PERMFILE100574 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Motion For Continuance Pernut Application No. M-2005-080 Page 3 of 7 2.e. On May 23, 2006, counsel for Objectors obtained a second document imaging CD from Mr. Duplex. This new CD included a DMG Minerals Progam Inspection Report, dated April 11, 2006, which the Objectors had never received. 2.f. Objectors and their counsel have no way of knowing if they have been provided with all documents in the DMG file for Permit No. M-2005-080. 2.g. Objectors are prejudiced by the lack of timely availability of documents in their preparation for the Pre-hearing Conference on June 2, 2006 and of the Board Hearing on June 14 and 15, 2006. 3. As a second ground for this motion, Rule 1.6.2. (2) states: "The copy of the permit application, adequacy responses of the applicant, application revisions, and any permit amendment applications placed at the office of the County Clerk or Recorder ...shall be retained until final agency action, asdefined inC.R.S. 24-4-105(14), on said application has occurred, and be available for inspection during such period ..." Objector, Kent Rolf went to the Park County Clerk and C Recorder's office on May 22, 2006 to inspect the file for this permit held by the Clerk and Recorder to see if documents not provided to Objectors were in that office. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is an affidavit from Kent Rolf discussing his visit to the Park County Clerk and Recorder's Office and showing that only the application is on file in that Office. 4. As a third ground for this motion, DMG's Guide to Citizen Participation in the 112 Reclamation Permit Application Process for Construction Material and Hard Rock/Metal Mining Operations (Dated October 2, 2001, Revised October 19, 2001, August 2, 2004 and January 12, 2006) at page 4 states that: "[t]he applicant must notify the local board of county commissioners, all land and mineral rights owners of record for the site, all owners of record of land (including all recorded easements) within 200 feet of the affected lands ..." (emphasis added). DMG's 151 Adequacy Review dated April 5, 2006 requested that pursuant to Ruie 1.6.5(2), Applicant must provide "proof of notice to all owners of record of surface lands, and easement holders that are on the affected land and within 200 feet of the boundary of the affected land." Applicant's response, dated April 14, 2006 included proof of notice "for all adjacent land owners and CDOT." Applicant has not provided proof of notice to all easement holders within 200 feet of the boundary of the affected land. Owners of utilities Located within said 200 feet, discussed in Mr. Rolf's affidavit (attached hereto as Exhibit B) were not notified. Therefore, the application is incomplete. 5. As a fourth ground for this motion, Rule 6.4.7(4) specifically requires the applicant to identify the specific sowce(s) of water and the quantity to be obtained from each sowce in order to meet the project's anticipated water requirements. The applicant has failed to identify any sowce(s) of water to be used for the mining operations (e.g., dust control, wash water, process water). Therefore, the application is incomplete.