Laserfiche WebLink
September 12, 2005 <br />Page 4 <br />monitoring plan. <br />Further, while the Lyman Henn report identifies "typical" mitigation measures <br />(consisting of reconfiguring the blast), the applicant's response includes no commitment on the <br />part of the applicant to implement any mitigation measures. The application is, thus, still <br />incomplete, and the permit must denied. <br />4. Notice to property owners. <br />Silver Dollar Metropolitan District owns property within two hundred (200) feet of the <br />affected land but was not notified by mail of the proposed mining activities as required by CMR <br />1.6.2(1)(e)(ii). <br />Perhaps more importantly, Silver Dollar owns light poles within two hundred (200) feet <br />of the affected land. See affidavit of Medill Barnes, attached hereto and incorporated herein as <br />Exhibit A. The light poles meet the definition of significant, valuable and permanent man-made <br />structures set forth in CMR 1.1(48) and require that Silver Dollar should have been contacted <br />pursuant to CMR 6.4.19 to sign an agreement or to review an engineering report about the <br />potential impact of the proposed mining on the light poles. No such contact has been made, and <br />the applicant is in violation of CMR 6.4.19. Further, the applicant's failure to identify Silver <br />Dollar's light poles means that the applicant has also failed to satisfy the mapping requirements <br />of CMR 6.4.3(a),(b), and (g). <br />Further, the applicant's failure to identify Silver Dollar's property interests casts doubt on <br />the veracity of the applicant's first certification on page 7 of its November 2004 application is <br />untrue. (See p. 7 of November Application, "To the best of my knowledge, all significant, <br />valuable and permanent man-made structures(s) in existence at the time this application is filed, <br />and located within 200 feet of the proposed affected area have been identified in this <br />application.") And, given the applicant's lack of contact with Silver Dollar, its apparent lack of <br />knowledge about Silver Dollar's property, and its current inability to assure Silver Dollar that the <br />proposed mining operation will not "adversely affect the stability of any significant, valuable and <br />permanent manmade structure located within two hundred feet of the affected ]and, at this time <br />C.R.S. § 34-32.5-115(4)(e) provides an appropriate grounds for denial of the application. <br />5. Re-publish and re-notice requirements. <br />After the Division, in its April 11, 2005, letter deemed the applicant's March 25, 2005, <br />adequacy response to be an amendment to the application, the applicant had a duty to re-publish <br />and re-notice pursuant to CMR 1.6.6. In order to meet this requirement, the applicant would <br />have to show proof of mailing notice of the amended application to all land owners within two <br />hundred (200) feet of the affected land. CMR 1.6.2(1)(e)(ii). The applicant has provided no <br />such proof and, therefore, seems to be in violation of CMR 1.6.6, CMR 1.6.2(1)(e)(ii), and the <br />9/!2/05 <br />Q: I USERSIBMHMGIMlN/NG APPL/CAT/OMOBJECT/ON LETTER - L03.~OC <br />