2000-06-16_PERMIT FILE - M2000002 (5)

Home Browse Search

II. Applicant's Responses to Objectors' Issues, as Identified in the June 15 2000 Facsimile Copy of the Drafr Order A. Pinnacle Pines Statement oflssue: Whether the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board has the au[hority to issue a mining and reclamation permit to the applicant in the absence of prior approval of a Conditional Use Permit from Adams County. 1. Pinnacle made its objection well after the close of the public comment period and informal conference comment period, and, as such, the objection should be excluded from the final Pre-Hearing Order. As a matter of procedure, Pinnacle's objection is flawed since it was made only after the close of the public comment period, a fact Pinnacle itself identified in a May 2, 2000 letter to DMG staff. Construction Materials Rule 1.4.6(2)(c) (2 CCR 402-2) also provides project objectors an opportunity after the close of public comment to memorialize, in writing, issues for consideration by DMG staff, the applicant, and the Board, if necessary. These second round corrtments must be supplied to DMG staff within five (5) days after the informal conference. Pinnacle failed to raise the above-stated objection during the informal conference comment period. MPC's public notice of Application M-2000-002 was published in the Brighton Standard Blade during the four (4) consecutive weeks beginning on February 2, 2000, and continuing on February 9, February 16, and February 23, 2000 as required in Construction Materials Rule 1.6.5. The public comment period closed on March 14, 2000 (i.e., 20 days after the last date of publication of the public notice, Febtvary 23, 2000). The informal conference was held on Monday, Mazch 27, 2000. The five day period for submitting comments after the informal conference concluded on Monday, April 3, 2000 (as the fifth day fell on a Saturday, April 1, 2000). Pinnacle's May 2, 2000 objection was first supplied to the Division forty-nine (49) days after the close of the public comment period and twenty-nine (29) days after the close of the informal conference comment period. Pinnacle submitted a substantial number of objections to the application within the allotted public comment and informal conference periods. The applicant worked diligently to address and respond to all of Pinnacle's concerns, which fact Pinnacle acknowledged at the Pre-Hearing Conference. Now Pinnacle wants the Board to formally consider at the public hearing the one objection it did not think to make on time; a comment that also misstates the applicable law. By allowing Pinnacle's eleventh hour objection, the Boazd will be ignoring its own well- established procedural rules regarding public notice and the acceptance of public comment. The Board's consideration of the objection would be manifestly unfair to MPC and it would also provide a sophisticated objector like Pinnacle yet a third opportunity to comment, which is not 3