PERMFILE47333 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MMRR Quarry, M•2004-067 Response to Sept. 20, 2005 Adequacy Review October 24, 2005 Page 10 • The Applicant has previously adhered to all applicable regulations regarding Exhibit C. The Applicant's representative relied on public record and a diligent inspection of the vicinity in the preparation of Exhibit C (Pre-mining and Mining Plan Maps). The right-of-way boundary and the location of light poles and utility lines have been indicated on the Applicant's Exhibit C, in conformance with Rule 6.4.3. The Gilpin County Assessor's Maps for the vicinity do not identify any parcel records associated with the right-of-way or the light fixtures contained therein. An enclosed update of Exhibit C adjusts the location of light poles to assure the greatest possible accuracy of the record; however, this adjustment does not affect the Applicant's prior mapping of overhead utilities ("OHU" on Exhibit C). There is no question that light poles meet the definition of a significant, valuable, and permanent man-made structure. Neither is there any question that Rule 6.4.19 applies to light poles within 200 feet of the proposed affected area. However, Rule 6.4.19 is not a notice requirement; rather, this Rule requires the operator to offer an agreement to compensate the owner of the structure in case of damage caused by a mining operation. The applicant has previously attempted to negotiate structure agreements with both CDOT and Xcel Energy in this case. The same offer is being provided to Silver Dollar Metropolitan District based on the now presumed interest of the District in these light poles and its . presumed capacity to enter into such an agreement. Please see the attached structure agreement and letter mailed to Silver Dollar Metropolitan District on September 22, 2005. Also in compliance with Rule 6.4.19, the Applicant has provided a relevant engineering analysis concluding that the quarry will not cause damage to the light poles. There is no basis for denial of this application under C.R.S. 34-32.5- 115(4)(e). City of Black Hawk (Hayes, Phillips, Hoffmann & Carberry, P.C.) - (5) Re-publish and re-notice requirements. The City of Black Hawk notes that the Division determined on April 11, 2005, that the Applicant would be required to re-publish and re-notice the MMRR Quarry application in accordance with Rule 1.6. According to Rules 1.4.5(3) and 1.6.2(1)(8), the Applicant is required to submit proof of notice prior to the decision date for the MMRR Quarry. In response to the Division's April 11, 2005 correspondence regarding Rule 1.6, the Applicant posted a new sign at the site, re-published for four consecutive weeks in the Weekly Register-Call starting April 15, and mailed a copy of the . published notice to property owners within 200 feet of the affected land (as well