PERMFILE108985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 4, 1999 3:06 PM From: James~Lockhart Fax #: 719385-0045 ~ ~ge 5 of 6 would come to the attention of a significantly larger portion of the general public, but would have required additional postings if the true degree of public access had been known, the Castle Concrete application should be denied and Castle should be required to repost notice in a place more visible to the general public. Please note that any defect in [his regard was not cured by posting of a notice of the May 11th Fremont County Commissioners' meeting at the Highway 115 entrance, since the notice of that meeting did not refer to the Division of Minerals and Geology informal conference held two days later. 2b. Ade9uacy of the published newspaper notice. According to Mr. Heifner's 1\4ay 25th letter, publication of the application was done in the Canon City DAILY RECORD. Rule 1.6.1(4)(B) requires publishing of a notice of any application hearing "in a newspaper of general circulation in the locality of the proposed mining operation." According to an individual whom I spoke with at the Daily Record on June 3, 1999, the Daily Record is distributed by carrier only in Canon City and surrounding communities, and is not delivered by carrier to Barrett Road. Residenu along Barrett Road can receive the paper only if they subscribe to it by mail. As the spokesperson at the paper pointed out, the Daily Record is available by subscription anywhere in the United States. It is clearly does not thereby become a "paper of general circulation" for the entire United States. Residents along Barret[ Road inform me that the Colorado Springs GAZETTE is circulated along their road by carrier. As with the question of the sign posting, I believe that the adequacy of the newspaper publication is purely a question of conswction of the regulation. If the Division and Board do no[ consider a newspaper to be a "paper of general circulation in the locality of the proposed mining operation" where the paper in question is not delivered to the locality, but a competing newspaper is delivered there, the Castle Quarry application should be rejected and Castle should be required [o republish notice in the Colorado Springs GAZETTE. If the Board's policy and practice has been to consider papers such as the DAILY RECORD to be papers of general circulation in the locality of the proposed operation, the regulations should be changed so that publication is requved in the paper which persons in the locality actually receive and read. If the Division and Board feel drat this objection is of merit, the circulation area of the DAILY RECORD can be confirmed by contacting it at 70l S. Ninth St., Canon City, CO S 1212, phone 719-275-7565. 2c. Notice to adjoining landowners. As noted in the preliminary comments above, Mr. Heifrrer informs me that no Barrett Road residents were notified by mail because none were within 200 feet of the proposed operation. Whether they were required to receive notice is governed by Rule 1.6.2(e)(2) requiring the applicant to mail or personally serve a copy of the notice on "all owners of record of lands that are within 200 feet of the boundary of the affected land." Whether this requirement has been complied with depends upon how the term "affected land" has been construed by the Division and Board. Although only three sections of land will actually be occupied by the proposed quany, the land affected by it is considerably larger. As noted above, conflicts posed by the quarry have led the Division of Wildlife to at least contemplate the closure of alt of the Table Mountain parcel along Route 115. As is the case with the posting of notice on the quarry site, it seems to make little sense to define "affected land" in so narrow a manner [hat only the owner of the parcel (who presumably already knows of the operation) is entitled to "public" notice. Amore logical reading of the rule is that the "affected land" is either the entire State Trust Land parcel, or that portion thereof that would actually be impacted by [he proposed quam, in which case both the United States Amty (at Fort Carson across Route 115) and at leas[ some of the Barrett Road residents would be entitled to personal notice.