2006-09-07_REVISION - M1977342 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

/DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 308 Byers Ave • P.O. Box 239 • Hot Sulphur Springs • Colorado • 80451 970-725-3347 Ext129 or Fax 970-725-3303 ~L~ August 3, 2006 RECEIVED SEP 072006 Division of Reclamation, / Mr. Bryce Romig / Mining and Safety / Climax Molybdenum / ) p } ~/ P.O.Bo 68Mine ~"G~~~d/t~'Li~c:~ C%~ I~-~.~e~.t ~Gtf (!Gti''tth~` Empire, CO 80438 Subject: Henderson Operations, Amendment AM-og Mtning and Reclamation Permit M-77-34z~ Dear Mr. Romig Thank you for your recent visit to review comments submitted by Grand County with respect to the recent amendment submitted to the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology, for the Climax Molybdenum Reclamation Permit (M-77-342). The additional information regarding the background and design of the interceptor canal was helpful to understand your position; however, Grand County does not agree with your interpretation that "approval of an ultimate interception canal has already occurred at the State and County level". We believe that the Grand County Zoning Regulations have always considered that a mining operation is an allowed use, subject to additional permitting requirements. The letter from Mr. Larry Brown (September t, 1990 quotes specific the requirements of the caning regulation in place, "Grand Coun~y Development Standards", to indicate that the proposed mining operation, located in the Forestry and Open District were an allowed under in Section V with additional permitting "provisions". Secrion VI, 6.~ (4) Lumber and ore mills, mines, quarries and sand and gravel operations, subject to the prnvision of Section XI of this Resolution. It is critical to note in Mr. Jennings's letter the reference to Section XI. This section covers unusual or unique circumstances that mandate additional permitting due potential impacts to the health, safety or welfare to Grand County citizens. Our position is that Mr. Jennings letter clearly indicates that additional review uses are permitted only after review and approval of the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Moody's letter (February 20, t98r) supports this same position, that is, that the Henderson operation is an allowed use only under the additional permitting of Section XI, uses permitted by special review which are allowed only after "favorable approval of the Board of County Commissioners". Review of Zoning regulations in place at the time that Mr. Moody Section XI indicates that not only the mining operation itself is regulated pursuant to u.r. (3) but that the "water diversion, ditch and pipeline structures" are further regulated under Section u.r(8). Both letters clearly reference that the mine is an "allowed use" subject to additional review under Section XI. Grand County can not make "blanket" approvals for conceptual ideas as noted in the Master Plan, which is considered to be an only policy document, not a design document. The letters advised Henderson that their facilities would fall under Grand County Zoning Regulations Section XI, uses permitted by special review only after "favorable approval of the Board of County Commissioners. There is no evidence in our files that a response was provided by Henderson.