My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE71456
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
800000
>
PERMFILE71456
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:20:43 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 11:51:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1998058
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Name
PRESENTATION FORM
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
r~i-i.--=';yy 12.20FM FR~ TO • 13030328105 r.%= <br />December 1998, while the Opponents ignored their responsibility. The Opponenu signed their <br />return receipt mail card on 1 I December 1998, establishing that they received the information <br />sent. The failure of the Opponenu to provide additional information does not constitute <br />sufficient erounds for the Boazd to `Yeconsider' its Decision. <br />The Opponents, aze mistaken in blaming the "applicant's consultant" for their failure to have <br />their letter read into the Public Hearing as their written testimony. This decision was made by the <br />Boazd. The objections made by the "applicant's consultant" only pertained to the fact that 'hew <br />information" was being submitted, which we had never had an opportunity to review and which <br />was completely contrary to the instructions given in the Pre-Hearin; Conference. Likewise, the <br />Opponents are mistaken in claiming that the Division Staff "indicated to us that we could submit <br />a letter and it could be read during the time allotted to use, as parties." Division Staff has no <br />authority to made decisions for the Board when information is submitted outside of the requued <br />regulatory time frames. <br />For the Opponents to continually imply that the Division Staff suggested that "additional <br />concerns" were not addressed during the permitting process is incorrect and misleading. The <br />formal response to the Division Staff to the objections filed by the Opponents is found in their <br />"Rational for Recommendation for Approval Over Objections Regulaz 112 Construction <br />Materials Permit Application, Johnson Excavating Company - Tellier Gravel Pit, Permit I3o. M- <br />98-058" issued on 9 November 1998 which states that "this document is intended to explain the <br />reasons for the Division's recommendation of approval over objections to the application." All of <br />the issues raised by the Opponents which the Division considered relevant to this permit aze <br />explained in that document. The Opponents refusal to accept the formal findings of Division <br />Staff is inadequate mounds for the Board to "reconsidez" iu Decision. <br />The Applicant completely disagrees that comments reviewed during the public comment period <br />have "absolutely no power at all!!" Their letter was given as much consideration during this time <br />as if it had been read as their testimony. The fact that their letter was not read as their testimony <br />and during the Public Cornmeal Period is not grotmds for the Board to reconsider iu Decision. <br />The acknowledgment by the Opponents that their letter did indeed contain "new" information is <br />interesting. )n the Pre-Hearing Conference it was succinctly stated in both word and by deed, by <br />refusing to allow the Opponents to bring up "new concerns" beyond those identified as relevant <br />in the Draft Hearing Order. The Opponents contention that they were not allowed to bring up <br />these "new issues" which they claim 'would be of importance to the Board" is not grounds for <br />the Boazd to `Yeconsidei' its Decision. <br />'~ Lnfortunately, the Opponents fail to understand that there is virtually no connection between the <br />"new issue" involving the application for additional water rights made by the landowner and the <br />operation of this gravel pit. As stated by Ms. Erica Crosby in the Pre-Hearing Conference of 1 <br />December 1998, Division Staff has made the formal determination that the landowner has of will <br />have sufficirnt water rights with the Gravel Pit Well Permit which will have to be obtained, to <br />supply all of the water needs of this gravel pit. The new water righu application is not tied to the <br />gravel mining permit or operation. The suggestion being made by the Opponents that these two <br />matters must be connected when Division Staff and the Colorado Division of Water Resources <br />have determined that they aze not, in no way constitutes grounds to "reconsider' the Board's <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.