Laserfiche WebLink
Thomas A. Schreiner <br />March 16, 2005 <br />Page 7 <br />declaration of intent to change or waive the prohibition is obtained <br />by the applicant from the affected political subdivisions. Any <br />mining operator subject to this article shall also be subject to <br />zoning and land use authority and regulation by political <br />subdivisions as provided by law. <br />C.R.S. § 34-32.5-109(3) (1995) (emphasis added). <br />Under the law as it stands now, MLRB may reject a permit application if the proposed <br />operation is contrary to laws or regulations of local governments. That is most rationally read to <br />mean that MLRB should reject a permit application if therers no set of circumstances under <br />which an operator could legally obtain a permit from the local government. However, Title 34 <br />Article 32.5 does not mean (as the Supreme Court held that Title 34 Article 32 did in 1991) that <br />the MLRB is barred from issuing a permit until the relevant local government issues its own <br />approval. The statute as it exists today, which applies to this application, makes it clear that it is <br />the operator's, not the MLRB's, responsibility to ensure compliance with local requirements. <br />Gilpin County's land use code and regulations provide a process by which CCDWP may obtain <br />approval for this proposed use in-this location, so the MLRB may not deny the permit on the <br />grounds suggested by the County and Black Hawk. <br />ii. Obiectors' Request for approval subject to conditions subsequent <br />It is apparent from the language of the statute that the operator/applicant bears the <br />responsibility for assuring that the operation and post-mining land use comply with applicable <br />local government land use regulations. This language places the onus of compliance squarely on <br />the operator/applicant, and removes it from the MLRB. The legislature clearly intended by this <br />