My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-06-16_REVISION - M1973007SG (3)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1973007
>
2008-06-16_REVISION - M1973007SG (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:39:01 PM
Creation date
6/17/2008 12:11:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1973007SG
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
6/16/2008
Doc Name
Proof of Publication and Return Receipts for Notices sent to Adjacent Landowners
From
SES
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM3
Email Name
JLE
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.
/
25
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
Southwestern S? <br />Ecological O 3 <br />Services o <br />37 East Colorado Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80210-3105 • (303) 722-9067 • Fax 1-866-820-1556 (toll free) <br />June 16, 2008 <br />Jared Ebert <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />Room 215 <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />RE:,'roof of publication and return receipts for notices sent to adjacent landowners <br />Dear Mr. Ebert: <br />Enclosed are two copies of the proof of publication (second publication) and copies of the return receipts for <br />notices sent. As two sets of notices were sent, one after each of the two publications, most of the return receipts <br />only apply to the second mailing. However, there are some receipts from the first notice, especially the returned <br />notices. To determine whether all adjacent owners were actually notified (notice received), the two mailings were <br />coordinated to account for any differences. A large majority of the adjacent owners received and accepted both <br />mailings, but in the case of a few notices there were some difference. Following is a list of those adjacent owners <br />where differences between the two mailings were found. Evidence to support this list is provided in the return <br />receipt pages. <br />Judy McCarthy: Received the first notice, but passed away prior to the second notice. <br />Harm LLC: No return receipt or returned letter from first mailing, but received second mailing and return receipt <br />was received. Assume the first mailing was also received. <br />DBI Leasing: Both notices were returned as undeliverable due to address error. The address at the assessor's office <br />is apparently wrong. <br />Southpoint Plaza: First mailing returned as unclaimed; second notice received. <br />Nathan Kile: First mailing returned as refused; second notice received. <br />Kenneth Jorgensen: Both notices returned due to bad address. Assessor's office apparently has wrong address. <br />Dan Valentine: , First mailing returned as unclaimed; second notice returned but no reason noted on envelope. <br />Reliance Steel: No return receipt or returned letter from first mailing, but received second mailing and return <br />receipt was received. Assume the first mailing was also received. <br />Block 260: No return receipt or returned letter from first mailing, but received second mailing and return receipt <br />was received. Assume the first mailing was also received. <br />Respectfully, <br />Mark A. Heffner <br />cc: Ashley Muhlestein RECEIVED <br />4U-N 16 2008 <br />d I) Division of. Reclamation, <br />Mining and Safety
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.