Laserfiche WebLink
Gilpin County <br />Colorado <br />Commissioners <br />web siu, 1st D;stria <br />]canoe Nicholson, ltd <br />District <br />Keo Eye, 3rd Disnia <br />County Manager <br />Roger Baker <br />County Attorney <br />James Petrock <br />P.O. Box 366 <br />203 Eureka Street <br />central aty, eo soa2~ <br />Plrone: 303-582-5214 <br />Fax;303-582-3440 <br />Web Site <br />hltpJfco.gdpin.co.us <br />January 3, 2005 <br />RECEIVED <br />JANOq~ <br />Mr. Tom Schreiner Dlulsion of Minerals and Geology <br />Colorado Division of Mineral and Geology <br />1313 Sherman Avenue, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />G5/Q wt fa4n)tyy 1?2SppaASZ ~ <br />Re: Def~mber 16,1104 LEtter tram Bsnks and Gessy, LLC/ ear reek <br />Water Providers Application- ~k 200-067 C/asS> ~rntil~ <br />Dear Mr. Schreiner: <br />This letter has been auhorized and approved by the Board of County <br />Commissioners of Gilpin County ("County'. The Coumy acknowledges receipt <br />of a Dopy of the above-referenced letter, which was directed to the Division of <br />Minerals and Geology. On behalf of the Applicant, Mr. Gesso is attempting to <br />convince the Division and Mined Land Reclamation Board that good cause has <br />not been shown to refer the Application to hearing and that the Application <br />should therefore be granted as of February 7, 2005. Applicant also challenges <br />the authority of Mr. Tony Pexerseq Community Development. Director for the <br />County of Gilpin, to submit a letter of objection on behalf of the County. <br />h is not the purpose of this latter to respond in detail to the allegations comained <br />in Mr. Gesso's letter. An evidentiary hearing is the appropriate forum for <br />consideration of the factual and legal issues prised by the letter. That said, it is <br />imperative that several erroneous assumptions made by Mr. Gesso> be corrected <br />as the onset of this administrative process. <br />1. Authority of Mr. Petersen. In filing the December 2, 2004 objection <br />and hearing request, Mr. Petersen was not acting in any personal capacity. For <br />the record, the Board of County Commissioners of Gilpin County ("Board") <br />authorized the December 2, 2004 filing by Mr. Petersen. Mr. Petersen is <br />responsible for the administration and enforcement of all Gilpin County land use <br />regulations, which would include pteparatiott and filing of the objection in this <br />matter. The Board authorized the filing of the objection and petition for hearing <br />based upon Uteir determination that graining of the application without <br />appropriate conditions, posed a threat of loss or injury to legitim-tte innerests of <br />County residents, including business, economic, esthetic, governmental and <br />coruervation interests. The County and its residents squarely fit the statutory <br />definition of "aggrieved" parties, under C.RS. $34-32.5-103, for purposes of <br />standing to request a hearing in d»s matter. No other formal action is required by <br />the Board of County Commissioners to authorize participation in this <br />administrative process. <br />2. Ezisteuce of Good Cause for Hearing. Applicant contends that the <br />Division and MLRB typically do not require flat a permit include conditions <br />relating to compliance with County Permitting requirements. According to <br />Applicant, such, wnditions arc unnecessary and even `Srnauthorized." The <br />application here is anything but typical. The owner of the property upon which <br />the proposed mining operation is to be conducted, has repeatedly announced in <br />public, including sworn testimony in Gilpin Corinty Court proceedings, that fie <br />Exhibit 116 <br />