Laserfiche WebLink
Thomas A. Schreiner <br />March 16, 2005 <br />Page 4 <br />The County's request for denial is without foundation. The proposed quarry operation <br />and the post-mining ]and use specified in the application are permissible under County zoning <br />regulations. The County misreads the statutory grounds for denial to mean that the applicant <br />must have received al] approvals from local governments before the MLRB may approve a <br />permit. <br />The Board's grounds for denial are limited, and the County has narrowed its request to <br />the grounds cited above. Those do not permit the MLRB to deny this permit application. First, <br />the County does not provide any evidence that the applicant has misrepresented its intended post- <br />mining land use. Its bare assertion that it does not believe that CCDWP intends its stated post- <br />mining land is not sufficient. The applicant is allowed to select its post-mining land use, and is <br />obligated to design its mining and reclamation plans to support it. The County, in its unfounded <br />suspicion, asks the Board to "review the proposed quarrying activity in the context of the likely <br />end use before permitting." Without evidence, it alleges that the applicant is lying about the <br />proposed post-mining land use, asks the Board to speculate on what the "likely end use" might <br />be, and then urges the Board to reject the application on the basis of these suspicions and <br />speculations. This is a request of the Board to engage in the most blatant abuse of discretion <br />imaginable. <br />Next, the County asserts that CCDWP has not submitted any application materials in <br />support of an SUR permit, and therefore the proposed operation and post-mining use "are <br />contrary to local permitting and approval." These are not valid grounds for denial. As the <br />