br />County F'la.nner Mar4:. Evan'=, position as stated in h:is lr_~t~l'er <br />ofi Mar clr 1^, .1991 to Eat<s i..de Coal's attorne=y regarding tYiEi <br />status of f_:astside"s permit. The GCA has previou=;ly tak.en <br />the pr!_;i ton that Eastside Coal must begin to seek: a CoL!n {'_y <br />permit and vde believe t1~a~l- ±he count.y planner's decisior~ <br />will. '~~ir~thrar ~kha't p~'~e7r-Fr~E._=. It is our hope 'thdt Eastside r_;,s,.l. <br />now :aiJ.l 1_~egin tc bring :i.~ts mine into full. compl.ianc~ eairP~~ <br />botY~~ 6_~ar~f.icld County :?.rrri then State of Colorado specific-all•y <br />permi~t!:inq 1=tie mine with the cour~ty and re~.~.ising its si._~itri <br />permit Lo reflect. the lravr=7. of produrt~.nn and use ~.t <br />recei`:e, in the- cqurrty perm.it.. <br />Although t9r. Eean d.id grant Eastside the r.igh~t <br />t^ prod~_u=e up 'to L'67 tons of coal a year as a "g ranfa'ther'ed•' <br />use we find that level of production to be of an <br />insignificant amount as to in essence affirm the position we <br />had e:-irlier taken. We recognize that the county planner and <br />attorney have spent considerable time and er`fort in arriving <br />at tho county position and vde appreciate 'the depth and <br />clarity of the document, 4Je as an organization hope and <br />believe that this signals a new effort nn the part of our <br />county government to focus its efforts on the implementation <br />of our county land use code. <br />Eastside Coal"s history ^ver the past s~~e,,,,v,~~~ral <br />years hr:~.s been one of great concern and di.sappoint'i~to both <br />its se!.pporters and detactors. The pr'opPSed powerpla.nks at <br />first Har-vey bap and t4-~en near Silt drew opposition from no{_ <br />only the GCA but also many residents in the Silt. area and <br />thruout the county. iAe have been told ia;:~t many former <br />Eastside. miner.=_, still have not been paid past wages. We trope <br />that. the first step tal•:.en by Eastside is to ma{<,e good on <br />this obl.igati.on to its former employees, bJe hope that <br />Eastside will view the county planner"s decision for the <br />well t.haught-out and well documented posi.~tion that it i~ and <br />react in a positive manner and not resort 'to needless and <br />unnecessary posturing. <br />6Je restate our stance taken in our Position <br />Statement dated Feb. ;'8,1991 as regards the future of the <br />Eastside Mine. Specifically we are willing to enter into <br />ta14.:s 4J.l.th Eastside, the county and the state as to <br />permitting ofi trio mine L~Je endr.!rse a mine proposal that <br />would match the charac{_~ar of the surrounding neighborhood. <br />We 6el.ieve that a mine wiih a production capacity of 1V,000 <br />tons per year or 50 % yr-eater than has e•.~er been mined at <br />tl-!e c.~stside property would be compatible. with the <br />sLU'rnunding area with the proper permit requirements, We <br />offer- th~iis proposal .in riood faith and intentions and it. ~_ <br />