My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-07-19_PERMIT FILE - M2010019
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2010019
>
2010-07-19_PERMIT FILE - M2010019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/3/2022 11:09:52 AM
Creation date
7/20/2010 1:54:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2010019
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
7/19/2010
Doc Name
Response to written objection
From
Eagle Mountain Pit
To
DRMS
Email Name
DMC
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.
/
14
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 />to the Division of Wildlife for identification. The Neighbors have raised this same issue <br />before the local authority and despite a letter from the local DOW representative stating <br />that Lynx are not a concern at this location; they have raised it again here. See <br />attachment from DOW. <br />2. Value of the neighborhood for residential and agricultural uses <br />The Neighbors claim that the proposed Gravel Pit will substantially degrade the <br />value of the neighborhood for residential and agricultural uses, citing in particular issues <br />with noise and dust. Economic impacts fall outside the jurisdiction of the Board. <br />Likewise, the Board's jurisdiction does not extend to noise or dust.2 <br />3. The Health, Safety, and Welfare of the Neighbors <br />The Neighbors also cite claimed serious health effects they may suffer as a result <br />of the dust from the Gravel Pit. As with the impacts of dust on the economic value of the <br />neighborhood cited at (2), above, dust falls outside the jurisdiction of this Board. <br />II. Statutory Authority <br />The neighbors cite C.R.S. § 34-32.5-115(4)(e) as a pertinent reason why a permit <br />application should be rejected. Barring one of the enumerated reasons, none which are <br />cited here, for rejecting a permit application section 115(4), application shall be granted <br />by the board or office. As grounds for rejecting an application, subpart (e) states, in <br />pertinent part, the following: <br />(e) The mining operation will adversely affect the stability of any significant, <br />valuable, and permanent manmade structure located within two hundred feet of <br />the affected land <br />(Emphasis added). What the Neighbors neglect to mention in their Objection is that <br />despite their "close proximity" to the proposed Gravel Pit, none of the Neighbor's homes <br />are within statutorily-prescribed two hundred feet of the proposed gravel pit. See the <br />attached map with the distances from the closest man made structure marked on the map. <br />Consequently, this statutory provision simply does not apply to the case at hand, and it <br />cannot constitute grounds to reject the Application. Referring to the attached map, the <br />gravel pit would be no closer than three hundred forty feet from the nearest Neighbor, the <br />Santees. Moreover, the Applicants have agreed to new buffers to mitigate noise concerns <br />of the Santees. The boundary line was moved after a meeting with Santee during the <br />summer of 2009. <br />The Neighbors also cite C.R.S. 34-32.5-115(c) as a pertinent reason why the <br />Gravel Pit application should be rejected. It states that: <br />2 Except, possibly, to dust caused by eroding berms or spoils piles, neither of which are at issue here.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.