Laserfiche WebLink
'r <br />-4- <br />3. Resaonses to Third Claim for Relief: <br />a. The Division should strongly disagree with the City of <br />Lakewood's assertion that the City was not provided an <br />opportunity to comment on the permit application. The <br />notice to the City of Lakewood was sent September 1, 1983 <br />with no response back from the city until a correspondence <br />dated November 14, 1983, which was received by the Division <br />on November 16, 1983 (Exhibit B). (As a sidelight, it <br />would have been exceedingly tough to have Robinson Brick <br />respond to the City of Lakewood's concern if in fact the <br />Board was still scheduled to consider the application on <br />November 17, 1983.) The City of Lakewood's concern could <br />be classified into three different areas (as addressed in <br />the Division's letter to the City on November 17, 1983 <br />(Exhibit C)): <br />(A.) An area the Board has no jurisdictional authority; <br />(B.) An area addressed by the Division during the adequacy <br />review, which Robinson Brick responded to; and <br />(C.) An area (pertaining to subsidence) that was not <br />addressed by the Division and should not be addressed <br />until subsidence occurs, if it even does occur. <br />b. Paragraph 44, page 6 alleges the plaintiff suffered <br />"irreparable harm" because the Board did not hear the City <br />of Lakewood's concerns. This argument can be refuted per <br />the discussion under paragraph 3.2. above. <br />At the earliest convenience, I would like to discuss this matter with you. <br />/ep <br />cc: Jim McArdle w/enclosures <br />Doc. No. 7941 <br />