My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE59878
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
600000
>
PERMFILE59878
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:06:56 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 6:28:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2004067
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/14/2004
Doc Name
Objection Letter
From
Gilpin County
To
DMG
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
12!14!2004: 12:25 <br />' k , , i <br /> <br />;. <br />sr ,C. <br />3035825440 <br />GILPIN CDUNTV <br />PAGE <br />Future Uae - Tt is the County's contention that, at some point in the future; <br />the applicant, Clear Creek Water Providers LI.C, will likely propose water <br />storage as apost-reclamation end use. "Municipal and industrial water <br />projects" is listed in Section 4.2 of Gilpin County Regulation of Certain <br />Matters of State Interest (attached) as a major infrastructure project subject <br />to 1041 review. As such, it is likely that Gilpiiz County would exercise its <br />~ 041 powers over any end use that would include water storage. As the , <br />proposed quarrying project would irreversibly alter the natural landscape; <br />we believe it prudent tc review the proposed quarrying activity iu the <br />context of the likely end use before permitting, <br />The 112 application on file with the Gilpin County Clerk & Recordez clearly <br />states that a Gilpin County Special Use Review (SUR) permit will be obtained <br />prior to initiating mining activity, "if this property is Subject to Gilpin County. <br />miwintg regulations". Gilpin County does not regulate mining per se, but the <br />County bas clear authority to, and does regulate offsite impacts of muting and, <br />in this case, the end use of the mined area The above qualifying statement <br />coupled with Mr. Wolf s demonstrated convictions suggest that County <br />permits will not be sought. <br />Given the subject property owner's stated refusal to acknowledge the authority <br />of Coumy government conlxery to local permitting requiremetlts, Qilpun <br />Cotutty respectfully asks that the Mined I:and Reclamation Board deny the <br />applicant's pemlit request under §34.32,5-115 (4) (d) C.R.S. Alternatively, <br />Gilpin County would request that any peraxit issued by the State clearly and <br />emphatically state that opezation is conditioned upon local approvals. <br />Thank you for your consideration. We look i'ozward to a public hearing and <br />will await notification; <br />S~ !Y, ~----- ... <br />o~et~i'sen <br />Gilpin County Community Development I)v~ector <br />c.c. Roger Raker, Gilpin County Maxtag~ <br />Jim Petrock, Gilpin County Attorney <br />BOCC <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.