2006-01-05_REVISION - M1992045 ‎(2)‎

• Permit No: M1992045
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 1/5/2006
• Doc Name: Chaffee County Concerns regarding filing of a new Land Use Permit
• From: Chaffe County
• To: James VanElla
• Type & Sequence: AM1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

/M- Iqq~-©y~'
t/l} M(n~a ~ /` ~
~C(~tay'~Ce Cewx'E't^ CoNCGMS
Mount, Carl ,~~ ~'~ pis 0. JJF~' ~~
From: Don Reimer [dreimel@[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, January~l//05, 2006 3:43 PM
Page 1 of 3
!2g N~q
To: Jim VanElla; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; Kathy Leinz; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: N/A
Mr. VanElla
Thank you for your letter and the additional information on your project. After receiving your comments, I contacted Mr.
Cazl Mount of the Colorado DMG to get additional information. Based on the information I obtained verbally from Mr.
Mount, review of the information on file with the County Clerk, and information contained in the Special Land Use Permit
(SCUP) Sle from 1992, I conclude the following:
1. The SCUP issued by the Board of County Commissioners in 1992 was for a period of three years, to temrinate in October
1995, which was in acordance with the requests made by you in your pemrit application.
2. The permit was issued for a specific 3-acre parcel, in accordance with the pemrit application.
3. According to the SCUP, all mining and related activities were to cease in October 1995. If continued operations were
desired at that time, an extension should have been applied for. If an expansion outside of the permitted 3-acres was
proposed, it would also require an amended County mining permit.
4. Tn your a-mail, you indicate [hat you have done a fair amount of reclamation, and do not have any intentions of
mining. Conversations with Mc Mount indicate there is a substantial highwall (up to 30 feet), and continued excavating to
open up additional azeas for your prospecting customers. According to Mr. Mount, that constitutes mining under [he state
regulations, and it also constitutes mining under the county regulations.
5. It appears that your application to [he state includes most of [he information necessary to process the County pemr[, with
a few additional items necessary. A county Mining permit application and a copy of the county mining regulations are
attached for your review.
6. I think the biggest question maybe what your intent for operations maybe: In your letter you state there is no intent to
mine the additional 6 acres, which raises the question of why the permit should be expanded to include the 6 acres. Further
confusing the issue, in a signed statement to the DMG, you again indicate that you have no intent to mine the 6 acres, but
[hen you indicate that you intend to market the property for sale as 9.9 acres permitted for mining.
Because of the outstanding concerns, including the appeazance of continued mining operations with an expired permit, I
cannot recommend approval to DMG of the pemtit, until such time as a county mining permit application is filed in
accordance with our regulations
Please contact us to clarify any of my conclusions or to provide addifional information.
Don Reimer, P.E.
Chaffee County Engineer /Planning Director
719-530-5565
---Original Message ----
From: "Jim VanElla" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Sent: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 13:39:04 +0000
Subject: N/A
1/5/2006