Laserfiche WebLink
~i <br /> <br />FAX COVER SHEET: <br />TO: Dan Hernandez <br />FROM: Kate Pickford <br />RE: Allen Pit Pre-hearing Conference M-2005-080 <br />Included you will find a motion for a continuance for the pre-hearing conference and the <br />Boazd hearing for the above site, submitted by the objector's attorney. The Division's <br />attorney has stated that she does not believe that anything contained in the request would <br />cause the Division to postpone the decision or recommend denial of the permit, with the <br />exception of one item, which the applicant intends to rectify by tomorrow, June ls`. The <br />Division is prepazed to go forwazd with it recommendation for approval at the pre- <br />hearing conference as long as the applicant has fulfilled that requirement. Listed below <br />aze the Division responses the materials contained in the request. <br />1. The Division does not agree that the applicant failed to prove that the submitted <br />application meets minimum requirements of the Act and the Rules. <br />2. The objector's attorney makes numerous references to the fact that information <br />related to the permit application was inaccessible to them during the review <br />process, which was not in compliance with the Act and the Rules. In fact, the <br />applicant failed to submit correspondence subsequent to the initial application <br />with the county clerk's office. Once the Division was awaze of this, the applicant <br />was advised, and all materials were submitted to the Pazk County Clerk's Office <br />on May 22, 2006. The applicant obtained 3 CD's of the imaged permit <br />information, one on Apri126, 2006, one on May 1, 2006, and one on May 17, <br />2006. On May 22, the objectors' attorney indicated that the CD's did not contain <br />information related to adequacy responses and adequacy review letters. The <br />Division immediately made the specified missing materials available to the <br />objector's attorneys via fax. Anew CD was created and picked up by the attorney <br />on May 23. According to the imaging system, the last document imaged into the <br />file was done on May 11, 2006. Therefore the Division cannot explain or support <br />the objectors' attorney's claim that the May 17, 2006 CD was incomplete. <br />Additionally, the Division is certain that all materials related to the permit <br />application were supplied to the attorney by May 23, 2006, and therefore <br />disagrees that the objectors' attorney has not had adequate time to prepaze for the <br />pre-hearing conference. <br />3. This information was submitted to the Park County Clerk's Office on May 23, <br />2006. <br />4. According to the applicant a title seazch did not reveal any easement holders <br />within 200 feet of the property. The applicant did discover, on May 31, that <br />Qwest has a line within 200 feet of the boundary, of which she and the Division <br />