Laserfiche WebLink
-~ <br />-3- <br />1. Responses to First Claim for Relief: <br />a. The City of Lakewood was notified of this permit <br />application via the municipal notification memorandum. <br />This form specifically states "The Board is tentatively <br />scheduled to consider this application on <br />November 17, 1983. While it is true the Division did not <br />notify the City of Lakewood of the change in Board dates, <br />it is also true that the City of Lakewood did not contact <br />the Division to ascertain if the "tentative" schedule date <br />had been changed. Considering the City of Lakewood appears <br />to be overly concerned with this site (as this summons <br />alleges), would not the City of Lakewood stay in contact <br />with the Division regarding the status of this application? <br />The reason for notifying the City of Lakewood was to <br />ascertain compliance with local zoning. The letter from <br />Gursuch, Kirgis, Campbell, Walker, & Glover of August 26, <br />1983 addressed this concern in the affirmative. <br />b. As alleged in paragraph 30 (page 4 of the summons), the <br />Division, not the Board, was aware of the City's right to <br />comment on the permit application. <br />It was assumed (correctly or incorrectly), however, that <br />since the two-year continuance was used to resolve issues <br />with the City, that the application was written to conform <br />with City of Lakewood requirements. Also, Rule 6.0 of the <br />Rules and Regulations, states the reclamation plan is to be <br />developed by the operator in consultation with the <br />landowner, of which the City of Lakewood is one. The <br />Division can only assume tnis consultation occurs. <br />2. Responses to Second Claim for Relief: <br />a. Paragraph 35 (page 5 of the summons) alleges "A controversy <br />has arisen between Plaintiff and Defendants...." The <br />Division is unaware of this controversy and believed <br />everything was in order after the conversation of <br />November 16, 1983 between the City of Lakewood and the <br />Division. <br />b. Paragraph 35 (page 5 of the summons) alleges "Plaintiff <br />contends that is has statutory and constitutional right to <br />notice...." The City of Lakewood was notified on <br />July 19, 1981 (see Exhibit A); therefore, this is not a <br />valid assertion. <br />