Laserfiche WebLink
<br />19. Also on file is an affidavit from George Vande berg <br />together with an attached appraisal of his property whi h has a <br />similar sandpit next to his property as the one being a plied for <br />which does not demonstrate any decrease in value of adj fining <br />property by reason of the sandpit and its operation, <br />LAW <br />The controlling law regarding these matters is found in CRS 34- <br />32-101 et.seq. which has to do with the Colorado Mine Land <br />Reclamation Act. As stated in the staff report that statute <br />requires review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners in <br />order for that board to issue a cermit for mineral extra tion. <br />1. C.R.S. 29-27-101 et.sec. entitled "Te Lcc3'_ Gov_rn:nent Land <br />Use and Control Ena'oling Act of 1974"' allows for a Count to set u? <br />rules and regulations for land use. <br />2. C.R.S. 29-2©-10? says that cohere other procedura or <br />subsequent requirements for planning for or regulation o use cf <br />land are provided by lacy such requirements shall control <br />3. La Plata County has never adopted any specific 1 nd use <br />regulations for this type of land use. The closest Coun y <br />regulations regarding this are found the La F1ata County Subdivision <br />Procedures under 3.2, Category One Criteria: Minimum Im act. It <br />states at 3.2.1, "Proposals which are consistent with th La Plata <br />County Comprenhensive plan or are determined by the Dire for of <br />Planning to be in substantial compliance with the Plan shall be <br />processed as a Category One Project." 3.2.4 states, "Oyer <br />proposals which do not necessarily involve land subdivis ons but <br />present potentially adverse environmental impacts or oth rwise <br />unique conditions shall be processed as a Category One p oposal with <br />the Planning Commission review and recommendations. Suc projects <br />include but are not limited to, among other things, Grav 1 and <br />Mineral Extractions. <br />The Subdivision Procedures for La Plata County have o <br />performance standards or criteria or any other rule or r gulation <br />which pertains to gravel and mineral extraction ooeratio s. The <br />controlling case in this instance is Beaver Meadows v. B and of <br />County Commissioners 709 P.2d 928. There the Board of C unty <br />Commissioners attempted to impose certain restrictions o a Planned <br />Unit Development for an offsite road and an emergency ac ess road. <br />The Commissioners imposed conditions on the developer wh n the <br />County did not have sufficient regulations to authorize hose <br />conditions. The Court, after reviewing the comprehensiv plan of <br />the Larimer County stated: <br />We conclude that these regulations, while not a mode of <br />specificity, are sufficiently detailed to reflect an intent <br />that the Board considered the adequacy of offsite ro ds to <br />provide efficient access to a proposed PUD in the co rse of <br />review of a PUD application. <br />2 <br />