PERMFILE133414 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

91-1'>-'-959 L?~.-.~?FM F?GM TO 1~JGc=i2212E 'r,%= December 1998, while the Opponrnts ignored their responsibility. The Opponents signed their return receipt mail cazd on 1 I December 1998, establishing that they received the information sent. The failure of the Opponents to provide additional information does not constitute sufficient grounds for the Boazd to 'Yeconsider" its Decision. The Opponents, are mistaken in blaming the "applicant's consultant" for their failure to have their letter read into the Public Hearing as their written testimony. This decision was made by the Board. The objections made by the "applicant's consultant" only pertained to the fact that "new information" was being submitted, which we had never had an opportunity to review and which was completely contrary to the instructions given in the Pre-Hearin, Conference. Likewise, the Opponents aze mistaken in claiming that the Division Staff "indicated to us that we could submit ' a letter and it could be read during the time allotted to use, as parties." Division Staffhas no i authority to made decisions for the Board when information is submitted outside of the required regulatory time frames. For the Opponents to continually imply that the Division Staff suggested that "additional concems" were not addressed during the permitting process is incorrect and misleading. The formal response to the Division Staff to the objections filed by the Opponents is found in their "Rational for Recommendation for Approval Over Objections Regulaz 112 Construction Materials Permit Application, Johnson Excavating Company - Tellier Gravel Pit, Permit No. M- 98-058" issued on 9 November 1998 which states that "this document is intended to explain the reasons for the Division's recommendation of approval over objections to the application." All of the issues raised by the Opponents which the Division considered relevant to this permit aze explained in that document. The Opponents refusal to accept the formal findings of Division Staff is inadequate grounds for the Board to 'Yeconsider" its Decision. The Applicant completely disagrees that comments reviewed during the public wmment period have "absolutely no power at all!!" Their letter was given as much consideration during this time as if it had been read as their testimony. The fact that their letter was not read as their testimony and during the Public Comment Period is not grounds for the Boazd to reconsider its Decision. The acknowled~nent by the Opponents that their letter did indeed contain "new" information is interesting. In the Pre-Hearing Conference it was succinctly stated in both word and by deed, by refusing to allow the Opponents to bring up "new concems" beyond those identified as relevant in the Draft Hearing Order. The Opponents contention that they were not allowed to bring up these `YLew issues" which they clarm'~vould be of importance to the Boazd" is not grounds for the Board to `Yeconsidei' its Decision. tinfottunately, the Opponents fail to understand that there is virtually no connection between the "new issue" involving the application for additional water tights made by the landowner and the operation of this gravel pit. As stated by Ms. Erica Crosby is the Pre-Hearing Cotference of 1 December 1998, Division Staff has made the formal determination that the landowner has or will ~ have sufficient water tights with the Gravel Pit Well Permit which will have to be obtained, to supply all of the water needs of this gravel pit. The new water rights application is no[ tied to the gravel mining permit or operation. The suggestion being made by the Opponents that these two matters must be connected when Division Staff and the Colorado Division of Water Resources have determined that they aze not, in no way constitutes grounds to "reconsider' the Board's