Laserfiche WebLink
12/14/2004 12:25 <br />Web Si0,1'" District <br />Jeanne Nicholsoo, 2"° Djsttict <br />ICen Eye, 3"' District ' <br />Comtty 113anager <br />Rngerl3eker <br />Community Development <br />Director <br />Tony l?efetse~i , <br />Bm7dmg Code Compliance <br />Officer ,;. •.; <br />Plaoner <br />say w. hears <br />1TlGIS Specialist <br />James liussell <br />Ofllce Auistant' <br />I~nifbr west <br />Community Aevctopment; <br />Doparpttetttfk ; >, <br />;;. <br />Cemral City, cA aud2r <br />CDD:303~582-5831 <br />Admin.: 303-582-5214 <br />Fax: 303-582440 <br />Located in the Historic <br />Couttty Courthouse, <br />3m sit; <br />203 Eureka Street <br />Control City, Cdotoflo <br />3035825440 <br />.December 2, 2004 <br />GILPIN COUNTY <br />Thomas Schreiner, )/mrironmental Protection Specialist <br />Division of Minerals & Geology <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 89203 <br />RE: Clear Creek District Water Providers, LLC MNII2R Quarry <br />k~ile No. M-2004-067 <br />Dear Mr, Schreiner: <br />I li <br />PAGE 02 <br />I <br />Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced <br />application. Gilpin County would like to formally record its objection to the <br />proposed MMRR Quarry. Consequently, as per State statute we hereby <br />petition for ti formal public hettrin$ before the Mined Land Reclamation <br />Board <br />Our objections are based in §34-32.5-115 (4) (d) C.R.S. which lists minitig <br />operations, reclamation or proposed future uses that are contrary to local <br />permitting and approvals as grounds for denial. Gilpin County contends that <br />the proposed operation and the likely end use are conixary to local permitting <br />and approvals as follows: <br />Mining Operation -The owner of the subject property, Phillip Wolf, has, <br />stated, verbally and in writing, to Gilpin County officials and in District <br />Count, that he does not recognize County authority and therefore will not <br />apply to the County for permits. In fact, the property owner is currently in <br />violation of Gilpin County building codes for building two structures, <br />including his home; without County permits. Mr. Wolf lost his <br />jurisdictional ~rgumelrt in court arld is presently accruing daily fines as a <br />result. <br />Gilpin County requires mining operations to be permitted by Special Use <br />Review (SUR) as per Gilpin County Z.clning Resolution, Section 6.1.d <br />(attached). "`Exhibit A, SUR Mining I.iznits, adopted 8/12/03" (attached) is <br />a review process identification matrix applicable to all ,mining activity <br />proposed in Gilpin County. As per Exhibit A, the proposed raining <br />activity would fall within Gilpin County review process, "Tier 4, Open <br />Cut Mining". Gilpin Coutlty Tier 4 Open Cut Mining t~eviews require a <br />complete SUR application, arl application fee, and an enviromnental <br />impact study (EIS) addressing potentialoff-site impacts. None of the <br />above has hoes submitted tp Gilpin County. <br />Commissioners <br />