2008-03-04_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2006085

Home Browse Search

County Road 79 and the subsidence sensitive areas, generally cliff faces where rock art or shelters may exist. However, it appeared that the proposed location of the ventilation shaft was not included in the areas surveyed. Therefore, the Division notified EAI in our adequacy letter dated June 18, 2007 (and by phone in late May 2007) of the necessity to survey the area proposed to be disturbed by the access road and ventilation shaft facility. This additional area was surveyed on June 5, 2007 by MAC and the completed survey was provided to the SHPO. In a letter received by the Division on June 18, 2007 from the SHPO, the project was cleared to proceed. The Division received the additional MAC survey from EAI on August 23, 2007. Public notice announcing the filing of a complete application was published in the local newspaper, Canon City Daily Record. The initial notice contained a significant error regarding the location of the facility area. Therefore, the publication was corrected by the applicant and was re-published four times, on November 9, 16, 23, and 30, 2006 as required by Rule 2.07.3(2) and as evidenced by the proof of publication dated and notarized November 30, 2006. As a result of the public notice, written objections and a request for a public hearing were received from the following residents of the adjacent Chandler Heights residential area; Gary and Karen Zak, Charles and Sonia Overton, Sue Popkess-Vawter, John and Vancellen Ravensberg, Kevin and Robin Rivard, and David and JoAnne Hawk. Ted and Kelee Dell, residing in the adjacent town of Brookside, also requested a public hearing. These requests were all considered timely, received by the Division well before the end of the public comment period which is 30 days after the last publication (November 30, 2006) of the public notice on the filing of the complete application. Objections under the jurisdiction of the Division can generally be categorized by the following topics: • Potential impact to private domestic wells • Degradation of County Road 79 • Ground subsidence • Possible damage to homes • Wildlife impacts • Pollution and toxic discharge • Dust Each of the above objections is discussed further in their respective section(s) of this written findings document. Objections outside of the jurisdiction of the Division and not covered by this written findings document include: • Home and property values • Noise • Inconvenience 4