First, We would like to give you some background about our own frustrations regarding the permit process, so you can understand where we are coming from:

We have some mining claims on the south face of Bighorn Mountain. It has always been our intent, since 1971, to build a small cabin/home and live there. Obtaining easements and the wherewithal for vehicular access was very time consuming. By the time we got all we needed together and paid for, Boulder County invented the Limited Impact Special Review process and the Natural Landmark review process. Undaunted, we went forward with the application procedures.

We did everything. We supplied all the engineering reports, re-vegetation plans, topographical surveys and every single thing required. All throughout the proceedings we were given discouraging words. We were specifically told:"They will never allow anything to be built on Bighorn Mountain, but don't tell anyone I said that." Why tell us that? Is it because it is an illegal official policy? We think so. We think there is a reason why Paul Danish is not honest and forthcoming enough to officially state that the Land Use goal is to discourage development to STOP GROWTH.

There are no irresolvable problems with our proposed project except one. The "building envelope" is approved. There are no erosion, re-vegetation or other problems that are beyond reasonable measures. The whole thing comes down to "visual impacts." There are no options to relocate the driveway or building envelope. Any other easements are impossible. We own no home site closer to the county road.

The permit process is so stupid that we recommend scrapping it. Why waste thousands of dollars and human effort on something that is only going to be nixed based on intangible aesthetics? We have no hope that the county will scrap the process. Therefore, we offer the following recommendations:

First, if AESTHETICS are paramount, then ORGANIZE THE PROCESS ACCORDINGLY. The very first phase should involve an "aesthetics review." All that is needed for submittal should be photographs and an artist's rendition. The only thing engineers should be needed for is to consult and help the artist accurately portray culverts, rip-rap, re-vegetation and the basic appearance of the building. Once there is approval on aesthetics, with mitigation measures, then it is time to submit engineering plans necessary to make it happen. To continually re-submit new engineering plans after each denial based on aesthetics is stupid and wasteful. Second, public policy needs to be honest, forthcoming and a matter of public record. If government believes it can just draw a line around an area and call it a Natural Landmark, then it needs to set forth REAL policy for that area. We are sick and tired of innuendo, shady deals, underhanded dope-fiend moves and slick, sleazy legalistics. If government wants to stop all development and preserve it for wild life, then it can BUY it. If government thinks it is legitimate policy to stop growth, it can SAY SO instead of beating around the bush and using obfuscation and frustration as anti-growth weapons.

Ron Jones