Laserfiche WebLink
Instead, Applicant entered into a vague stipulation with Gilpin County that <br />merely represented that Applicant would apply in the future for any necessary land <br />use approval. R. 2906, Tr. 29:13-16. Notwithstanding Gilpin County's withdrawal <br />as a party from the proceeding, R. 2904, Tr. 27:2-6, the uncontroverted evidence <br />presented at the hearing through the testimony was that the Applicant would be <br />required to go through Gilpin County's special review process but had not yet even <br />begun to do so. R. 3019, Tr. 146:9-10. Throughout this process the Applicant has <br />been inexplicably unwilling to identify and commit to obtaining the specific <br />County land use approvals it would be required to seek, counter to the express <br />requirement of C.M.R. 6.4.13. In its Exhibit M to its Application, Applicant <br />equivocally states that it will seek a Gilpin County Use by Special Review Permit <br />"if this property is subject to Gilpin County mining regulations." R. 43. Legal <br />counsel for the Applicant even went so far as to acknowledge that Applicant's <br />intent was not to be bound to any specific land use process in the event Applicant <br />was unsuccessful in obtaining certain approvals. R 3268, Tr. 391:16-25. <br />The MLRB erroneously allowed the Application to skirt the issue of local <br />land use permits by offering the unsupported and inaccurate explanation that the <br />General Assembly has "decoupled" the local permitting process from the state <br /> <br />