Laserfiche WebLink
01/22/2002 12;33 7195376258 DAVID DANIEL PAGE 02 <br />i <br />I <br />Jod and Marysret W ehkine <br />1x09 Matnkat Rd. <br />~ lake George, Co 80829 <br />(719)148.9683 <br />To whom it may eoae:ern, <br />I recently received an intent notice fFvm Walt Rulreck to apaad hL bonded sera and ivelnde a new <br />trailer on his mining claim, the TopsR Moaetain Gem Mine (TMGM) <br />Ae the ono landowaer adjaeeat to the (TMGM) operated by Walter and Georgia Ruheclt of <br />Colorado Sprioge, you will probably receive no older correspondence in reply to the requests <br />rabmltted by Mr. and Mts. Rubeck However, we know that many tourist aed Park County raideate <br />find the commercialism of the mine oftenaive, espeeislly the big glaringly white trailer just oft'the <br />Matukat Rd. (Nat even within the mina boundaries) <br />The new request for qet another toiler on the other ride of the road (along with the ertension of the <br />TMGM boundaries) would bt masrivety objectionahle in this pristine area of the Pike County Forest. <br />The maintenance taro around ar Walt cold it,u a tourist Scenic Overlook frequented for many yean <br />prior to Mr. Rubexks operation. The a:paaaloa of hie operation oo the other ride of Matukat Rd. <br />with the new trailer would block the view of this Scenic Orerloak totally. There are mnklpk places <br />tucked vp into the woods that his traikn could be plaet:d where they would not be roes ftom the <br />road. Thin County Rd. 2l1(Matakat Road) eontlnua to pecken, apptormstety 2S mils, and <br />aenrhere enroute ie there another each "Eye Sort^ to insult the aerthtde eeaeitivitles of the travden. <br />Re: Federal Rogulatioas <br />Title 36, Parks, Fotat sad Public Properly <br />Deputmrmt of Agriculture, Voluwe 2, <br />P^rt 220. Miverah, Subpart w <br />Locatable Mineola <br />Section 278.8, Requirements for Enviroemevtai <br />Protexiion, Page 160 <br />(d) Scenic Values <br />Operator shall to the extent pncdeable, HARMONIZE operations with the aerate value through <br />each mtyuura o the derign and LOCATION OF OPERATION FACILITIES, indadheg roads and <br />other means of sews, vegetative ecreenivg of operations, sad wntlraeUon of etroctvra and <br />improve:mevb which BLEND with the landscape. <br />The location of hie facilities do not blend wkh the htadenpe, they eland out! <br />M we will eveatual~y be thrust into the paitlon of aching our 160 seep, possibly to 10 acre tnety we <br />ful that any more work or buildings added to the TMGM wW greatly reduce the value of our <br />properly. This vt:w trailer would he dirvetly in the view corridor of the acreage we intend ov styling. <br />No one moving to thin unspoiled area would choose to have three toilers or stratRara in ffieh• View <br />Corridor. (Would you4) <br />In accordance with • letter from Kim Hall to Megan ICshi1G July I9,2001 and nvlas Mr. Rubak <br />war grantod an approved variance for the taller wise and type and variance for !oration of his <br />trailer, we respatiully submit that he comply with the test paragraph of edd letter and relocate his <br />trailer(s) at last d1Yy (SO) feet from the property ling, ae per Park County Laud Use Regnlatiove. <br />On [he Forst Service Rd. 211, which Park County meinfaina, it would not allow them the netaasry <br />SO' set back hom the bouvdarla for another trailer. According to the boundary esteasione the <br />