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
the following: <br />If the Applicant commences operations in violation of any local land use or <br />other laws, it will be in violation of the 112 permit. In addition, the 112 permit <br />shall not become effective until the Applicant has filed applications with Gilpin <br />County for an SUR permit, an ISDS permit, and one or more grading permits, <br />and the Applicant shall not initiate quarry activities until the listed County <br />permits have been obtained. Further, the Applicant shall comply with all terms <br />and conditions of the Gilpin County SUR permit, ISDS permit, and grading <br />permits, including any amendments thereto that may occur during the life of the <br />112 reclamation permit. Any operations in violation of Gilpin County permits <br />shall be in violation of the 112 reclamation permit. <br />The Division's Recommendation supports the above-described, albeit more expansive, <br />condition. In its November 15, 2005, Recommendation to the Mined Land Reclamation Board, <br />the Division stated: "If the applicant commences operations in violation of any local land use or <br />other laws, it will be in violation of its permit conditions and the above statutory requirements, <br />and the Division will proceed at that time with appropriate enforcement actions." Based on the <br />foregoing recommendation by its staff, the Board should condition any grant of a 112 Permit on <br />Applicant obtaining the requisite Gilpin County permits, including but not limited to a SUR <br />permit, an ISDS Permit and applicable grading permits. The concerns raised by the property <br />owner's disregazd of county authority will be obviated by inclusion of this condition. <br />CONCLUSION <br />Applicant's attempt to distance itself from the property owner and to chazacterize the <br />County's legitimate concerns regarding Mr. and Mrs. Wolf as immaterial is understandable but <br />misguided. The Applicant and Mr. and Mrs. Wolf are joined at the hip by virtue of their need to <br />approve Gilpin County's SUR permit application. The County exhibits clearly demonstrate that <br />Applicant maybe unable to apply for any County permits requiring landowner consent, or at the <br />very least will encounter strong resistance from the owner involved here, thus accentuating the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.