2003-02-10_REVISION - M2003002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. We felt that it was inappropriate for Stone Cliff to begin it's operation without final application approval by the state. We will assume that this was simply an honest misunderstanding on Stone Cliffs part. 6. We also indicated that several of the vehicles currently in use do not appear to be licensed which he said that he would check into it. 7. One vehicle in question was leaking diesel fuel profusely when we drove by the site on Sunday, January 25. We are concerned about any and all pollution that may occur. There is a spring located slightly above the site and less than 100 yards from the this spillage. In addition, the pit area is located in a natural drainage area that leads to the Huerfano River. We feel that these items should be included in the permit application so that there are no misunderstandings later. In addition, the items should apply to any subsequent operators of the site, i.e., subcontractors of Stone Cliff. We are still confused by the actual permit application. If items 2 and 3 are to be relied upon, why is the permit for 10 years with an estimated 70,000 tons per year? Both the date and tonnage should be changed to reflect the actual intention of Stone Cliff and we would suggest the following, no more than three years and be limited to 40,000 tons per year. This seems reasonable and accomplishes the objectives of the applicant. It is unfortunate that this site was selected by the applicant based on the presence of a pre -law existing disturbance, which appears to be a former gravel pit used to update C.R. 110. This apparently occurred at least twenty years ago when there were no structures present except for the property owned by Bender West Ranch which was built in the mid 1920's. In fact, the only residential structures present on southern County Road 110 are all located less than 1 mile from the proposed site. The material that is currently being processed is also available on the 5200 +/- acres that were recently purchased by Stone Cliff and which, to our knowledge, contain no residential structures. It would seem to us that a more appropriate site could have been selected and would have alleviated at least two concerns, that being noise and diminished property values. There is a belief that issues such as noise, truck traffic, diminished property values and other social and economic issues are addressed at the local level. This has not occurred in our case and this Board should not assume that it has. Several issues that have been raised have not been addressed by the Board of County Commissioners in Huerfano County. In fact, we did not have any opportunity to appear before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the first step in the processing of a conditional use permit. The applicant purchased the property November 20, 2002 and a conditional use permit was applied for on December 5th with a decision rendered by the Zoning Commission on December 10, 2002. The conditional use permit went before the Board of County Commissioners on December 18, 2002. Included with this document is a list of some of our concerns that we presented at that time and the corresponding response, if any. The first that we learned of this mining operation was the evening of December 12, 2002 when there was three sentences written in the local paper indicating that the Commissioner's would be deciding on this conditional use permit. Three working days to try and gather information about the project and solicit public support against this is a joke. In conclusion, as adjacent property owners we obviously would prefer that a gravel pit not be located in our back yard. It presents a "cloud" over our properties should one attempt to sell since we would have to disclose the presence of this operation. We have never encountered anyone that can attribute anything but a negative value impact being located so closely to a pit. We have expressed our concerns and have Iisted