My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL47811
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL47811
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:23:11 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 3:48:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1984063
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
3/15/1991
Doc Name
RESPONSE TO GARFIELD CNTY PLANNERS POSITION ON STATUS OF EASTSIDE COALS PERMIT
From
GARFIELD CITIZENS ALLIANCE
Permit Index Doc Type
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
~r <br />GARFIELD COUNTY <br />REGULATORY OFFICES AND PERSONNEL <br />March 12, 1991 <br />James S. Lochhead, Esquire <br />Leavenworth & Lochhead, P.C. <br />P. O. Drawer 2030 <br />Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 <br />Re: Eastside Coal Company - Claim for Non-conforming Use <br />Dear Mr. Lochhead: <br />pursuant to your correspondence to Mr. DeFord dated February <br />15, 1991, I have had an opportunity to review your letter of <br />1ebruary 15, 1991 concerning various claims by Eastside Coal <br />(:ompany . <br />In direct response to your request for confirmation that <br />production of 7,000 tons per year would constitute a valid pre- <br />existing nori-conforming use, I do not agree with that position for <br />the reasons set forth below. As set forth below, I agree that <br />there may exist a valid pre-existing non-conforming use for mining <br />operations riot to exceed a production level of 857 tons per year. <br />Finally, I do not agree that all usages from March 21, 1985 were <br />conducted as valid pre-existing non-conforming uses. Rather, it <br />is my position that such uses were conducted pursuant to the terms <br />of Resolution No. 85-42, a Resolution authorizing special use <br />activity on the subject property. The validity of such uses <br />terminated on the expiration of the permit authorized by that <br />Resolution. My reasoning for the foregoing positions is as <br />follows: <br />1. In regard to the claim that no special use permit was <br />issued to Eastside Coal, hence the time period for expiration has <br />not run and all uses since 1985 were lawful non-conforming uses, <br />I would note the following: <br />a. Immediately subsequent to the passage of Resolution <br />No. 85-42, the Eastside Coal Company began compliance with all <br />severe conditions of approval set forth in that Resolution. <br />b. That compliance with those provisions is evidenced <br />by the filing of the quarterly reports required by Condition No. <br />7 commencing in June of 1985 and running continuously on a <br />quarterly basis up through and including July 13, 1990. For every <br />year included therein, your company submitted four reports each <br />stating that the report was being filed pursuant to the special use <br />permit approved in Resolution No. 85-42. <br />109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 9458212(625-5571(2&5-7972 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 61601 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.