PERMFILE126889 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Stan Weedon -2- November 17, 1983 5. August 29, 1983 - Letter from the law firm of Gorsuch, Kirgis, Campbell, Walker, and Grover on behalf of the City of Lakewood stating this mine operation is a nonconforming use and may continue with no objection by the City of Lakewood. 6. September 1, 1983 - Standard Division forms were sent to the operator, Jefferson County, and the City of Lakewood stating the permit application is tentatively scheduled to be heard by the Board on November 17, 1983. 7. September 14, 1983 - Meeting between the operator (represented by Mr. John Hissem), the operator's consultant (Mr. O'Brian), and the Division to review the permit application submittal of July 14, 1981 versus the permit application submitted on August 26, 1983. The outcome of this meeting was that the application submittal of August 26, 1983 was not substantially different than the original permit application submittal of July 14, 1981. The Division determined that the operator did not need to follow the procedures of newspaper notification or adjacent landowner notification for the revised permit application submittal of August 26, 1983 since this had already been done in 1981. Consideration of the permit application by the Board was changed from the November 17, 1981 to the October 26-27, 1983 meeting since the aforementioned public notice procedures were not needed. The Division did not notify the City of Lakewood of the change in Board dates because the Division had already been notified, per the letter received August 29, 1983 as referenced above, of the non-conforming use of the mine with no objection by the City of Lakewood. This information satisfied the statute requirements pursuant to C.R.S. 1973, 34-32-115(4)(e). 8. October 26, 1983 - Permit application was approved by the Board with financial warranty set at $99,000.00. 9. November 1, 1983 - Pennit was issued after the necessary $99,000.00 financial warranty and performance warranty were posted by the operator. II. City of Lakewood Letter of November 14, 1983 From Mr. Jim Peterson Tr:.., nom.- ~,. ~ti„ n: ,.. .. ,.,., The Division has reviewed your letter addressing a number of concerns regarding this operation. These questions can be broken into three different areas. The first area is those questions that the Division has no jurisdictional authority over (eg.: noise, visual impacts). The second area is those questions that were also raised by the Division in our adequacy review of the pennit application. The last area is that question that does not fall into the two above catagories. Listed below is the Division's response to each of the concernslcomments raised by Mr. Peterson in the November 14, 1983 letter.