Laserfiche WebLink
,. ~ • <br />Routt County Department of Environmental Health is significantly more restrictive <br />than is the state noise ordinance. However, the Applicant submits that there is <br />no mention of noise n the index of the Construction Materials -Rules and <br />Regulations administered by the DMG. The Applicant submits that these <br />regulations address the concerns raised regarding this issue. <br />We understand that the area in which the Colorado Division of Minerals and <br />Geology can refuse a permit is limited. However, it should be noted that all of <br />the neighboring parties except those with a vested interest (i.e., relatives of <br />the Telliers and the county itself), are completely against this gravel pit. <br />Response: This statement is completely contrary to the public record regarding <br />this project on the local level as documented in the two Routt County Regional <br />Planning Commission Meetings and the hearing before the Board of County <br />Commissioners wherein numerous letters of support for this project, by many <br />individuals who are not relatives or do not have a "vested interest" were received <br />which supported this proposal. Furthermore the Applicant submits that only two <br />statements refuses the contentions being made by the opponents of this project <br />regarding the lack of support for this project. <br />It will be detrimental to our property values and our general quality of life. We <br />have no means of protecting ourselves from this process since the county <br />commissioners who are in place to decide fairly and thoughtfully have turned <br />their backs on their constituent in order to satisfy their own agenda. We ask <br />you to review this application carefully and thoughtfully as if it were going to <br />operate in your own back yard. <br />Response: According to the records on file in the office of the Routt County <br />Assessor, through 23 October 1998, the Bradley's own no land within nearly six <br />miles of this location and hence, they have no property values which will be <br />adversely affected. Extensive comments were made throughout the public <br />hearing process on the local level regarding the potential adverse impact of <br />mining on property values. Not a single example could be documented of this <br />fact and instead numerous examples were cited wherein numerous new homes <br />were being built closer to existing operating gravel pits that would be <br />experienced by the opponents of this project. Several individuals testified in the <br />public hearings that mining had no affect on their property values. Also the <br />assertion that Routt County has a vested financial interest in this operation is <br />untrue. <br />Quality of life was also extensively discussed in the numerous public meetings <br />and again not one specific example could be found which supported this <br />position. <br />19 <br />