Laserfiche WebLink
permit as being necessary for the proposed quarry. R. 3025, Tr. 148:2-9. Despite <br />this testimony, Applicant still refused to acknowledge which permits would be the <br />required and even indicated, through statements by the Applicant's attorney, that <br />perhaps no County approval would be necessary: And also I have to add that the <br />applicant reserves the right to have an opinion about whether all permits that the <br />county thinks are required, whether it agrees with that." R. 3268, Tr. 391:20-23. <br />With that knowledge, the Applicant's statement in Exhibit M, which is <br />required to satisfy C.M.R. 6.4.13, the Rule that requires an applicant to identify the <br />various local permits it "holds or will be seeking," takes on new significance. <br />C.M.R. 6.4.13. In its Exhibit M, under the heading "Gilpin County Use by Special <br />Review Permit," the Applicant states, "If this property is subject to Gilpin County <br />mining regulations, the applicant will apply for and obtain a Gilpin County Use by <br />Special Review Permit prior to initiating mining activities." R. 43. (Emphasis <br />added.) Here, the Applicant again hedges on the local permitting issue and further <br />suggests that the Applicant has no real intention to abide by the County permitting <br />process. In addition, this statement does not fully identify the several County <br />permits that are required. The statement satisfies neither the literal requirement of <br />the Rule, which asks the Applicant to identify the permits it "holds or will seek" <br />nor does it satisfy the spirit of the Rule, which seeks to assure compliance with <br />zo <br />