Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />June 4, 1999 3:06 PM From: James E. Lockhart Fax #: 71985-0045 ~ge 6 of 6 <br />. • <br />I believe that in fact, the Bureau of Land Ivianagement owns land adjoining one of the <br />sections leased for the proposed quart', and therefore within 200 feet, and that it was notified. <br />The Division and Board should verify that such notification took place. <br />As with the two previous objections, the action which the Board should take depends upon <br />whether Castle Concrete is in literal compliance with the Board's regulations as they have been <br />applied in past policy and practice. If not, Castle should be required to comply before a quarry <br />permit is granted. However, even if Castle is in compliance, the Board should consider revising its <br />regulations [o give the public actual instead of merely hypothetical notice. <br />In summary, Rule 1.6 contemplated three forms of public notice: posting, publication, and <br />direct notification of adjoining landowners. Because of the circumstances presented by the Table <br />Mountain quatry lease, it is Castle Concrete's contention that none of these three alternatives <br />required it to take any action which might reasonably be anticipated to bring notice of the quarry <br />pemut application to the public at large, and that it has fully complied with Division regulations <br />by I) posting at a site accessible at best to only a small part of the general public, 2) publication in <br />a newspaper not generally read even by residents of the vicinity of the proposed quarry, and 3 ) <br />notifying no adjoining landowners except possibly the Bureau of Land Management. While I and <br />the Sietra Club strongly question whether these contentions are correct, if they are cored, they <br />indicate a situation which clearly calls for immediate remedial action to make sure that the <br />Division and Board require meaningful public notice in future cases. <br />Adequate public notice is essential in order for the Division of Minerals and Geology to <br />do its proper job. Often local residents will have information about the proposed mine or quarry <br />which would not be available to the Division, nor apparent from the applicant's submissions. <br />Often too, concerned locals may discover areas of concern which the Division has overlooked. <br />This clearly seems to be the case with the Castle Quarry application, since the issues of public use <br />and the conflicts with quarry operations were inadequately explored. I[ was not until the May 13th <br />Infomtal Conference that the fact that 3500 acres of State Trust Lands presently open to public <br />access were likely to be closed as a result of the granting of the Castle Quarry permit was, <br />disclosed to objectors for the first time. Since this conference occurred two days after the Fremont <br />County commissioners acted to gran[ a county permit, an issue of significant concern to the public <br />was not raised in time for the public to act to protect its interests. I feel that the Castle Quart' <br />application raises significant due process concerns which, even if they do not affect the Board's <br />ability to grant the Castle permit' should be considered and addressed through its rulemaking <br />process to see that such an unfortunate outcome is not repeated with respect to futwe applications. <br />Sincerely, <br />James F. Lockhart, Chair <br />Pikes Peak Sierra Club Group <br />cc: Mark Heffner, Duane Finch <br />