Laserfiche WebLink
G III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />999 <br />interoffice memo <br />Date: 10/13/98 <br />To: Jim Stevens <br />From: Erica Crosby <br />RE: Informal Conference; Tellier Gravel Pi[ (M-98-058) <br />The following is a brief response to the objections far the 112 new permit application; Tellier Gravel <br />Pit (r'I-98-058); <br />Diane & Thane Anderson Letter Dated September 21, 1998 <br />7 <br />' Exhibit A, Legal Description- This question was raised in my preliminary adequacy review letter <br />(PAR). <br />.\ <br />!• Exhibit D, Mine Plan- <br />(l) The mining period in Public Notice & Permit are in conflict, the applicant should clarify. <br />(2) Inconsistent information with Routt Counry SUP is not our jurisdiction. <br />i <br />(3);~Material must be available to reclaim the pits as required in the reclamation plan. The <br />' applicant should be made aware of this at the meeting. <br />(4) Inconsistent information with Routt County SUP is not our jurisdiction. <br />(5) DMG required a larger scale map for more detail. Permit states that road will be extended <br />an additional 165 feet rather than a total of l65 feet. If office and maintenance buildings <br />are planned, [hey need to be identified in the permit. Items not included in the SUP are not <br />within ourjurisdiction. <br />(9) Sumps within the permit area will be used as sediment control. Noise should not be a factor. <br />(13) This issue was addressed in the PAR letter. <br />• Exhibit E, Reclamation Plan <br />(I) This issue was addressed in the PAR letter. <br />(3e) Do not understand question. <br />(3f) This issue was addressed in the PAR letter. <br />10113198 <br />