Laserfiche WebLink
does not recognize the legal authority of the County of Gilpin (or any county government for that <br />matter) to regulate use of private land, which would include compliance with the County special <br />use permit process required to address off-site impacts of the mining operation. That the property <br />owner does not recognize Coumy authority to regulate any use of his property, is evidenced by <br />the owner's steadfast refusal to obtain any and all County permits required for various activities <br />he has conducted upon the same property which is the subject of this application.' With this <br />evidence before it, granting of a reclamation permit by the $oard would be contrary to local <br />permitting requirements (C.RS. ¢34-32.5-I 15(4)(d)). <br />The Applicant's response to die Coutrty's objection in this matter confirms dial that there are <br />sigtificant issues to be resolved, which can be fully addressed only in an evidentiary hearing. <br />Tbank you for your consideration ofthe comments contained in this letter. <br />Very truly yours, <br />COUNTY OF G ~~ //// <br />~:t <br />Jeanne Nicholson, Chair <br />]JPlnn <br />ce: Scott Gesso, Banks and Gesso, LLC. <br />Tony Petersen, Community Development Director, County of Gilpin <br />James J. Petrock, Gilpin County Attorney <br />~ It is the belief of County that the lease by which Applicant here will use and occupy the owner's property, <br />to wnduct the contemplated mining operations, requires tiuro the tensor/owner obtain any County approvals <br />required for the proposed mining operation. <br />