PERMFILE60719

• Permit No: M1999042
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Name: RESOLUTION 98-64
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Resolution #98- ~ • •
Page 5
l3. Under the provisions of Section 4-60.40D.1., the Board held aduly-noticed public
hearing to consider whether a new application is necessary, in connection with Applicant's
request for an extension upon expiration of the short-term permit granted by Resolution 93-70.
14. The heazing by the Boazd to determine whether a new application is necessary was
held in conjunction with an annual review hearing under the existing permit 93-70, on February
11, 1998, at which time it was determined that a completely new application was not necessary,
and that Applicant needed to submit only copies of all Forest Service approvals and state
approvals and permits relating to his current operation, and that the supplemental application also
needed to specifically address the standards in Section 3-250.50.
15. Applicant thereafter submitted his supplemental application fora IonR-term
permit, including the following documents evidencing the full extent of his state and federal
approvals as of [he date of application 1991 SLimited Impact Permit from the State Mined Land
Reclamation Division(now known as the Division of Minerals and Geology); approved
Operating Plan by the United States Forest Service, as approved June 9, 1992, and amended on
May 6, 1993, October 6, 1994, June 1, 1994, October 12, 1994, May 16, 1995, as autlioriz~d
under a Decision Notice issued by the acting Sopris District Ranger on May 24, 1992, and
Altema[ive 5 of the proposed Supplemental Plan of Operation submitted on March 7, 1995, as
authorized under Decision Notice dated August 22, 1995, by District Ranger Kevin Riordan.
16. The BOCC subsequently heard the supplemental application for conversion to a
long term permit at a duly noticed public hearing on April 8, 1998
l7. The Applicant, by his signature below, and the County, by adopting this
resolution, agree to resolve any disputes challenging the County's jurisdiction to regulate
Applicant or the propriety of the County's requirements under this Permit or through any annual
review or modification to this Permit under [he alternative dispute resolution process outlined
below. Any challenge to this Petmit or modification thereof, must be made in writing and
forwazded [o the attorneys for the other party within thirty (30) days of [he official action by the
Board of County Commissioners relating to the Permit or any modification. The parties agree to
use Judge Neighbors from the Judicial Arbiter Group("JAG") as the Arbitrator, and if he is not
available, a mutually agreed upon azbitrator from JAG will be selected. The parties will equally
split the cost of any arbitrator fees to be paid in advance of the arbitration.
The arbitration will consist of a review of the record of action relating to this Permit
under the same procedure and standards for review set forth forjudicial review of aquasi-judicial
proceeding under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), and all applicable precedents construing that rule. The
parties agree that any jurisdictional questions over the County's ability to regulate a particular
aspect of the permittee's operation can be addressed under C.R.C.P. l06(a)(4) as it provides a
mechanism for reviewing whether the County has "exceeded its jurisdiction". The parties agree
that the County's jurisdiction is currently enunciated in the cases of California Coastal
Commission v. Granite Rock Company, 480 U.S. 572 (1987) and Brubaker v. Board of Cuunly
Commissioners, 652 P.2d 1050 (Colo. 195: and the arbitrator, in assessing the county's
~ of 14 R 0.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO