Laserfiche WebLink
because many of he exhibits submitted with the application are lacking the required information. <br />The following exhibits should be examined for adequacy: Exhibit's A, C. E, G, Q, R, 5." <br />Response -The appliant has met the requirements for Rule 6.4, speciFically Exhibit's A, C. E, G, <br />Q, R, on or before June 2, 2000. <br />14. Procedural Difficulties (received from Pinnacle Pines on Apri13, 2000} <br />The following notice requirements must be checked for adequacy :Notice to Pinnacle (Rule <br />1.6.1), Notice to County (Rule 1.6.2(1)(a)(ii), Notice to Public (Rule 1.6.2(1)(g). <br />Response -The Division notified Pinnacle prior to the Informal Conference as required by Rule <br />1.6.1. The newspaper notice, as required by Rule 1.6.2(1)(ii) was not sent to Pinnacle as they are <br />not a listed owner of record within 200 feet of the affected land. However, the properties under <br />proposed development by Pinnacle are listed by the Adams County Clerk and Recorders office as <br />being owned by Gary-Williams Real Estate, Inc. The applicant has submitted evidence that <br />proper notice was given to Gary-Williams Real Estate, Inc. The applicant has successfully <br />demonstrated on or before June 2, 2000 that al] public notice requirements have been met. <br />15. Issuance of a State Mining & Reclamation Permit in the Absence of Local Government <br />Approval (received from Pinnacle Pines LLC on May 4, 2000) <br />"The Reclamation Boazd is prohibited from granting a permit for a new mining operation if the <br />application is inconsistent with a county plan unless the affected government has declared its <br />intent to change or waive the plan's prohibition." <br />Response -The applicant's counsel has concluded that Pinnacle's comment clearly misrepresents <br />the state of the law. Not only does the comment cite an old case decided on law that had been <br />amended even before the case was decided, but it neglects the fact that sand and gravel mining <br />operations are actually subject to a different statute and implementing regulations than those <br />Pinnacle cites. The Division concurs with the above conclusions. However, this issue remains <br />and will be presented by the objectors to the Board for consideration at the scheduled hearing. <br />