2006-08-02_PERMIT FILE - M2005080

Home Browse Search

06/01/2006 08:32 7192751715 COtJST SERilICES BLI)Ci PAGE 02 7/dil lane A/:.r ]lC1L4 r71 dr •N ranvn r.v ~~ ~ •~~ ,::,. Y~ SAX COVER SHEET: TO: Dan Hernandez FROM: rate l'ickford RE: Allen Yit Pre-he~nring Conference M-2D05-080 Included you will t5ed a motion fns a continus¢tce far tbepre-ring confetestee and the Board bearing for the above Bite, submt~ ~objec~or s attomoy, 'I'Se Division's attorney has staled that she does not tcve an_ mg ~ntatned is the request would eettse the Division to postpone ;ho decision tm rectxnstend denial of the permit, with the exeeptivn, of one item, which dr: applicant intends to rectify by tomorrow, dune l°. the Division is prepared to go forwsrrd with it recomraeodation for approval at the pre hearing conference ae ltxtg eta the applicant has felGUed that requireurcnt. Listed below are the Bivision responses the rtwterials contained in the request. I. The Division does not elpr+x that the applicant failed to prove that the subso5tted application meets tninimttm requittmonts of the Act and the Rules_ 2. 1"he abjoctor's attorney makes ntunemus references ro the Riot that information related to the permit app licatiar_ wan inaccessible to them during the review process, which was nee in compliance with the Act and the Rules. Tn fact, the applicant failed ro submit cotsespondence subsequent to the initial application with the county clerk's Office. Once the Di~leion was aware of this, the applicant was advised, and all materials ware snbtriitted to the Park Ctmnty Clerk's Office on May 22, 2006. The applicant obtained 3 CD's of the imaged permit irtfottnation, one on Apr.l 26, 2004, one on'_vlay 1, 2006, and one aQ May 17, 2006, On May ~2, the objectors' attorney i~dicatcd that the CD's did not contain infomtation related to adequacy responses and adequacy review levers. The Division immediately tn;tde the spcciIIed minting materials available to the objectot'e attorneys via 1'ax. Anew CD was created sad picked up by the attorney on May 23. According to the imaging system, the last document imaged into the file was done on May 11,2006, ?hetefore the ,Division cannot explain or support the objectara' attorney's claim that the May ] 7, 2006 CD was irteontplete. Additionally, the Divisor is ot>rtain that all materials related to fhe permit application were supplial to the attorney by May 23.2006, and therefore disagrees that the objectors' attorney has not had adequate brae to prcpaze for the pt's-bearing conference. 3. This infomsaiion was eui~tnitted tv the Pa(k County Clerk's OfSce on May 23, 2006. 4. According to the applicant a tide scare}: did not reveal any easement holders within 200 feet of the property. The applicant did diswvey on May 3 i, that Qwest has a line within x:00 feet of the bout:dary, of which she and the Division