Laserfiche WebLink
on the requirement of the 11 to 1 slopes along the railroad right of way, <br /> the plan calls for 2 to 1 , the main thrust of the objection Mr. Kerd indicated <br /> regards thsi crossing here. I want to point out that the crossing here is <br /> not part of the affected land so it 's not part of the access as we define it. Ok <br /> the 2nd letter from M. rs. Glenn Schmidt. <br /> RT: Wiat a minutes, you went over that slope real quickly. You said the plan is for <br /> MH: 2 to 1 slopes <br /> RT: and Mr. kerd wanted to to be <br /> MH: 1z <br /> RT: Greater than 11 <br /> MH: Yeah, the steepest would be a 1T <br /> RT: so you' re satisfied with 2: 1 <br /> MH: The second letter is from Mrs. Glenn Schmidt there's a address mixup in the public <br /> notice, the address mixup in the publi c notice, apparently there was some <br /> confusion in the county records and surveys as to what the proper address <br /> was, the legal description in the notice is correct but the address is apparently <br /> in error. Uh, <br /> RW: Is that a technicality that she' s concerned with <br /> MH: Yeah, I think so, she apparently this is her address <br /> RW: On that 1159 <br /> MH: Yeah, <br /> RW: What shoult it be? <br /> MH: It was 11417 something like that , it 's not very far off, and I talked to <br /> the attorney in Glenwood Springs, on this, she had checks and thinks that they <br /> have it straightened out as far as the address but their surveyor when they did <br /> the map and this was the address that he had come up with. and apparently there's <br /> a conflict there somewhere in the county records that would indicate some <br /> other address. Uh, in the area so there' s a mixup in the address of the site <br /> The 3rd letter from Robert Stimwiddel the Eagle River Trust has 4 objections <br /> listed in that one <br /> RW: Why don' t you just read us those, Mark, and are You Mr. Stimwiddel ? <br /> G: No, Mr. Goldstein , I 'm representing the Eagle River Trus <br /> RW: 0, 1 would say they would need quite a bit of elaboration for a because <br /> it is incomplete,violation of state law, doesn ' t tell in what way as I read this <br /> MH: I wrote a letter to Mr. Stimwiddel after I received this, asking him to , if <br /> he could possibly submit more information on each of these points and I talked <br /> to him on Saturaday February 17 , when I was in Glenwood Springs, I couldn ' t really <br /> obtain very precise inforamtion jsut , I talked to Mr. Goldstein the other <br /> night and did learn that there was asome question on the notice to adjacent land- <br /> owners. <br /> RW: This would allow them a chance to expand, clarify whatever, the basis of <br /> we won' t pass anything out of line to people, but we would like to hear <br /> MH: Ok, I recommend approval of the application, the bond set at $7000 now I would <br /> like to ask that you include in your motion wording that prior to Nottingham <br /> conducting any mining in phase 3 that the bond be reviewed for adjustments <br /> to allow for the increased costs of reclaiming phase 3 and any inflationary changes <br /> in the next 10 years. The object here is that the cost of reclaiming phase <br /> 1 and phase 2 under this plam are pretty much alike. . Phase 2 is a little bit less <br />