PERMFILE123989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Multiple objectors raised concerns regarding noise resulting from mining activity. DRMS Response Land use and zoning issues fall under the jurisdiction of the county, and the Construction Materials Rules and Regulations and the Act do not address issues related to noise. C. COMMENTS SUBMITTED OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 1. Rule 1.3 (1) Public Inspection of Documents The objectors' attomey indicated that materials regarding the permit application were not promptly made available to them for their review. DRMS Response The question raised by the above comment is related to Rule 1.3 (1) of the Construction Materials Rules and Regulation, which states that all applications, public notices, inspection reports, documents, maps, exhibits, correspondence, tests, analyses, records of actions or findings of the Boazd or Office and other information required under this law or these Rules shall be promptly made available for inspection to any member of the public at the offices of the Office, during its normal business hours. The objectors' attorney obtained CDs of the permit file on April 26, May 1, and May 23, 2006. Counsel also received copies of documents the objectors stated were missing from the file on May 22 and May 23, via fax. An expert witness for the objectors picked up a CD on May 17, 2006. The objectors' claim is that all of the CDs were incomplete, with the exception of the May 23`d CD. The Division requested copies of the CDs issued to the attorney for review. The Division was supplied with all of the earlier CDs, with the exception of the May 17`h CD that was obtained by the expert witness for the objectors. The earlier CDs were "incomplete" in the fact that correspondence was still being exchanged between the Applicant and the Division. When correspondence is sent out or received by the Field Office, there is a time delay prior to imaging of these documents, dependent on the U.S. Mail, in that documents received or generated from the Field Office need to be forwarded to the Denver Office for imaging. The database shows that the last document imaged prior to the objectors' claim was May 11. DRMS Response The imaged file of this application and correspondence related to the application is kept as up to date as possible considering mail delays. The objectors' attorney was promptly given all the information that was available at the time of her requests, and the Division does not believe that the objectors suffered any negative effects related to information made available to them.