Laserfiche WebLink
Gllpln County <br />Colorado . <br />Commissioners <br />Web Sill, 1st District <br />Jeanne Ncholson, 2nd <br />District . <br />Ken Eye, 3rd District <br />County Manager <br />Roger Baker <br />County Attorney <br />James Petcock <br />P.O. Box 366 <br />203 Eureka Street <br />Central City, CO 80427 <br />Phone:303-582-5214 <br />Fax:303-582-5440 <br />Web Site <br />hapJ/co.gitpin.co.us <br />....... . <br />January 3, 2005 <br />Mr. Tom Schreiner <br />Colorado Division of Mineral and Geology <br />1313 Sherman Avenue, Room 215 <br />RECEIVE® <br />JAN ~ q <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />GL,Yp ;ri fcorJ~ T~s ansZ ~ <br />Re: December 16, 004 L~er from Banks and Gessp, LLCI,~.'lear reek <br />Water ProvidersApplica6on-1~Ie2004-067 C/ass J'ErMf~ <br />Dear Mr. Sclueiner: <br />This letter has been authorized and approved by the Board of Cou~y <br />Commissioners of Gilpin County ("County"). The County acknowledges receipt <br />of a copy of the above-referenced letter, which was directed to the Division of <br />Minerals and Geology. On behalf of the Applicant, Mc 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 grained as of February 7, 2005. Applicant also challenges <br />the authority of Mr. Tony Petersen, Community Development Director for the <br />Coumy of Gilpin, to submit a letter of objection on behalf of the County. <br />If is not the purpose of this letferto respond'in detail't©the allegatlbns contained <br />m 1~Tf.; Gesso's letter Ap evidentiary hearing`is''the appropriate forum-for. <br />considerafron-of the factria'1 and issues iaised by the letter. That said it is <br />mipeiairVe that sec~eraj erroneous assumptions riiade by Mr Gesso,'be crxreded <br />at the oaseT of fili`is admini'sfi`aEtve ~r'adess <br />1. Authority of 1~Ir Petersen. In filing the December 2, 2004, objection <br />and hearing request, Mr. Petersen was not acting in nay personal capacity. For <br />the record,' the Board of Comrty Commissioners of Gilpin County ("Board") <br />authorized the December 2, 2004 filing by Mr. Petersen.. Mr. Petersen is <br />responsible for the administration and enforcemerd of aII Gilpin Conroy land use <br />regulations, which-would include preparation and filing of the objection in this <br />matter. The Board authorized the filing of the objection and petition for hearing <br />based upon their determination that granting of the application without <br />appropriate conditions, posed a threat of loss or injury to legitimate interests of <br />County residents, inciuding business, economic, esthetic, governmental and <br />conservation interests. The County-and its residents squarely fit the statutory <br />definition of "aggrieved" parties, under C.RS. §34-32.5-103, fbr purposes' of <br />standing to request a hearing inthis matter. No other formal action is required by <br />the Board of County Commissioners to authorize participation in this <br />miniatrafiVe process. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. <br />2. F.risteiiee of Good• Ganse for Hearing. •.Applicant contends that the <br />Division and MLRB typically do not require that a permit include conditions <br />r'elatvig to comphance 6vith CctnnEy'pennitting requirements. According to <br />Applirdtrt, Stich' conditions' are il5riecessary and even' "unauthorized: 'Phe <br />application hers: is anything' lnrt typical The 1rainer'o€ the property uparr which <br />the pmpose~ mmtiig operatioh is fti lie condrictect;'has"repeatedly amiounced in <br />public; mcludmg sworii testmiony in Gilpitl'County Courf'pioceedings~ thathe <br />