Laserfiche WebLink
Granberg to have been "brought up by the citizens at the county land use permit <br />hearing... " (a hearing not attended by Mr. Granberg) (See Exhibit "C') The alleged <br />comments and/or questions and/or concerns of the citizenry are simply that...questions/ <br />comments/concerns. Not one objection to the proposed decision of the Division appears <br />anywhere in Mr. Granberg's two page letter or enclosure therewith. (See Exhibit "C") <br />Assuming (without conceding it to be true) that the questions and/or comments <br />and/or concerns, as noted by Mr. Granberg may have been a matter for consideration by <br />the Division at an earlier juncture of the permit application process (See C.R.S. §34-33- <br />118(4) "...shall have the right to submit written objections to or comments upon the initial <br />or revised application for a permit to the division within thirty days after the last <br />publication [March 29, 1989] of the [notice required pursuant to C.R.S. §34-33-118(2)]), <br />such comments are not proper matters within the purview of the Board's jurisdiction at <br />this appellate stage of the permit process. <br />It is likewise, quite clear that Ms. Coney's letter, dated October Ol, 1990, (See <br />Exhibit "D") also fails to state any objections to the proposed decision of the Division and <br />was submitted to the Division well beyond either the April 28, 1989, statutory deadline for <br />submission of comments or the September 29, 1990, statutory deadline for the submission <br />of objections and request for formal hearing. C.R.S. §34-33-118(4) and C.R.S. §34-33- <br />119(4). In and of itself such failure to state any objections to the proposed decision <br />precludes consideration by this Board of the comments and/or concerns relayed by Ms. <br />Corley in her letter of October Ol, 1990, as a representative of Trend. The further failure <br />of Trend to abide by the statutorily dictated deadlines of either April 28, 1989, and <br />September 29, 1990, for the submission of comments and or reasonably specific objections <br />to the completed application or the proposed decision, demands that the Board not <br />consider the comments and/or concerns set forth in Ms. Coney's letter of October Ol, <br />1990. (See Exhibit "D") <br />As a result and consequence of their own failure to abide by and comply with the <br />express procedural requirements of C.R.S. §34-33-118(4) and C.R.S. §34-33-119(4), this <br />appeal of the proposed decision of the Division must be dismissed and the permit <br />requested by Operator must be issued without delay. <br />4 <br />