PERMFILE42414 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

s D. The City has numerous decreed water rights on North Clear Creek, which will be impacted by the application. Again, both the Act and the Construction Material Rules provide for the protection of water resources, both in quantity and in quality. See, e.g., C.M.R. 3.1.6: Water -General Requirements; C.M.R. 3.1.7: Groundwater -Specific Requirements; C.R.S. § 34-32.5-103(19). Furthermore, water rights are real property under Colorado law, C.R.S. § 38-30-102, therefore the City has real property interests that will be adversely affected and were not adequately considered by the MLRB. E. The MLRB decision approving the MMRR Quarry Application authorizes blasting that increases the possibility that the Black Hawk Fire Department will be called to respond to emergencies along the Highway 119 corridor due to failures at the Wastewater Treatment Plant from blast vibrations and due to traffic problems related to street light failures from blast vibrations. It is the City's obligation to respond to emergencies along the Highway 119 corridor according to the Consent Judgment in Gilpin County case number O1CV15, dated December 6, 2002, and it is the SDMD's obligation to maintain the lighting along the Highway 119 corridor. 13. For the following reasons, the MLRB decision approving the MMRR Quarry Application is azbitrary and capricious; a denial of statutory right; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes or limitations; not in accord with the procedures and procedural limitations required by law; and an abuse or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. Under C.R.S. § 24-4-106(7), the Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to the relief requested. A. The Applicant, in direct violation of the plain language of C.M.R. 1.4.1(5)(d), which is made specifically applicable to 112 Reclamation Permit Operations by C.M.R. 1.4.5(1), and despite numerous demands by objectors to comply with all requirements, failed to state at any time during the application process or at the hearing that it "ha[d] applied for all necessary approvals from local government," instead insisting that it would seek Gilpin County permits, if necessary. C.M.R. 1,4.1(5)(d) (emphasis added). Ignoring this omission, the MLRB inappropriately approved the MMRR Quarry Application. B. Similarly, the Applicant, in direct violation of the plain language of C.M.R. 6.4.13, which sets forth the content an applicant must provide as part of the required Exhibit M to a permit application, failed to identify the county zoning and land use permits it "holds or will be seeking in order to conduct the proposed mining and reclamation operations," instead vaguely asserting that the Applicant would seek "necessary County permits." In issue are a variety of other permits, including but not limited to a Special Use by Review ("SUR") permit, a grading permit, and a sanitation permit. Despite this omission, the MLRB inappropriately approved the MMRR Quarry Application. 4 il~roe Q:IUSERSIBIfIXMGIMINING APPLICATlOMMMRR QUARRYIAPPEALICOMPLA/NT-FMAL-2.~OC