My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE62989
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
700000
>
PERMFILE62989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:09:14 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 7:47:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2004067
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/5/2005
Doc Name
Response to Motion by Applicant
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.
/
7
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
ahead with its mining operation. Based upon the County's four years of experience with the <br />property owner involved here, Applicant's reticence may be a consequence of the property <br />owner's continuing refusal to allow any permit application to be submitted to the County. <br />Applicant suggests that it is "commit ed to applying for required federal, state, and local <br />government permits and approvals `as apnropriate."' Applicant's Motion, pp. 6, (emphasis <br />added). The facts suggest otherwise. The record is devoid of any effort on the part of Applicant <br />to apply for any "appropriate" County permits, including Special Use ("SUR"), Sewage Disposal <br />("ISDS") and Grading Permits. This suggests that Applicant believes County permits, and <br />Special Use Permits specifically, are not "appropriate." While Applicant has had a preliminary <br />discussion regarding the SUR permit process with Gilpin County officials, no steps have been <br />taken with respect to the three required permits. Absent any action on the part of Applicant, <br />Gilpin County must conclude that Applicant is either unwilling to comply, based on the <br />(erroneous) conclusion that County special use approval is not required, or unable to comply with <br />County regulations, by reason of landowner resistance. <br />2. The Proaerty Owner Does Not Recognize County Reeulatorv Authority Over <br />Any Use Of His Property <br />Applicant contends that the property owners' relationship with Gilpin County should not <br />be an issue in the current proceeding. Mr. Phillip Wolf and his wife Kathleen Wolf (hereinafter <br />"owners" or "Mr. and Mrs. Wolf '), are the landowners {and presumably the lessors) of the <br />subject property and have made themselves an issue here by consistently ignoring the County's <br />authority to regulate land use matters. Mr. and Mrs. Wolf have constructed a sewage system <br />without the required permit, County inspection, or approval. The owners have also violated <br />Gilpin County Zoning Regulations by constructing and occupying two buildings (including their <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.