PERMFILE60849

• Permit No: M2004067
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 12/20/2004
• Doc Name: Applicant Response to Objection Ltr of Tony Peterson dated Dec 2 2004
• From: Banks and Gesso LLC
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~~ Banks and Gesso, LLC
~®
December 16, 2004
~~~1r ~; b, `,
DEC 2 0 2004
Tom Schreiner lyipion of P iacr~~> ~` 8~'~°~q
Colorado Division of Minerals and Geolog~
1313 Sherman Avenue, Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
720 Kipling St.,Suite117
Lakewood, Colorado 80215
[phone]
Fax [phone]
www. ba nksandgesso.com
` Re: File 2004-06 ,Applicant R~pogs~ to Objection Letter of Mr. Tony Peterson, dated Dec. 2,
2004 Cl9ss: ~2rrru~ _ _ i ~a//v
Dear Mr. Schreiner:
On behalf of Clear Creek Water Providers, the applicant in DMG case 2004-067, this letter is intended
to address comments submitted by Tony Peterson, Gilpin County Community Development Director,
dated December 2, 2004.
Based on the nature of the allegations and requested DMG action in the Peterson letter, we believe
that it is appropriate to respond at this time to the issues presented. Lengthy DMG deliberation and
procedures may be avoided given appropriate clarification of these issues, as discussed by topic
below. _ - .
Objector Status and the Petition for MLRB Hearing
According to statute, the Mined Land Reclamation Board has the discretion to hold a hearing, and the
Division of Minerals and Geology may engage in associated pre-hearing activities, where good cause
is shown by an aggrieved party. To put DMG and MLRB resources to judicious use, state policy
requires a legitimate grievance, based on the potential that DMG or MLRB action could lead to injury.
Mr. Peterson's issues are presented in the form of a grievance, but his statements do not actually
allege any cognizable injury o~ good cause for protest. In fact, the statements in Mr: Peterson's letter
are unrelated to the subject matter of DMG jurisdiction. Specifically:
Under the heading of "Mining Operation," Mr. Peterson recounts that the property owner has
challenged Gilpin County in court on other, unrelated matters. Mr. Peterson then insinuates that
the property owners past history has some bearing on the proposed quarry. Objection on this
basis is not only purely speculative, it is unjustly punitive on the applicant, who is not the same
as the property owner. The County's desire to exact penalties and assert authority over the
person of the property owner should have no bearing on DMG review of the application, for
which purpose the property owner has clearly granted the applicant an adequate right of entry.
Mr. Peterson's "Mining Operation" comments are irrelevant for a showing of good cause. to.
object. In addition to negative remarks about the property owner in other contexts, comments
indicate that County regulations address mining operations. It is quite unclear in what way these