Laserfiche WebLink
Thomas A. Schreiner <br />March 16, 2005 <br />Page 8 <br />that MLRB not attach the kinds of permit conditions that Gilpin County and Black Hawk seek, <br />because it placed [he statutory requirement directly on the operator. As a result, the MLRB <br />should not attach the condition requested by Black Hawk and the County. <br />b. CDOT HiQhway Access Permit. <br />The analysis described in the preceding paragraph also applies to this issue. The MLRB <br />may issue a reclamation permit even in the absence of a CDOT permit, and may not place on its <br />own permit a condition that the operator obtain a highway permit. CDOT's permitting authority <br />is separate from MRLB's and such a condition would not only contravene the specific language <br />of C.R.S. § 34-32.5-115(4)(d) (1995) concerning permissible grounds for denial by MLRB, but it <br />would infringe on CDOT's highway permitting authority, set forth at Ti[]e 42, C.R.S. <br />Conclusions <br />The MLRB's authority to reject a permit application is restricted to those reasons spelled <br />out in C.R.S. § 34-32.5-115(4). CCDWP has submitted a complete and adequately documented <br />application for a permit that proposes a legally permissible quarry use and a legally permissible <br />post-mining land use for the site. The City of Black Hawk and Gilpin County have asked the <br />MLRB to deny the application, on two invalid grounds. First, the objectors incorrectly assert <br />that the MLRB should reject the permit application because the applicant has not received <br />necessary permits from the County. However, the statute does not require that such local permits <br />be in hand before MLRB issues its permit, and C.R.S. § 34-32.5-115(4}(d} does not give the <br />MLRB authority to reject an application on that grounds, unless there is no possibility that the <br />