PERMFILE47333 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Tom Schreiner • October 24, 2005 Page 6 II. Gilpin County Objections, filed by Petrock &Fendel, P.C. Petrock &Fendel, P.C. submitted comments on behalf of Gilpin County. The County relies on the same incorrect azgument concerning CMR § 1.4.1.5(d) and § 1.4.5 as was made by the City of Black Hawk, which was refuted above. An applicant fora § 112 permit is not required to show that it has applied for approvals from local government. Gilpin County also argues that the "proposed quarry and post mining land use are not permissible under County zoning, unless and until the County special use review approval has been applied for and obtained." (Page 2 of 9/12/05 letter). The County's comment elides the distinction between the question of whether a proposal can obtain approval under a local government regulatory scheme, and whether it has received required permits. CCDWP's proposed use is one that is provided for and can be allowed under the County's process. CCDWP will be seeking, as appropriate, a Gilpin County USR permit. CCDWP's position, which is supported by statutory language and case law cited in its August 18, 2005 letter, is that an applicant does not need local govemment approval before it can seek and obtain a permit from the MLRB pursuant to C.R.S. § 34-32.5-112. The fact that CCDWP has not yet applied for local govemment approvals is not grounds for denial of a § 112 permit application. See C.R.S. § . 34-32.5-115(4)(a-g). CCDWP will be responsible for complying with the zoning and land use authority and regulation by political subdivisions as provided by law. C.R.S. § 34-32.5-109(3). Gilpin County also objects to the highway access point described in CCDWP's Amended Application. Like Black Hawk, Gilpin County claims the right to object on this basis despite the fact that it has suffered no harm to any interest protected by the Act. CDWP has provided notices to the entities arguably affected by that minor change of access. The County's position is especially untenable considering the fact that it is the entity responsible for issuing such permits, and it has issued the permit to which it attempts to object. III. Conclusion The Division has received and considered follow-on comments submitted by the City of Black Hawk and Gilpin County, long after the dead{ine specified in CMR § 1.7.1(Z)(a). These comments were duplicative of comments submitted eazlier by these same entities, in response to CCDWP's first notice of application, made in November 2004. CCDWP has addressed the recent comments as part of its response to DMG's fourth adequacy review, despite the fact that the comments were submitted out of time and were mere repetitions of comments made by these