My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE121192
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
300000
>
PERMFILE121192
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:19:39 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 9:09:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1973007SG
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
10/16/1992
Doc Name
COPIES OF RENOTIFICATION LETTER DANIELS SAND PIT 2 FN M-73-007
From
MARK A HEIFNER
To
DMG
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mark A.~fielfnef, Plant Eco~st ` 1` ~~~~1~ Vcgeladian ecology <br />3; East Colorado Avenue ~II ~11~11~11~ ` amend reclmm~l;on ph,nn;ng <br />_f)enver, C(] So210 1 y9g Vixual impml nnnlysis <br />(303) ?22-9067 (Voice and Faz) Environmenlai (oroneic phobFrnphy <br />October 15, 1992 <br />Larry Oehler F//''~~ <br />Division of Minerals and Geology Et•.~E~ ~~~-•, <br />Rm. 215 Centennial Bldg. ..., <br />1313 Sherman St. QCT <br />Denver, CO 80203 161992 <br />D1VISyUIV ~~r <br />RE: Copies of renotification letter; Daniels Sand Pit N2MINERAfs g C;E';! :.~, • <br />Your file no.: M-73-007 ` - -~ <br />Dear Mr. Oehler: <br />Enclosed are copies of the cover letters for the seven adjacent property owners that were <br />renotified. The renotification was done for those people who apparently did not receive the <br />previous notifications (i.e. the return receipt was not returned) or people who were not notified <br />because the property changed ownership between the time the mailing list was compiled and <br />the fast mailing was done. All of these parties, except one, were provided with an additional <br />20 days in which to file any comments. '!'I~~B..f~.v~s ~t_~ ~e <br />fte~ <br />Two parties whose letters were returned as "unclaimed" were not renoticed. This was because <br />it was decided that they had been notified of the existence of the letter being held for them at <br />their post office, but, for whatever reason, had decided not to pickup the letter. In our opinion <br />this is distinct from becoming a new owner or the post office not delivering the letter. In our <br />opinion, these two were properly noticed and were given the opportunity to comment. But by <br />failing to actually take possession of the letter they essentially forfeited their right to comment. <br />Final copies of all return receipts (or returned letters if any in this mailing are returned) will be <br />made when all return receipts and returned letters have been received by myself. Please note <br />that in the event any of the parties noticed in this second mailing do not receive the notice or <br />the letter is returned, they will not be renotified. We feel that two attempts are sufficient. <br />Also, note that as part of the EI Paso County Special Use Permit consideration, most of these <br />people will be noticed again by Transit Mix and yet again by Et Paso County. <br />Thank you. <br />Respectfully, <br />Mark A. Heffner <br />cc: Bud Herskind <br />u~on3.~a.x <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.