Laserfiche WebLink
December 30, 2004 <br />Page 5 <br />of an unsound legal argument based on the concept of federal preemption. See letter from Mr. <br />Wolf to CDOT dated November 17, 2003, and CDOT's response dated December 15, 2003, both <br />attached hereto for your review. <br />The applicant's documented desire to skirt Gilpin County regulatons is disturbing and <br />relevant to the Boazd's review considering the Boazd's duty to ensure compliance with all <br />applicable laws under C.R.S. § 34-32.5-115(4)(d), Construction Material Rule 6.4.13, and C&M <br />Sand &Gravel v. Board of County Commis of the County of Boulder, 673 P.2d 1013 (Colo. <br />App. 1983). <br />Further, the City wishes to briefly address the unfounded federal preemption azgument <br />Mr. Wolf made to CDOT so that, should he or the applicant raise it again during the Board's <br />proceedings, it does not obfuscate the real issues of this case. Quite simply, federal preemption <br />as Mr. Wolf described it to CDOT does not apply to this situation to prevent state or local <br />regulation of this land or any proposed mining activities to occur on this land. The legal <br />authority on which Mr. Wolf relied involved local regulation of federal lands, where the federal <br />preemption doctrine cleazly does apply. However, the property at issue here is not federal land, <br />and, if it were, the Act anticipates and addresses that issue under C.R.S. § 34-32.5-115(4)(f), <br />which pemvts the Boazd to deny an application when the mining operation is to be located on <br />federal lands. For Mr. Wolf or the applicant to argue otherwise is simply misleading and wrong. <br />For all of the foregoing reasons, the City respectfully submits that good cause exists to <br />hold a hearing on the application and requests that the Board deny the application as incomplete <br />and as proposing a mining operation that is contrazy to state and local laws and regulations. <br />In closing, the City strenuously objects to the application, requests a heazing thereon, <br />believes it cannot be approved according to the plain meaning of the Act, and is prepazed to seek <br />judicial review of the Boazd's decision pursuant to Construction Materials Rule 1.4.9(4) and <br />C.R.S. § 24-4-106(2) should the permit be issued despite the objections raised by the City and <br />the many able others. <br />Thank you for your time and consideration. The City looks forwazd to receiving notice <br />of the pre-hearing conference date. <br />Very truly yours, <br />~~~ <br />Corey . Hof&nann Hilary Mogue Graham <br />11/30/04 <br />Q: I USERSIBFIIfIMGI~LIfi 7NG AppL]CAT/OIJIOBJECT/ONLETTER - LOI.DOC <br />