Laserfiche WebLink
III IIIIIIIIIIIII III ~ <br />DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP <br />MINNEAPOLIS REPUBLIC PLAZA BUILDING, SUITE 4400 <br />NEw voRR 370 SEVENTEENTH STREET <br />SEATTLE DENVER, COLORADO SO202-$644 <br />DENVER TELEPHONE: (303) 6'!9-3400 <br />wnsHlNCTON. D.c. FAx: (303) 629-3450 <br />Des molNES ROBERT A BASSEIT <br />ANCHORAGE (303)628-1515 <br /> FAR (903) 629-3450 <br />LONDON basaett.6ob®doraeylaw. com <br />cosrn Mesn <br />May 2, 2000 <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver. Colorado 80203 <br />k~ECEIVE~ <br />MAY 0 4 2000 <br />~iv+eian of Miners & Geology <br />BILLINGS <br />GREAT FALLS <br />MIS50ULA <br />BRUSSELS <br />FARGO <br />HONG RONG <br />ROCHESTER <br />SALT LAKE CITY <br />VANCOUVER <br />Re: Tanabe Pit Application for Regular (112) Construction Materials Operation <br />Reclamation Permit, File No. M-2000-02 <br />Ladies and Gentlemen: <br />This letter is filed on behalf of our client Pinnacle Pines. LLC ("Pinnacle") as a <br />supplement to the comments submitted by Pinnacle on April 3, 2000. <br />In the April 3, 2000 comments, Pinnacle pointed out that Rule 1.6.2 (1)(a)(ii) requires the <br />applicant to send written notice [o the local Board of County Commissioners. Among the <br />purposes of this ntle is giving the County the opportunity to determine if an application complies <br />with the local master plan and zoning regulations. A permit may be granted on/y when the <br />applicant complies with ail applicable local, state and federal taws. ; i3c Reciantatiun nuari: is <br />prohibited from granting a permit for a new mining operation is the application is inconsistent <br />with a county plan unless the affected government has declared its intent to change or waive the <br />plan's prohibition. See: State Bonrd of Land Carnmissiorters v. Mined Lrtnd Reclnmruion Board, <br />809 P. 2d 974, 986-7 (1991), citing Colo. Revised Stat. §§34-32-109(6) and 34-32-115(4). <br />Pinnacle submits this supplemental comment realizing the prior deadline to provide <br />comments, but believes that it is critical for the Board to recognize the limits of its jurisdiction in <br />the same manner as a court can always examine its jurisdictional limits when suggested by a <br />party under Colo. Rule Civ. Pro. l2(h)(3). <br />