Laserfiche WebLink
Mike Boulay <br />-2- July 8, 2011 <br />Tavistock. Does CAM have a lease for this parcel? Please include any <br />lease in Exhibit 1. <br />CAM - Enclosed is a Right of Entry Agreement dated April 19, 2011 between CAM and <br />Tavistock to be inserted into Volume 1, Exhibit 1. <br />1k. It appears that the western boundary of the permit was also adjusted with <br />the Apr -2011 response. In CAM's next response letter, please address any <br />changes to the original boundary that ha ie been proposed, along with any <br />associated adjustment to the total permit acreage. <br />CAM - The western boundary of the permit area was adjusted. This land is subject to <br />an adverse possession case so it was removed from the permit boundary. <br />Revised permit boundary acreage is included on page 2.03 -6. <br />11. In the second paragraph of 2.03.6(1), please add language to the effect that <br />the 30' easement is for Haul Road #1 and crosses property owned by Fruita <br />Development, LLC. <br />CAM - Language regarding the easement was added to page 2.03 -6. <br />1m. Section 2.03.10 does not include list Mesa County in the list of additional <br />permits required. Will the County require a special use permit? Are there <br />any permits that will be required from the City of Fruita? (Page 2.05 -13 <br />says Fruita may annex Haul Road #1.) <br />CAM- Mesa County will require a Major Site Plan. The City of Fruita will require a <br />notice of intent to use their right of way and an approval letter will be issued. <br />Mesa County and the City of Fruita were added to pages 2.03 -11 & 12. <br />1n. Is the segment of 15 Road located south of US Hwy 6 & 50 under City, or <br />County, jurisdiction? Will an access /driveway permit be required for 15 <br />Road? <br />CAM -The City of Fruita claims jurisdiction for the se of 15 Road located south of <br />US Hwy 6 & 50. The City of Fruita will require a notice of intent to use their right <br />of way and an approval letter will be issued. <br />Rule 2.04.3 Site Description and Land Use Information <br />2. Division Response: Response accepted. <br />3. The boundaries of the designated premine and postmine land use types identified <br />on Map 7 and described in the narrative of Sections 2.04.3 and 2.05.5 require <br />further clarification. The map does not contain clear boundaries separating the <br />land use types. Narrative in the two sections contains some contradictions as well. <br />