2009-12-14_PERMIT FILE - M2009076 (3)

Home Browse Search

-2— December 13, 2009 You will surely notice, as did I, that Paragraph A is NOT mentioned in that "example public notice" that supposedly "meets the requirements of the statutes ". I have included a hard copy of that page attached to this letter for your convenience. I tried as carefully as I know how to follow that Package's requirements for a Public Notice, and that is how I arrived at the language I published on Dec. 2. You mention that I incorrectly stated the deadline for public comment. It was an honest mistake, as I counted out ten business days. I can hardly imagine that two additional days for public comment would have hurt anything. Concerning our continuing debate as to describing Future Land Use, I chose to try to satisfy BOTH the State's (DRMS) requirements and our local county government by describing the zoning and including the `rangeland" designation. I did this in the Public Notice because it was being published exclusively in Clear Creek County (or sent to owners of property within the county) where these zoning descriptions are well understood What I stated in that publication for future land use, "to maintain its existing zoning designation (Residential/Mining M -1 zoning or Mining M -2 zoning, dependent on the affected parcel) and resemble rangeland", is hardly confusing to this specific audience. For the Public Notice language, I did not have the constraint of a little check box as I did on the Permit Application Page 3. Furthermore, the Permit Application Page 3 had me select from a list of items described as "PRIMARY (emphasis added) Future Post - Mining Land Use" and the Public Notice template required me to include an author provided "Future Land Use" description. I suppose I could make an argument that this differing phraseology is "potentially confusing ", to borrow your expression. Bottom line on this subject is that I have grown tired of arguing. It is apparent that various packages of DRMS paperwork do not have continuity with the Rules and we are to bear the burden. In the spirit of saving time, I have chosen to republish and re- notify. In the new notice I will include Paragraph A and change the future land use to "rangeland" to keep things moving forward. Additionally, I have also chosen to notify the owner of the Jenny Lind Lode and an easement owner of the same, Clear Creek County. I will be making a correction to Exhibit Drawing E2 and A3 to include this adjacent property ownership record. Monday morning, December 10, I will make a hand written revision to these two drawings that are in the public view copy and obtain an affidavit from the County Clerk that this change was done. I want to schedule an appointment with your staff for me to come to your office to make the same hand written revision to Exhibit Drawing E2 and A3. The cost of reprinting those color plots is extraordinary, and a hand written change adding a property owner and address is most practical. This appointment must be prior to Wednesday December 16 because this is the date the new Public Notice is scheduled to be published. Consider my schedule open Monday 1Iam- 5pm or Tuesday 8am -5pm. Have a staff member telephone me to setup an appointment, 303 - 619 -6323. At that time I will make the revision, deliver the affidavit of change to the public view copy, and deliver a hard copy of this letter. A final item concerning the public comment received by your office. In a second letter from you on December 11th, you provided a transmittal of public comment letters that have been received. You mentioned that your office received 135 letter of support for our application, but did not include them because "DRMS understands that Venture Resources has reviewed these letters; therefore, no copies are enclosed." We understand the need for efficiency, but in the future I would ask that the DRMS not make such assumptions. Those letters were not transmitted to your office under our letterhead, and the assumption made that we have reviewed them is not well grounded and is unable to be verified. In this single instance, I did indeed review those letters and copies are not required at this time. In light of the aforementioned problems with the DRMS Public Notice template, I request that you not extend the decision date for this application and revert it back to February 22, 2010. That problem was completely out of our control and I do not see why we should be adversely affected by it.