Laserfiche WebLink
Thomas A. Schreiner' <br />March 16, 2005 <br />Page 3 <br />activity would fall within Gilpin County Review Process, `Tier 4, <br />Open Cut Mining.' Gilpin County Tier 4 Open Cut Mining <br />reviews require a complete SUR application, an application fee, <br />and an environmental impact study (EIS) addressing potential off- <br />site impacts. None of the above has been submitted to Gilpin <br />County. <br />Gilpin County's letter goes on to suggest [hat the applicant does not actually intend to use <br />the land post-mining in the way it is specified in the permit application, and asks the Division to <br />"review the proposed quarrying activity in the context of the likely end use before permitting." <br />The County does not provide any evidence to support this claim. Citing these factors <br />(applicant's alleged failure to submit a SUR application and the County's suspicions about the <br />real post-mining land use) together with the County's concern that the applicant will not make an <br />app]ication for a SUR permit, the County asks the MLRB to deny the permit, or condition it on <br />local approvals. <br />i. Request for denial. <br />The County is basing its request for denial on C.R.S. § 34-32.5-115(4)(d), which states as <br />grounds for denial of a permit: <br />(d) The proposed mining operation, the reclamation program, or <br />the proposed future use is contrary to the laws or regulations of this <br />state or the United States, including but no[ limited to all federal, <br />state and local permits, licenses, and approvals, as applicable to the <br />specific operation. <br />The County asserts that "the proposed operation and likely end use are contrary to local <br />permitting and approvals" and therefore should be denied or conditioned. <br />