My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2017-02-24_PERMIT FILE - M2016050
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2016050
>
2017-02-24_PERMIT FILE - M2016050
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2017 1:59:16 PM
Creation date
2/27/2017 1:51:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2016050
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
2/24/2017
Doc Name
Rationale to approved PHC and MLRB Hearing
From
DRMS
To
Interested Parties
Email Name
SJM
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.
/
7
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
Notice of the Applicant's filing occurred in accordance with the general requirements of the Act <br />and Rules. The public comment period closed on January 5, 2017. During the public comment <br />period the Division received written comments from the following individuals and agencies: <br />Timely Letter of Objection: <br />1. Robert and Alane Wooster, December 15, 2016, received December 20, 2016 <br />Timely Commenting Agencies: <br />2. History Colorado, SHPO, dated December 5, 2016, received December 9, 2016 <br />3. Colorado Division of Water Resources, dated December 15, 2016, received December <br />16, 2016 <br />The Division has forwarded copies of all comments to the Applicant, scheduled a hearing before <br />the Board, and scheduled a Pre -hearing Conference. The Division has provided notice of the <br />scheduled Board hearing and Pre -hearing Conference to all parties and interested persons. <br />During the application review process period the Division provided two adequacy letters to the <br />Applicant. The Applicant in response addressed all of the Division's adequacy issues to the <br />Division's satisfaction. As a result, on February 24, 2017, the Division determined that the <br />application satisfies the requirements of Section 34-32.5-115(4) C.R.S. and issued its <br />recommendation to the Board to approve the application. <br />Issues Raised by the Objecting Party <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 />The issues raised by the objecting party are represented by italic bold font. The Division's <br />response follows in standard font. In consideration of the application and objections, the <br />Division's jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the specific requirements of the Act and <br />Rules. The Division considered all timely submitted comments in its review, but can address <br />only the issues that directly relate to the specific requirements of an application as stated in the <br />Act and Rules. <br />1. Concerns for devaluation of nearby property. Concerns regarding hours of operation, <br />noise pollution, sight pollution, and quality of life. <br />The Act and Rules do not specifically address issues of zoning and land use, impacts to visually <br />appealing landscapes, hours and/or days of operation, noise and sight pollution, and quality of <br />life. Such issues are typically addressed at the local government level and not at the State <br />Page 2of4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.