PERMFILE51829 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

As we discussed, you placed the public notice in the local newspaper on August 14, 2003. However, the application was not considered filed until September 11, 2003. You were instructed to re-publish notice (DMG's August 25, 2003 letter) after the Division considers the application submitted, if you had already published notice. Since you had already published notice you needed to re-publish within 10 days after September 11, 2003. Per our phone conversation, you said the local paper only ~ublishes once a week so you will place the notice in the paper during the week of September 29` .Make sure the comment period expires 10 days after the date of publication. Because the notice had to be re-published, an additional time period maybe added for the Division to make a decision (Rule 1.4.1(13)). Currently, the decision due date is October 13, 2003. This date may be reset after the Division receives proof that the public notice was re- published. If the operator needs additional time to respond to the above noted adequacy concerns, please submit a request for an extension of the decision due date prior to the expiration of the current, or revised, decision date. If the above noted concerns aze not resolved by the decision date, and the applicant does not request an extension of the decision date, the application may be denied. Place a copy of this letter and a copy of your response with the County Clerk and Recorder and submit proof to the Division that the Clerk and Recorder received the documents. Prior to final consideration of the application, the applicant must submit proof of publication and proof of all required notices to the Division, pursuant to Rule 1.6.2(1)(g) (see Rule 1.6.2(1)(e) for notice requirements). If you have any questions, please give me a call at 303-866-4060. Sincerely, -~ ~~_ _ James Dillie Environmental Protection Specialist cc: Harry Posey (e-mail)