|
Rationale for Recommendation to Approve
<br />Page 12
<br />October 5, 2015
<br />Timely Letters of Objection:
<br />1. Ann Lukacs, dated June 15, 2015, received June 17, 2015.
<br />2. Carolyn Erdle, dated June 17, 2015, received June 17, 2015.
<br />3. John and Eileen Schmidt, dated July 8, 2015, received July 14, 2015.
<br />4. Adam Guthrie, not dated, received on August 12, 2015.
<br />Timely Commenting Agency:
<br />1. History Colorado, SHPO, dated April 21, 2015, received April 22, 2015.
<br />2. Colorado Division of Water Resources, dated April 30, 2015, received May 4, 2015.
<br />3. Army Corps of Engineers, dated April 27, 2015, received May 7, 2015.
<br />4. Park County Board of County Commissioners, dated June 18, 2015, received June 22,
<br />2015.
<br />5. Park County Board of County Commissioners, dated August 12, 2015, received August
<br />12, 2015.
<br />The Division forwarded copies of all comments to the Applicant and scheduled the application
<br />for a hearing before the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board (the Board) and a Pre -hearing
<br />Conference. The Division provided notice of the scheduled Board hearing and Pre -hearing
<br />Conference to all parties and interested persons. Due to the timely objections, on the decision
<br />date the Division would not make a decision on the application, but rather a recommendation to
<br />the Board.
<br />During the review period the Division generated three adequacy letters. The Applicant
<br />addressed all adequacy issues to the Division's satisfaction. Therefore, on October 5, 2015, the
<br />Division determined the application to have satisfied the requirements of Section 34-32-115(4)
<br />C.R.S. and issued its recommendation to approve the application.
<br />Issues Raised by the Objecting Parties and Commenting Agencies
<br />The issues raised by the objecting parties and commenting agencies are represented by italic bold
<br />font. The last names of the objecting parties who raised the issue are listed after the issue. The
<br />Division's response follows in standard font.
<br />1. Concerns regarding the operation being in conflict with local zoning. Concerns
<br />regarding adverse impacts to the visually appealing landscape. Concerns for
<br />devaluation of nearby property. Concerns regarding hours of operation, noise
<br />pollution, sight pollution, and quality of life. (Guthrie, Lukacs, Schmidt)
<br />In these proceedings, the Division's jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the specific
<br />requirements of the Act and Rules. The Division considers all timely submitted comments in its
<br />review, but can address only the issues that directly relate to the specific requirements of an
<br />application as stated in the Act and Rules.
<br />
|