My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE43364
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE43364
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:45:50 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 11:33:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2005080
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
8/16/2006
Doc Name
Opposition to Objectors Motion
From
Attorneys for Allen
To
DRMS
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.
/
15
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
documents to be placed on file with the Clerk and Recorder, but only that all relevant documents, <br />including those placed on file with the Clerk and Recorder, must be retained until the Board has <br />taken final action on the application. Allen's application was filed with the Pazk County Clerk <br />on December 16, 2005 (Exhibit 61). No provision of the Rules requires that adequacy reviews or <br />related correspondence must be kept on file with the Clerk and Recorder. Nevertheless, <br />immediately upon request from the Division, Allen filed all such correspondence with the Park <br />County Clerk on May 24, 2006 (Exhibit 67). Because Allen has filed no amendments to the <br />application, none have been submitted to the office of the Clerk and Recorder. <br />Thus, the requirements of Rules 1.3(1) and 1.6.2 have been satisfied, and Objectors have <br />not established any inability to review relevant files that would form a basis for denying the <br />application. <br />2. Allen Has Supplied All Necessary Information To The Division In Compliance <br />With The Rules. <br />As set forth more fully below, Objectors' allegations that Allen's application is <br />incomplete are unsubstantiated and ignore the record in this case and the comprehensive review <br />undertaken by the Division. Allen's application was filed with the Division on December 19, <br />2005. Publication of formal notice of Allen's application began on Febmary 10, 2006 and the <br />period for receiving public comment on this application closed on Mazch 23, 2006. On the last <br />day for public comment, each of the four Objectors submitted a letter to the Division addressing <br />Allen's application. Thereafter, the Division evaluated Allen's application and the public <br />comments to determine whether it was appropriate to recommend approval of that application. <br />As part of its review, the Division requested that Allen provide additional information to detail <br />and explain certain aspects of the application and proposed operations (Exhibits 32, 37 and 43). <br />In response to each of those requests, Allen submitted the requested information (Exhibits 35, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.