Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />The regulations, however, are insufficiently sp <br />to provide the necessary criteria to accomplish such <br />evaluation. The regulations are devoid of standards <br />which the adequacy of an access road can be evaluate <br />remedial measures prescribed. There are no criteria <br />respect to design considerations such as grades, sit <br />distances, width, shoulders, vertical or horizontal <br />drainage or other type of ser•ices. (p. 937) <br />acified <br />an <br />by <br />f and <br />with <br />rues, <br />The Court then •aent on to say that meeting the enain Bring <br />standards for the County was not specific enough and the w'nile <br />concerns for the public health and safety pervades throw hout the <br />statutory scheme or` Land development, it is still encumb nt upon the <br />i;Clln t': t0 dQOpt t'.12 neCe553Ly d2talled rcCUlatlOn: <br />.(_)'ie^ tnJCy the Jtat2 StaCllteS art brpadiy cuff cleat <br />to establis(~ the ceneral authority for the county to impose <br />,n amerpencv medical service condition in the proper <br />situation, Larimer County's regulations do pct autho ize <br />`he imocs_tion cf such a condition. Theca regulatio.s pct <br />G•.^. i'! 1~C;C Cr! t r'_3 LOr ="~/31U3ting t:1e sllfflCeRC'/ O~ <br />e~s~ccency medical services out are totally silent as tc the <br />possibility that a developer might have to consider uc'n <br />services as a factor in development approval. The <br />regulations ar= not sufficient to chose that the coup •~ h.as <br />exercised the lagisiatively delegated authority in t e <br />necessary manner. (p. 939) <br />It goes without saying 'that the Board cannot decide ar,d use en <br />an ad hoc basis nor can it use its lack of regulation to deny a <br />legal permissible use and to do so would be arbitrary an <br />capricious. Western Paving Construction Co. v. Board of punt <br />Commissioners, SU6 P.2d 123Q (1973). See also Sherman v Citv of <br />Colorado Springs, 68Q P.2d 13(72 (1983) where the city or finance <br />contained no criteria or general standards for approval r rejection <br />of a submitted plan. The Court held it was error to rej ct the plan <br />as a denial of a lawful use of property as that ran coat ary to the <br />requirements of adequate standards. <br />It is clear that La Plata County does not have to ad pt a master <br />plan for mineral extraction (C.R.S. 3a-1-3Q4(a)) inasmuc as it is <br />not a populous County as defined under C.R.S. 34-1-302(3) <br />(Sixty-five thousand or more people). However, since th County has <br />not adopted any rules or regulations regarding mineral e traction <br />other than to simply state that it is a permissible use o be <br />regulated according to a Category One Subdivision, the B and of <br />County Commissioners are obligated by law to grant this pproval. <br />Throughout the Colorado Statutes regarding mineral r sources and <br />extractions there is ample authority that the State Legi lature <br />recognizes that mineral deposits are essential and neces ary to the <br />common public good and general welfare and when found in commercial <br />quantities they constitute a natural resource which show d be <br />3 <br />