Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Objectors who have filed with the Division: <br />1. Mr. Robert Wyler, nearby landowner <br />2. Summit County Commissioners <br />Objection Tonics: <br />Mr. Wyler raised the following concerns regarding the new permit area: <br />1. That the permit approval should be denied because of past <br />hydrocarbon emissions at the Love Pit, #M-82-164. <br />2. That the permit approval should be denied because the proposed <br />3H:1V/2H:1V slopes are too steep, and this contrary to the Colorado <br />Mined Land Reclamation Act. <br />3. That the permit approval should be denied until information <br />regarding the prevailing winds, dust and noise conditions at the site <br />are provided. <br />4. That information regarding the installation of the septic system has <br />not been provided. <br />5. That the permit approval should be denied because the replacement of <br />wetlands is not proceeding at an acceptable ratio. <br />6. That the disposal of inert fill on the site is in violation of <br />Summit County regulations. <br />7. That permit approval should be denied because the proposed financial <br />warranty is inadequate. <br />8. That the information submitted regarding the stormwater detention <br />time is inadequate, and if the ponds are not correctly sized, the <br />permit approval should be denied. <br />9. That traffic issues at State Highway 9 have not adequately been <br />addressed. <br />10. That issues raised by water quality specialists of the Northwest <br />Colorado Council of Governments should be addressed. <br />11. That the Division should require sampling the fill material at the <br />Love Pit to determine compliance with the existing permit. <br />Summit County raised the following concerns: <br />1. That an end land use of "wildlife habitat" is more appropriate than <br />"rangeland". <br />2. That the Section 306 source performance standards and requirements <br />have not been outlined in the permit application. <br />3. That dust control measures have not been outlined in the <br />application. <br />4. That the finished grade should be 4H:1V instead of 3H:1V. <br />5. That the cost analysis for wetlands mitigation has not been included <br />in the financial warranty estimate. <br />6. That traffic impacts have not been adequately studied. <br />7. That the landscaping plan is not detailed enough or intense enough <br />for the site, and that the final vegetation costs have not been <br />adequately assessed. <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />