My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE47333
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE47333
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:49:22 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 1:06:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2004067
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
11/21/2005
Doc Name
Exhibit 206
From
City of Black Hawk
To
DMG
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.
/
61
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
Tom Schreiner <br />October 24, 2005 <br />Page 3 <br />112(9); CMR § 1.6.2(1)(e). They are presumably possessors of "legitimate interests" by <br />definition. Other persons who wish to file objections must show that they are aggrieved. <br />Under CMR § 1.7.4, the DMG and the MLRB must consider whether or not any given <br />comment is being made by a person or entity asserting an actual or potential loss or injury to a <br />legitimate interest (an "aggrieved person"), and therefore entitled [o object to a proposed <br />application. A comment or letter that is submitted by a person who is not aggrieved is not an <br />objection and must be disregarded. A comment that does not state a grievance and grounds on <br />which it is based is not an objection. <br />The City of Black Hawk has no legitimate interest in this permitting action that is <br />protected by C.R.S. § 34-32.5-101 et. seq. (the "Act"). It has no governmental regulatory <br />interest at stake, nor does it have any business, economic, aesthetic, recreational, or <br />conservational interest that is entitled to protection under C.R.S. § 34-32.5-101 er. seq. Its <br />statements of concern in its earlier letters acknowledge that DMG has no power to regulate <br />traffic or to condition or deny CCDWP's permit on the basis of traffic, which is the thing that <br />Black Hawk is concerned about. Black Hawk has no other identifiable concern in this matter. It <br />has no standing to object in this permit application and cannot be a party, because it is not <br />• "aggrieved" within the definition of the Act. The DMG should therefore disregazd its objections, <br />or treat them as comments. <br />However, assuming arguendo that the DMG wishes to consider the issues that Black <br />Hawk raises, CCDWP states as follows: <br />1. Location of the Access Road. <br />Access to Highway 19 is a matter of joint Colorado Department of Transportation <br />("CDOT") and Gilpin County authority. Banks and Gesso have addressed the minor clerical <br />issue of discrepancy between the map location and the printed latitude and longitude coordinates, <br />in a new Exhibit C. The corrected coordinates have been made public, as has the now-approved <br />highway access permit. There is no factual basis for Black Hawk's assertion that the application <br />is incomplete or inaccurate. <br />Z. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. <br />The City of Black Hawk argues that CCDWP has failed to satisfy the requirement of <br />CMR § 6.4.7(5), that "[t]he Operator/Applicant shall affirmatively state that the <br />Operator/Applicant has acquired (or has applied for) a [NPDES] permit from the Water Quality <br />Control Division at the Colorado Department of Health, if necessazy." In making this argument, <br />the City of Black Hawk ignores the predicate of this regulation: such a statement is required if a <br />permit is necessary. CCDWP stated in its application that this project may dischazge storm water <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.