Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-2- <br /> <br />b) Whether the proposed land uses of mining, water storage, and wetlands are consll'tent <br />with Commerce City and Adams County's comprehensive land use plan for residential <br />use of the proposed affected land. <br />c) Whether disturbances to the First Creek floodway and floodplain will be minimized <br />during mining and reclamation. . <br />Al] parties received timely and sufficient notice of this hearing. <br />8. During the hearing, the parties stated that issue 6(c) has been resolved. Therefore, it will not be <br />considered. <br />9. Mobile argued that issue 6(a) was not raised on time, and that issue 6(b) should be reworded to <br />take into consideration Commerce City's comprehensive land use plan only, because Commerce City <br />did not raise the issue regarding the Adams County comprehensive land use plan on time. <br />l0. § 34-32.5-114, C.R.S. provides that aggrieved persons may file written objections to an <br />application for a permit, but must do so not more than twenty days after the date of last publication of <br />notice made pursuant to § 34-32.5-112(9), C.R.S. Board Construction Material Rule 1.4.6(2)(b) <br />provides that "[A]ny issue raised orally, that was not previously submitted in writing, by a party at the <br />informal conference shall be submitted in writing to the Office by such party within five working days <br />after the informal conference." <br />11. It is not clear whether Pinnacle Pines raised Issue 6(a) at the informal conference. Even if it <br />did, Pinnacle Pines submitted the issue in writing in a letter received May 2. Since the informal <br />conference was March 27, Pinnacle Pines May 2 letter was untimely. <br />12. Pinnacle Pines failed to show good cause for the Board to hear this untimely issue. Therefore, <br />it will not be considered. <br />13. Commerce City raised the issue regarding Adams County's land use plan on June 16, which <br />was untimely. Commerce City failed to show good cause for the Board to hear this untimely issue. <br />Therefore, it will not be considered. <br />l4. The only issue to be considered by the Board in this matter is whether the proposed land uses of <br />mining, water storage, and wetlands are consistent with Commerce City's comprehensive land use plan <br />for residential use of the proposed affected land. <br />15. Mr. Goodenough testified that the applicant proposes to disturb land that is not within <br />Commerce City. He testified that the city may annex this land into the city at a future date, but that as <br />of the hearing in this matter, the city has no jurisdiction. <br />16. Tom Schreiner testified on behalf of the Division. He testified that the Division recommends <br />approval over the objections, and without condition. He testified that, in the Division's opinion, it has <br />no authority to deny the application based on Commerce City's land use plan. <br />