My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE114773
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE114773
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:10:53 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 12:03:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2004067
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/8/2005
Doc Name
City of Black Hawks Response to CCDWPs Motion to Deny Party Status & Strike Objections Witnesses
From
City of Black Hawk
To
DMG
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I. Standing and Party Statust <br />In its Motion, the Applicant attempts to create a strained distinction between an objector to an <br />application and a party to the permitting process and argues that not every objector may request and <br />obtain a heazing. The Applicant's efforts in this regard are unavailing for several reasons. <br />First, the Applicant selectively quotes C.M.R. 1.7. ] to avoid language that expressly refutes <br />Applicant's azgument that there is a "legislative distinction between objectors to a project...and any <br />person, who may file statements in support of an application for a permit: ' Motion, p. 10 (emphasis <br />in original). The rule actually begins: "Any person has the right to submit written statements <br />supporting or objecting to any application for a permit...." C.M.R. 1.7.1(1) (emphasis added). The <br />full language of this rule suggests that a showing of standing or proof of party status is not required <br />in order for an individual, entity, or organization to submit comments, objections, or concerns to the <br />Boazd regazding an application. Such an interpretation would be in keeping with the open and public <br />nature of this process and all other State of Colorado administrative processes, which uniformly <br />require and permit public comment. <br />Second, even employing the strict test for party status espoused by the Applicant, the City <br />easily qualifies as a party as an entity separate and distinct from the Black Hawk-Central City <br />Sanitation District, which is a sepazate governmental entity with its own position in this matter. The <br />City has identified at least three ways in which it is "aggrieved" by the application and in which it <br />will suffer "actual loss or injury" or be exposed to "potential loss or injury [] to legitimate interests." <br />C.M.R. 1.1(4). The basis for this argument is more fully set forth in the City's Motion for <br />~ Applicant's Joint Stipulation To Party Status, attached hereto as Exhibit A, indicates that the Applicant no longer <br />contests the City's right to participate in these proceedings. However, in order to fully inform the Board of the <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.