REV98387 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BENDELOW & DARI_1NG, v.c. Attorneys at Law Mr. Larry Oehler September 5, 1996 Page 7 determination by Montrose County as to whether an asphalt plant would be grandfathered. I also enclose a copy of his letter to Ms. Ruth Gray dated 12-19-96 (referenced in Applicant's letter to me) offering to make such a determination, which the applicant and permit holder have conveniently declined to do. As noted in my letter to Mr. Gibbons, recent public statements by Applicant's representatives to the San Miguel County Board of County Commissioners flatly contradict its position that it has a grandfathered right to an asphalt facility in Montrose County. We believe, in light of Applicant's non-credible and non-supportable position on this issue, that Applicant must be required to revise the application to indicate that it will apply for such a local permit, pursuant to CMR 6.4.13. Non-included Stockaile. We are i^ receipt of your letter of September 3, 1996 summarizing the Board's action on out objection that the 4 acre stockpile lease on the adjacent permit area must be included within the current application. We believe that the formulation of the issue as one of "unfair advantage" (as opposed to whether the stockpile lease is part of the applicant's "mining operation"), and the failure to provide the Board with our letters concerning this issue, resulted in an inability on the Boazd's part to fairly and comprehensively address the issue. Alternatively, the Division's presentation of this objection issue to the Board was procedurally premature. We request that the applicant be required to provide a copy of the lease to the Division and the objectors at the Pre-hearing conference, and that this issue be presented at the hearing as stated above. Very truly yours, BENDELOW & DARLING, P.C. -~~~~ Stephen B. ohnson c. Abby Altshuler c. \al [shiner\leuers\oe hler.2