My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP26340
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP26340
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:57:36 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 4:28:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977439
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
9/21/1988
Doc Name
OPPOSITION TO STERLING SPECIAL REVIEW
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.
/
111
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
<br />Larimer County Commissioners <br />September l9, 1988 <br />Page 2 <br />' Also, I would like to bring to the attention of the Commissioners that <br /> Sterling's application has been strung out now for over 9 months. It is of <br /> concern to us that Sterling has prolonged this situation. They have had <br /> every opportunity as we have to present their request, yet they have <br /> withdrawn and refiled. It has cost us and our neighbors over $8,000 to fil;ht <br /> this. Up until the Larimer County Planning Commission meeting on July 37, <br /> 1988, Sterling's application has been denied by every board it has been <br />' presented to (including the City Planning Commission). After two evenings <br /> (July 27 & 28) oC presentation and discussion which started out with seven <br /> members of the Planning Commission and dwindled to four, the Planning <br />Commission still did not approve this Special Review for Sterling. Further- <br /> more, it is very difficult Cor me to understand how every agency that has <br /> heard this review denies it but yet the Planning Department at every Larimer <br /> County Planning Commission meeting has recommended this review. I think <br /> this is unethical. <br />' How can you as County Commissioners approve such an operation as [his <br />in the middle of a residential area where it is very evident that our rights, <br /> welfare and quality of life wilt 6e greatly affected. I thought we were all <br /> supposed to value and protect our environment, not destroy it. <br /> <br /> In conclusion, L would ask that you understand that our quality of life, <br /> health, livelihood and property values are in jeopardy. We as property <br /> owners and tax payers ask that you put yourself in our position when you <br /> consider what effect this gravel mining operation would have on us when ~~ou <br /> try to reach a decision an this Special Review. We hope that you unanimously <br /> deny it. <br /> Sincerely, <br />1 ~ / /? ~/ ~/ / l v'7 <br />I/ ~ {~~ ~ <br /> Bill R. Martin, DVM <br /> BRM:mam <br />1 <br />I~ <br />tJ <br /> <br />i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.