My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2022-03-16_PERMIT FILE - M2017036
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2017036
>
2022-03-16_PERMIT FILE - M2017036
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2025 5:45:08 AM
Creation date
3/17/2022 8:51:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2017036
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
3/16/2022
Doc Name
County Special Use Permit
From
Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete
To
DRMS
Email Name
BFB
MAC
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
91
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
considered accessory to the mining activity"). Thus, in reviewing for <br /> competent record evidence, we consider only Land Use Code section <br /> 4.3.10's definition of an "accessory use": a use that is "clearly <br /> secondary and incidental to the principal use of the property."? <br /> Though Ready-Mix's original plan contemplated operating the <br /> batch plant in perpetuity, the approved version of the plan limits its <br /> period of operation to the life of the mine. Indeed, Ready-Mix <br /> repeatedly assured the Board that "the batch plant will not operate <br /> after mining operations have ceased." And the only stated purpose <br /> of the batch plant for that time period is to use the materials <br /> 7 In a departure from the Board and Ready-Mix, Colorado Stone, <br /> Sand & Gravel Association (CSSGA) argues in its amicus brief that <br /> Larimer County Land Use Code section 4.3.10 (2018) is wholly <br /> inapplicable. Instead, it contends, the Board was only required to <br /> consider Land Use Code section 4.3.7(E). CSSGA cites section <br /> 3.3(B) of the Land Use Code, which instructs that "[t]he particular <br /> controls the general" when interpreting the code. In light of that <br /> directive, CSSGA reasons, "[section] 4.3.7(E)(1)'s specific provision <br /> that `on-site processing of mined material is considered an <br /> accessory use to the mining activity' trumps [section] 4.3.10's <br /> general description of the purpose and location of `accessory uses."' <br /> But the two provisions are not inconsistent. Section 4.3.10 broadly <br /> defines "accessory use," and section 4.3.7(E)(1) merely clarifies that, <br /> in the context of mining activities, "[o]n-site processing of mined <br /> materials" is per se an "accessory use." Because there is no issue <br /> as to which provision is controlling, section 3.3(B) is not implicated. <br /> Thus, we assume, as do the defendants, that section 4.3.10 applies. <br /> 44 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.