Laserfiche WebLink
December 30, 2004 <br />Page 4 <br />conclude that unless the subject land is zoned for mining use or permission for <br />such use is granted by the Ioca1 government following special use review <br />proceedings, the operator is not eligible to receive a mining permit from the <br />Reclamation Board. The laws are compatible with each other. <br />C&M Sand &Gravel v. Board of County Commis of the County of Boulder, 673 P.2d at <br />1017-18(emphasis added). <br />Accordingly, it is not proper for the Boazd to approve the application unless the applicant <br />obtains a Gilpin County SUR Permit. Thus, the Boazd must deny the application or, pursuant to <br />Construction Material Rule 1.4.12, may place a condition or limitation on the approval of the <br />application, provided the applicant consents to abide by the condition or limitation. <br />III. <br />Finally, the City also raises a third objection to the application, which again falls under <br />the requirement contained in C.R.S. § 34-32.5-115(4)(d) concerning local permits, licenses and <br />approvals. <br />The applicant must have a Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT") state <br />highway access permit in order to access the subject property and conduct its mining operation. <br />The applicant so admits in Exhibit M of the application. The applicant represents throughout its <br />application that such an access pernut has been granted and attached to the application, as proof <br />of such access, only the cover page of the eight (8) page state highway access pemut. The cover <br />page shows that the pernut was issued on May 29, 2003. The pages of the pemmt that were <br />omitted by the applicant include important terms and conditions, including information about the <br />expiration of the pernut. The entire permit is attached hereto for your reference. <br />According to page two of the permit, "[aj permit shall be considered expired if the access <br />is not under construction within one year of the permit issue date or before the expiration of any <br />authorized extension." This requirement is also stated in section 11(d) of the State Highway <br />Access Code, 2 CCR 601-1. The City has obtained CDOT's entire file on the permit application <br />through an open records request, and nothing in the file shows that the applicant has sought an <br />extension for the permit. Therefore, the permit expired on May 29, 2004, is no longer valid, and <br />was not valid on October 28, 2004, the day the application was filed with your office. <br />As a result, the proposed operation, which is without a valid state highway access permit, <br />is contrary to state law and CDOT requirements, and it is proper for the Boazd to deny the <br />application pursuant to C.R.S. § 34-32.5-115(4)(d) and Construction Material Rule 6.4.13. <br />Notably, the CDOT permit process shows another instance of the property owner's <br />attempt to skirt Gilpin County regulation. You will note that item 7. under the "Additional <br />Terms and Conditions" showed that the CDOT permit was originally conditioned upon approval <br />from Gilpin County but that Mr. Wolf persuaded CDOT to remove that condition through the use <br />12/30/04 <br />Q:1 USERSIBINfMGIA~~BJG APPLICATTOMOBJBCTTONLETCBR - LOLDOC <br />