PERMFILE48077 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

05/31/2006 11:22 7192751715 CONST SERVICES BLDG PAGE 04 1y10tion £Oi Continuance Permit Application No. M-2D05-080 Pagc 3 0£ 7 2.e. On Mey 23, 2006, counsel foz Objectors obtained a second document imaging CD from Mr. Dupler. This new CD included a DMG Minerals Program haspection Report, dated Apxil 11, 2006, which tlae Objectors had never received. 2.f. Objectors and their counsel have no way of kzaowing if they have been provided with all documents in the DMG file for Permit No. M-2005-080. 2.g. Objectors are prejudiced by the lack of timely availability of documents in their preparation for the Pre-hearing Conference on June 2, 2006 and of th a Boazd Heating on June 14 and 1 S, 2006. 3. As a second grouzad for this moron, Rule 1.6.2. (2) states: "The copy of the permit application, adequacy responses of the applicant, application revisions, and any permit amendment applications placed at the office of the County Clerk or Recorder ...shall be retained until final agency action, as defined in C.R.S. 24-4-105(14), on said application has occurred, and he available £or inspection during such period ..." Objector, Kent Rolf went to the Park County Clerk and Recorder's office on May 22; 2006 to inspect the file for dais permit held by the Clerk and Recorder to see if documents not provided to Objectors were in that office. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is an affidavit from Kent Rolfdiscussing his visit to tlae Park Comity Clerk and Recorder's Office and showing that only the application is on file iu that Office. 4. As a Hurd growid For this motion, DMG's Guide to Citizen Participation in the 112 Reclaznation Permit Application Process for Construction Material and Hard Rock/Metal Mining Operations (Dated October 2, 2001, Revised October 19, 2001, August 2, 2004 and January 12, 2006) at page 4 states that: "[t]he applicant must notify ttre local board of county commissioners, all ]and and mineral rights owners of record for the site, all owners of record of land (inciuding all recorded easenxents) within 200 feet of the affected lands ..." (emphasis added). DMG's la' Adequacy Review dated April 5, 2006 requested tlaat pursuant to Rule 1.6.5(2), Applicant must provide "proof of notice to all owners ofrecord of surface lands, and easement holders that are on the affected land and within 200 feet of the boundary of the affected land." Applicant's response, dated Apti114, 2006 included proof of notice "£or all adjacent lazad owners and CDOT." Applicant has not provided proof of notice to all easement holders within 200 feet of the boundary of tlae affected land. Owners of utiliries located within said 200 feet, discussed in Mr. Rolfls affidavit (attached hereto as Exhibit B) were not notified. Therefore, the application is incomplete. 5. As a fourth ground for this ruction, Rule 6.4.7(4) specifically requires the applicant to identify tlae specific source(s) of water and the quantity to be obtained from each source iza order to meet the project's anticipated water requirements. The applicazat has failed to identify any source(s) of water to be used for the minizag operations (e.g., dust control, wash water, process water). Therefore, the application is incomplete.