GENERAL41717 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

•: •:~A ~P • C ~' .. i~. .'. l.. I'lr. :C~' r 1. ~1~( .. /.. 5. i.uyust 29, 19n? - Leti.er t rc;.r i.h~ Campbcil, 1,1 •l lke r, dnd Gr r~V er Ci it bc;:dlr this ;min? operation iS a nornonfor~r.~~~g objection by the City of Lake~.vcod. P i%nv irn of i;ursucli, t:irt;, o the r:ity of I_ake~+ood statin:, u: e and nay continue 1tl1Ln n, 6. September 1, 1953 - Standard Division forms were sent to the operatvr, Jefferson County, and the City of Lakewood stating the permit application is tentatively scheduled to be heard by the Board on November 17, 1933. 7. September l4, 1953 - !fleeting between the operator (represented by 14 r. John flissem), the operator's consultant (ldr. O'Brian), and the Division to review the permit application submittal of July 14, 1931 versus the permit application submitted on August 26, 1933. The outca~ne of this meeting was that the application submittal of August 20, 1953 was not substantially different than the original permit application submittal of July 14, 1931. The Division determined that the operator did not need to follow the procedures of newspaper notification or adjacent landowner notification for the revised permit application submittal of August 26, 1933 since this had already been done in 19d1. Consideration of the permit application by the Board was changed from the iovember ll, 1931 to the October 26-27, 1933 meeting since the aforementioned public notice procedures were not needed. The Division did not notify the City of Lakewood of the change in Board dates because the Division hao already been notified, per the letter received ,august 29, 1983 as rererence~ above, of the non-conforming use of the mine with no objection by the C:~y of Lakewood. This information satisfied the statute requirements pursuant to C.R.S. 1973, 34-32-115(4)(e). 8. October 26, 1953 - Permit application was approved by the board with financial warranty set at $99,000.00. 9. rlove:~ber 1, 1953 - Permit was issued after the necessary $99,000.00 financial warranty and performance ~varranty were posted by the operator. II. City of Lakewood Letter of [JOVember 14, 19S3 From Mr. Jim Peterson City Planner to the Division The Division has reviewed your letter addressing a number of concerns regarding this operation. These questions can be broken into three different areas. The first area is those questions that the Division has no jurisdictional authority over (eg.: noise, visual impacts). The second area is those questions that were also raised by the Division in our adequacy review of the permit application. The last area is that question that does not fall into the two above catagories. Listed belo~r is the Division's response to each of the concerns/comments raised by I•lr. Peterson in the fJovanber 14, 1933 letter.