PERMFILE46446

• Permit No: M1985038
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 6/17/1985
• Section_Exhibit Name: EXHIBIT M
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

4. The Hoard hereby finds that there is substantial evidence in the
record that increased truck traffic on state highway 325 will cause a
t deterioration of the structure of the road and that the State of Colorado has
!'~ no plans for the improvement of said roadway. Further, that said roadway is
a secondary roadway in the state system, and does not receive immediate
maintenance attention;
5. That by Resolution No. 83-110 Garfield County has made a formal
request of the Colorado Highway Commission that, pursuant to its authority in
section 43-1-105(1)(9), it abandon state highway 325 from the state road
system and that it perform certain other conditions prior to the county
accepting said roadway onto the county road system;
6. That substantial evidence exists in the record for the Board to
find that there is a rational relationship between the impact of the
activities of the proposed use and the public costs associated with
improvement of state highway 325 so that the Board finds that the applicant
should pay a fair share of the approximately $1,000,000.00 cost associated
with its activities; and
7. That the Board has made extensive efforts to work with the
applicant to determine what the amount of money is that the applicant should
pay as a crondition of approval of the subject land use permit and based upon
the unwillingness of the applicant to make an offer to pay its fair share,
the County under the authority contained in its zoning Resolution,
specifically section 5.03.10, would have a basis for denial of the subject
land use permit except for the ruling of the court in Brubaker, supra.
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the impact of the proposed use upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the State of Colorado and the
uses in the neighborhood requires the imposition of certain conditions as to
the activities of the applicant.
NOW THEREFORE, PE IT RESOLVED that the cronditional use permit
application for the above described unincorporated area of Garfield County be
and hereby is approved, and authorized to be issued, and effective upon and
during crompliance with the following conditions:
1. The proposals and representations of the applicant, shall be
expressed conditions of approval.
2. This resolution requires the applicant to perform certain acts as a
precondition to the issuance of the subject land use permit. Said
conditions shall be accomplished within two (2) years of the date of this
resolution, or the applicant shall make a showing before the Board that said"
~J condition is impossible of performance, good faith efforts being required in
any case. In the absence of performance of said pre-conditions to the
issuance of said land use permit, the grant of authority to the applicant,
contained in this resolution, shall automatically be rescinded.
3. That prior to the issuance of the subject conditional use permit,
the applicant shall obtain and submit to the Garfield County Department of
Development/Planning Division copies of its permits from all other government
)J entities.
4. The applicant shall substantially comply with conditions imposed by
permits issued by other government entities. Co~liance shall be determined
solely by any issuing government agency and the County shall not consider the
question of non-compliance under this condition until a violation is
determined to have occurred by such agency. The applicant shall advise the
County of any determination of violation within ten (10) days of the time it
is advised of any such violation. The Board shall consider such violation
upon reasonable notice to the applicaht. In the event the Board determines
that any such violation adversely affects the health, safety, or welfare of
the population of Garfield County or of the uses within the zone district,
the Board may require that the permitted operation be brought into compliance
within a specified period, and the permit may be suspended or revoked if the
operation is not brought into compliance within the period allowed.
5. That the recommendations of Mr. Howard N. McGregor, P.E. contained
in his affidavit of August 23, 1982, for the reduction of noise to adjacent
landowners from the proposed mining site, shall be implenented by the
applicant, and the applicant shall pay all of costs therefore.
3