Laserfiche WebLink
December 30, 2004 <br />Page 2 <br />an aggrieved party that, pursuant to C.R.S. § 34-32.5-114, has the right to file written objections <br />to the permit application and to petition for a heating on the matter. <br />That being said, it is important to note that the City's objections to the application do not <br />concern traffic issues, for the City understands that such matters do not fall within the Boazd's <br />purview. Rather, the City's objections focus on the proper and meaningful enforcement of the <br />statutes, rules, and regulations that control the Board's ability to properly grant or deny the <br />application, and the City is entitled to be heazd by the Boazd due to the adverse business, <br />economic, and governmental impacts of the proposal on the City. <br />I. <br />First, the City endorses and reiterates the objections already lodged by other aggrieved <br />parties: <br />• The City shazes the Douglas Mountain Residents' Association's concerns about the need for <br />additional analysis and documentation of blasting procedures, the need for fiirther evaluation <br />of the proposed mine's impacts on the area's water supply, the importance of conducting a <br />wildlife inventory, and the necessity of evaluating the proposed mine's impact on air quality. <br />• Related to these general air-quality concerns aze the specific objecfions regazding 'the <br />potential for uranium mineralization in blasting dust raised by LL. and L.M. Turner, <br />contiguous property owners to the proposed mine. The City shazes these concerns, raises <br />them anew, and asks the Board to confirm whether a discrepancy does exist in the applicant's <br />proffered legal description of the property, as the Turners have suggested. <br />The City shares the objections expressed by Jock Waldo, cazetaker of the Estella Leopold <br />property adjacent to the proposed mine, concerning drainage, erosion control, site restoration, <br />and ells habitat. <br />The foregoing list of objections shows that the applicant's compliance with the Board's <br />Construction Material Rule 6.4, "Specific Exhibit Requirements -112 Reclamation Operation," <br />has been less than meaningful and purely formulaic. The comments submitted to the Boazd from <br />Louis Smith of the Jefferson Conservation District support this conclusion. On these grounds <br />alone, pursuant to C.R.S. § 34-32.5-115(4)(a), the Boazd may deny the application as incomplete. <br />II. <br />Second, the City endorses and wishes to elaborate on the objections raised by Tony <br />Petersen on behalf of Gilpin County. Mr. Petersen's point that the applicant has failed to comply <br />with Gilpin County's Special Use Review ("SUR") Permit requirements is significant, despite <br />Mr. Gesso's attempt to minimize the issue in his response to Mr. Petersen's letter. <br />11/30/04 <br />Q: I USERSIBHIHMGU9NLVGAPPLICATTOMOBJECTLONLETTER - LOLDOC <br />