My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL36365
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL36365
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:56:57 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:43:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981033
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
6/17/1982
Doc Name
PUBLIC OBJECTION & REQUEST FOR FORMAL HEARING ON DIVISIONS PROPOSED DECISION TO APPROVE A MINING & R
From
MLR
To
LINDA PIPO
Permit Index Doc Type
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
STATE OF COLORVDO Hof gnan p, ~nrnM. Rnv ~r~m.~ III III III III I'll III <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />D. Monte Pascoe, E.ecut~ve Director <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION <br />423 Centennial Buitding,13T3 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 866-3567 <br />David C. Shelton <br />June 17, 2962 Director <br />TO: Linda Pi po \~11-^ <br />FROM: Dan Mathews p~~ y ' G- <br />RE: Public objection and request for formal hearing on the Division's <br />proposed decision to approve a mining and reclamation permit for <br />the Bear No. 3 mine (File No. C-033-81) <br />Attached is a copy of the objection received by the Division on June 14, <br />I9B2, the final day of the public comment period, and a waiver previously <br />signed by the objectors, David D. and Esther P7. Bradley. As presented <br />in the attached letter, the objection is specifically limited to the mine <br />access road, portions of which are within 300 feet of the Bradley's resi- <br />dence in somerset, Colorado. <br />Section 39-33-114(g)(v) specifically prohibits mining operations within <br />300 feet of an occupied residence unless the prohibition is waived by the <br />owner of the residence. <br />The questions we have are as follows: <br />1. Both David and Esther Bradley signed the attached waiver. Does this <br />waiver meet the requirements of the Act and, if so, is the objection valid?. <br />2. Is it proper to limit the issues presented in the formal hearing to <br />the specific objections raised in the attached Letter? Can participation <br />in the formal hearing be limited to the concerned parties (i.e., Bear Coal <br />Company, the Bradley's, and the Division)? <br />/mt <br />Attachments <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.