My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-07-14_PERMIT FILE - M2015017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2015017
>
2015-07-14_PERMIT FILE - M2015017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:09:08 PM
Creation date
7/15/2015 4:30:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2015017
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
7/14/2015
Doc Name
Objection Letter
From
John and Eileen Schmidt
To
DRMS
Email Name
MAC
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.
/
4
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
t�l <br />a�a <br />July 8. 2015 <br />Michael Cunningham <br />Division of <br />Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80440 <br />3w_ <br />W*04 Of <br />Ili b <br />Re: OBJECTION to :JRS Mining Hard Rock Application Permit - Sullivan Aggregate Pit <br />Dear Mr. Cunningham: <br />We are writing this letter as concerned homeowners in the Beaver Ridge development in Park <br />County. We are formally objecting to the granting of the above application. It has come to our <br />attention that the above entity has applied for a mining permit adjacent to the existing Sandborn <br />Sand & Gravel Pit mining operation about which we wrote to you one year ago (please see letter <br />attached). Also note that in the Public Notice that was published in the Fairplay Flume on May <br />22, 2015 and June 12, 2015, it was written: "Please note that under the provisions of C.R.S. <br />34-32.5-101, et seq., comments related to noise, truck traffic, hours of operation, visual <br />impacts, effects on property values and other social or economic concerns are issues not <br />subject to this Office's (Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety] jurisdiction. These <br />subjects.... are typically addressed by your local governments....." As you know, we originally <br />directed this letter to our `local government,' with a copy to you, and are now directly writing to <br />you. <br />We are objecting to the granting of an ADDITIONAL mining operation right on top of the <br />existing operation as to: <br />Truck. Traffic & Heavy Machinery Noise <br />2. Hours of Operation <br />3. Visual Impacts <br />4. Property Value Impacts <br />5. Environmental Impacts (rodents, water breaches, air pollution, etc.) <br />6. Health Impacts (caused by dust/air pollution, disturbance of sleep, peace and quiet and loss of <br />quality of life). <br />We are reiterating the positions raised in the previous letter written one year ago double -fold, as <br />it now appears that all the concerns about which we wrote to you (and the ones so boldly pointed <br />out for us in the public notice) would be doubled if the new mining operation was granted this <br />permit and allowed to operate. Double noise, air and water pollution, disturbance of wildlife <br />and the ever-increasing rodent infestation of our properties since the existing mining operation <br />went full tremor on the land so close to our residences. Not to mention the amplified loss of <br />property values. When we had our property for sale last summer, we could not sell our home <br />because all showing realtors told us the prospective buyers standing inside our home and on our <br />decks would not buy our house because of the `terrible noise coming from the mining operation <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.