My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE50457
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
600000
>
PERMFILE50457
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:54:59 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 2:29:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2004067
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/12/2005
Doc Name
Response to DMG Motion to Strike & Reply to DMGs Response to Citys Motion for Conditions
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.
/
6
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
I. Objection to Untimely Filing <br />As an initial matter, the City objects to the Division's motion to strike as untimely and in <br />violation of C.M.R. 2.6(1), which requires motions to be received by the Boazd no later than two (2) <br />working days following the pre-heazing conference, which took place on November 21, 2005. The <br />Division's motion is dated December 9, 2005, which is at least 12 working days following the pre- <br />heazing conference, and the City did not receive its copy of the motion by mail until December 12, <br />2005. The Division's late filing of this motion in violation of its own rules severely prejudices the <br />City's rights in this matter, as the City is unable to properly respond to this motion prior to the <br />December 14, 2005, heazing. Rule 2.6(1) requires any written response to a motion to be received by <br />the Boazd no later than three (3) working days prior to the date of the formal hearing. Yet, put quite <br />simply, there aze not three working days prior to the date of the formal hearing, and the City can do <br />no more than file this response outside of the Rule's filing requirements. <br />II. Response to Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits <br />The Division's opposition to exhibits related to Phillip Wolf, the land owner ofthe proposed <br />quarry site, is misplaced, for it remains very relevant whether the Applicant will be able to obtain <br />Mr. Wo1P s cooperation in completing the required County permits. While the Applicant may have <br />committed to apply for all appropriate county permits, in this case there remains great uncertainty <br />about Applicant's ability to give meaning to that commitment. The Applicant has not yet been able <br />to show that it will gain the cooperation of Mr. Wolf, a known and documented violator of Gilpin <br />County zoning regulations, as necessary in order to apply for the necessary Gilpin County permits. <br />At least one, if not all, required County permits require that the land owner himself apply for and <br />i participate in the permitting process. Mr. Wolf's history of evading service, obfuscating County <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.