Laserfiche WebLink
' ~ t~ <br />~~ COQ <br />o *'~ <br />~. - <br />_ _= <br />o p <br />A <br />Web Sill, I° District <br />Jeanne Nicholson, 2°a Ihsidct <br />Ken Eye, 3'd District <br />County Manager <br />Roger Baker <br />Community Development <br />Director <br />Torry Petersen <br />Building Code Compliance <br />Officer <br />Planner <br />Ray W. Rears <br />IT/GIS Specialist <br />James Russell <br />Office Assistant <br />Jennifer West <br />Commissiocers <br />Community Development <br />Departrnent <br />P.O. Box 661 <br />Central City, CO 80427 <br />CDD:303-582-5831 <br />Admin.: 303-582-5214 <br />Fax: 303-582-5440 <br />Located in the Historic <br />County Courthouse, <br />3'~ floor; <br />203 Eureka Street <br />Central City, Colorado <br />December 2, 2004 / R <br />Thomas Schreiner, Enviromnen/tal Protection Specihr~~ ~ ~ V E~ <br />Division of Minerals & Geology ~ <br />Department of Natural Resources DEC 0 72004 <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 Division of Minerals and Geology <br />RE: Cleaz Creek District Water Providers, LLC MMRR Quarry <br />File No. M-2004067,/ <br />Dear Mr. Schreiner: <br />Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced <br />application. Gilpin County woul like to formally record its objection to the <br />proposed MMRR Quarry. Consequently, as per State statute we hereby <br />petition for a formal public hearing before the Mined Land Reclamation <br />Board. <br />Our objections are based in §34-32.5-115 (4) (d) C.R.S. which lists mining <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 contrary 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 />Court, 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 />vio]ation of Gilpin County building codes for building two structures, <br />including his home, without County permits. Mr. Wolf lost his <br />jurisdictional argument in court and 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 Zoning Resolution, Section 6. l.d <br />(attached). "Exhibit A, SUR Mining Limits, adopted 8/12103" (attached) is <br />a review process identification matrix applicable to all mining activity <br />proposed in Gilpin County. As per Exhibit A, the proposed mining <br />activity would fall within Gilpin County review process, "Tier 4, Open <br />Cut Mining". Gilpin County Tier 4 Open Cut Mining reviews require a <br />complete SUR application, an application fee, and an environmental <br />impact study (EIS) addressing potential off-site impacts. None of the <br />above has been submitted to Gilpin County. <br />