Laserfiche WebLink
Thomas A. Schreiner <br />March 16, 2005 <br />Page 5 <br />County notes in its objection letter, mining is a permissible use subject to approval through a <br />special use review process. Although mining is not a use by right in [he zone district where the <br />project is located, the County's zoning classification for the property does not prohibit mining. <br />Instead, it has a se[ of criteria that must be satisfied in order to obtain SUR permit approval for <br />that activity in that location. Because mining is not prohibited in the location for which this <br />project is proposed, the County is mistaken when it states that the proposed operation is contrary <br />to local permitting and approval. <br />The MLRB's statutory language prescribes grounds for denial in the present tense: the <br />Board may deny if the "proposed future use is contrary to ... local permits and approvals" <br />(C.R.S. § 34-32.5<115(4)(d)) (emphasis added). In this case, CCDWP is asking MLRB to give <br />its approval to a use that is subject to special review but is not contrary to County zoning. The <br />MLRB may not deny this permit on the grounds alleged by the County and the Town of Black <br />Hawk, because the MMRR Quarry is legally permissible in this location. <br />The County argues essentia[[y that MLRB may not approve a permit unless the County <br />has already approved the use. This is also the azgument of the City of Black Hawk, which cites <br />C&M Sand & Gravel v. Board of County Commis of Boulder County, 673 P.2d 1013 <br />(Colo.App. 1983). That case and a subsequent Supreme Court decision, Colorado State Board of <br />Land Commissioners v. Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board, 809 P.2d 974 (Colo. 1991) <br />were decided under a statute that was in effect in 1984, (C.R.S. § 34-32-109(6) (1984)) which <br />was amended by and supplemented with the current C.R.S. 34-32.5-109(6) (1995). The 1984 <br />