PERMFILE67624

• Permit No: M2004067
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 1/4/2005
• Doc Name: Public Comment & Objection Letters
• From: DMG
• To: Banks and Gesso LLC
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Gllpln County
Colorado .
Commissioners
Web Sill, 1st District
Jeanne Ncholson, 2nd
District .
Ken Eye, 3rd District
County Manager
Roger Baker
County Attorney
James Petcock
P.O. Box 366
203 Eureka Street
Central City, CO 80427
Phone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
Web Site
hapJ/co.gitpin.co.us
....... .
January 3, 2005
Mr. Tom Schreiner
Colorado Division of Mineral and Geology
1313 Sherman Avenue, Room 215
RECEIVE®
JAN ~ q
Division of Minerals and Geology
Denver, CO 80203
GL,Yp ;ri fcorJ~ T~s ansZ ~
Re: December 16, 004 L~er from Banks and Gessp, LLCI,~.'lear reek
Water ProvidersApplica6on-1~Ie2004-067 C/ass J'ErMf~
Dear Mr. Sclueiner:
This letter has been authorized and approved by the Board of Cou~y
Commissioners of Gilpin County ("County"). The County acknowledges receipt
of a copy of the above-referenced letter, which was directed to the Division of
Minerals and Geology. On behalf of the Applicant, Mc Gesso is attempting to
convince the Division and Mined Land Reclamation Board that good cause has
not been shown to refer the Application to hearing and that the Application
should therefore be grained as of February 7, 2005. Applicant also challenges
the authority of Mr. Tony Petersen, Community Development Director for the
Coumy of Gilpin, to submit a letter of objection on behalf of the County.
If is not the purpose of this letferto respond'in detail't©the allegatlbns contained
m 1~Tf.; Gesso's letter Ap evidentiary hearing`is''the appropriate forum-for.
considerafron-of the factria'1 and issues iaised by the letter. That said it is
mipeiairVe that sec~eraj erroneous assumptions riiade by Mr Gesso,'be crxreded
at the oaseT of fili`is admini'sfi`aEtve ~r'adess
1. Authority of 1~Ir Petersen. In filing the December 2, 2004, objection
and hearing request, Mr. Petersen was not acting in nay personal capacity. For
the record,' the Board of Comrty Commissioners of Gilpin County ("Board")
authorized the December 2, 2004 filing by Mr. Petersen.. Mr. Petersen is
responsible for the administration and enforcemerd of aII Gilpin Conroy land use
regulations, which-would include preparation and filing of the objection in this
matter. The Board authorized the filing of the objection and petition for hearing
based upon their determination that granting of the application without
appropriate conditions, posed a threat of loss or injury to legitimate interests of
County residents, inciuding business, economic, esthetic, governmental and
conservation interests. The County-and its residents squarely fit the statutory
definition of "aggrieved" parties, under C.RS. §34-32.5-103, fbr purposes' of
standing to request a hearing inthis matter. No other formal action is required by
the Board of County Commissioners to authorize participation in this
miniatrafiVe process. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..
2. F.risteiiee of Good• Ganse for Hearing. •.Applicant contends that the
Division and MLRB typically do not require that a permit include conditions
r'elatvig to comphance 6vith CctnnEy'pennitting requirements. According to
Applirdtrt, Stich' conditions' are il5riecessary and even' "unauthorized: 'Phe
application hers: is anything' lnrt typical The 1rainer'o€ the property uparr which
the pmpose~ mmtiig operatioh is fti lie condrictect;'has"repeatedly amiounced in
public; mcludmg sworii testmiony in Gilpitl'County Courf'pioceedings~ thathe