Laserfiche WebLink
Gilpin County <br />Colorado <br />Commissioners <br />Web Sill, 1st District <br />Jeanne Nicholson, 2nd <br />District <br />Ken Eye, 3rd District <br />County Manager <br />Roger Baker <br />County Attorney <br />James Petcock <br />P.O. Box 366 <br />203 Eureka Street <br />Central City, CO 80427 <br />Phone:303-582-5214 <br />Fax:303-582-5440 <br />Web Site <br />http://co.gilpin.co.us <br />January 3, 2005 <br />Mc Tom Schreiner <br />Colorado Division of Mineral and Geology <br />1313 Sherman Avenue, Room 215 <br />RECEIVE® <br />JAN042~5 <br />Oiuision of Minerals and Geology <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />G:~ppirt Co4n71 1~SpaASZ <br />Re: December 16, ~O(14 Utter tram Banks and Cress99, LLC/ leer Creek <br />Water Providers Application- File 2004-067 C/QSS~ ~rnt/f <br />Dear Mr. Schreiner: <br />This letter has been authorized and approved by the Board of County <br />Commissioners of Gilpin Cou~y ("County'. The County acknowledges receipt <br />of a copy of the above-referenced letter, which was directed to the Division of <br />Minerals and Geology. On behalf of the Applicant, Mr. Gesso is attempting to <br />convince the Division and Mined Land Reclamation Board that good cause has <br />not been shown to refer the Application to hearing and that the Application <br />should therefore be granted as of February 7, 2005. Applicant also challenges <br />the authority of Mr. Tony Petersen, Community Development Duector for the <br />Cou~y of Gilpiq to submit a letter of objection on behalf of the Cou~y. <br />It is not the purpose of this letter to respond in detail to the allegations contained <br />in Mr. Gesso's letter. An evidentiary hearing is the appropriate fonmm for <br />consideration of the factual and legal issues raised by the letter. That said, it is <br />imperative that several erroneous assumptions made by Mr. Gesso, be corrected <br />at the onset of this administrative process. <br />1. Authority of Mr. Petersen. In filing the December 2, 2004 objection <br />and hearing request, Mr. Petersen was not acting in any personal capacity. For <br />the record, the Board of Coumy Commissioners of Gilpin Coumy ("Board") <br />authorized the December 2, 2004 filing by Mr. Petersen. Mr. Petersen is <br />responsible for the administration and enforcement of all Gilpin County land use <br />regulations, which would include preparation and filing of the objection in this <br />matter. The Board authorized the filing of the objection and petition for hearing <br />based upon their determination that granting of the application without <br />appropriate conditions, posed a threat of loss or injury to legitimate interests of <br />County residems, including business, economiq esthetic, governmental and <br />conservation interests. The County and its residems squarely fit the statutory <br />definition of "aggrieved" parties, under C.R.S. §34-32.5-103, for purposes of <br />standing to request a hearing in this matter. No other formal action is required by <br />the Board of County Commissioners to authorize participation in this <br />administrative process. <br />2. Eristeuce of Good Cause for Hearing. Applicant contends that the <br />Division and MLRB typically do not require that a permit include conditions <br />relating to compliance with County permitting requirements. According to <br />Applicant, such conditions are unnecessary and even "wrauthorized." The <br />application here is anything but typical. The owner of the property upon which <br />the proposed mining operation is to be conducted, has repeatedly announced in <br />public, including sworn testimony in Gilpin County Court proceedings, that he <br />