My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2000-04-03_PERMIT FILE - M2000002 (6)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2000002
>
2000-04-03_PERMIT FILE - M2000002 (6)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2025 12:51:01 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 2:31:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2000002
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
4/3/2000
Doc Name
TANABE PIT APPLICATION FOR REGULAR 112 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OPERATION RECLAMATION PERMIT FN M-2000
From
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
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.
/
9
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
<br />DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />April 3, 2000 <br />Page 4 <br />identify [he efforts which Lafarge has made to obtain commitments from public water supply entities to <br />utilize this site, and whether or not those efforts have been successful. <br />Rule 6.4.7 Exhibit G. In connection with the discussions of potential health risks contained in <br />part 1 of [his letter, Pinnacle believes that Lafarge, after conducting detailed groundwater studies, <br />should be required to obtain an NPDES permit for its water discharges into the South Platte, and that <br />obtaining such a permit should be a prerequisite to granting the Application. <br />Rule 6.4.17 Exhibit O. >n conjunction with rule 1.6.2(1)(a)(ii), Lafarge is required to file copies <br />of Certified Mail receipts showing [ha[ the County Commissioners received notices. Lafarge has not <br />complied with this requirement. <br />Rule 6.4.18 Exhibit R. Lafarge is required to provide proof that the Application was placed <br />with the local County Clerk and Recorder. IN THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PROVIDED <br />TO DORSEY, THIS EXHIBIT SAYS "SEE ATTACHED", BUT NOTHING IS ATTACHED. <br />Rule 6.4.19 Exhibit S. As noted above regarding Exhibit C, Pinnacle believes Lafarge has <br />failed [o identify certain permanent irrigation structures on the affected land. Pinnacle also believes that <br />there are high pressure gas pipelines near the affected land which must be addressed in the Application. <br />See Attachment 2. <br />3. Procedural difficulties <br />Notice to Pinnacle. Rule 1.6.1 requires [ha[ notice be sent to all persons who timely submitted <br />objections to an application. Pinnacle was never sent notice, rather the notice was simply telephonic. <br />Rule 1.6.2(e)(ii) requires the applicant to mail or personally serve a copy of the newspaper notice on all <br />owners of record within 200 feet of [he boundary of the affected land. Lafarge never mailed or served <br />such a notice on Pinnacle, an adjoining land owner. <br />Notice to County. Rule 1.6.2 (1)(a)(ii) requires the applicant to send written notice to the local <br />Board of county Commissioners and to include proof of mailing in the form of a return receipt of a <br />certified mailing acknowledging receipt by the appropriate local Board. Lafarge did not submit this <br />proof of mailing. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.