My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-05-07_PERMIT FILE - M2013007
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2013007
>
2013-05-07_PERMIT FILE - M2013007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:20:16 PM
Creation date
5/9/2013 7:46:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2013007
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
5/7/2013
Doc Name
Response Items to Protest Letters
From
Greg Lewicki And Associates, PLLC
To
DRMS
Email Name
WHE
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
From: Jutten [mailto:lazyk @montrose.net] <br />Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:24 PM <br />To: Zane Luttrell <br />Subject: Fw: Rocky Mountain Aggregate Application <br />- - - -- Original Message - - - -- <br />From: Joey Burns <br />To: swhite(cDmontrosecounty.net <br />Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 10:11 AM <br />Subject: Rocky Mountain Aggregate Application <br />April 23, 2013 <br />Mr. Steve White <br />Montrose County Planning and Development Director <br />Mr. White, <br />I'm writing in reference to the proposed gravel pit with Rocky Mountain Aggregate. As a <br />point of reference, I am a land owner who lives within 1/2 mile from the proposed gravel <br />pit and I have had a personal interest in this property for over 10 years. Our company <br />Lone Eagle Land Brokerage, Inc. assembled this holding and have managed the <br />property for the past two ownerships. I have spent countless hours on the property, we <br />have had the property studied for a proposed habitat mitigation with the Natural <br />Resource Conservation Service, conducted geological surveys and have had numerous <br />consultants study the property for its highest and best use. I know this land and I have <br />a deep history of the property through all seasons. <br />Recently I assisted in the sale of the property with NO knowledge of the proposed <br />gravel pit. It was only after the closing that I was informed of the current owner's <br />intentions. My reaction today is the same as it was when I learned of the application. <br />That plateau is an appropriate location for a gravel pit. Personally I think gravel pits are <br />unsightly and inevitably they get placed adjacent to a major thoroughfare (example the <br />United pit on south Hwy 550.) However, the subject property's topography is such that <br />it would be virtually impossible to see the pit and or the equipment from the Hwy 550 to <br />the east and Ducket Draw to the west. <br />felt it was necessary that I address the county after I read a recent article in the paper <br />that I felt was inflammatory, exaggerated and untrue. In addition, because of my <br />concern as a land owner regarding the specifics of the application, I contacted the <br />applicant, set a meeting to preview the permit in detail. The applicant was direct, <br />forthcoming and responded immediately to my request. <br />First the claim I read in the paper of increased traffic is un founded. Gravel is a supply <br />and demand business. If demand increases we currently have the United gravel pit on <br />south Hwy 550. By approving this application the change in traffic will be minor. If the <br />demand for aggregate increases, the United pit is in place and consequently will <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.