Laserfiche WebLink
foregoing provision is that the permitted use <br />(including surface operations) together with <br />accessory buildings (for use and operation of the <br />mine, quarry or gravel pit) are allowed if within <br />the established setback requirement. No reference <br />is made to accessory uses, and thus, any intended <br />uses must either be uses permitted by right or not <br />allowed. <br />d. Mineral & Natural Resource Extraction is presently <br />defined within the Code as the physical withdrawal <br />of minerals and natural resources. <br />e. It is my understanding that the past practice of <br />the County has been to consider crushing an <br />accessory use to a Mineral 6 Natural Resource <br />Extraction Use, but not a batch plant. This is <br />further reflected in the fact that a batch plant is <br />presently not permitted within the F - Forest <br />Di6trict. <br />f. A number of jurisdictions have held that the plain <br />and ordinary meaning of excavation does not include <br />crushing. See Valentine v. Board of Adjustment, <br />6upra. <br />2. Did the Board's 1974 location approval include 36 acres, <br />more or less, or 4.5 acres as verbally mentioned in the <br />testimony before the County Planning Commission and the <br />Board? The formal resolution unequivocally stated that <br />the petition for location approval of the gravel <br />operation was for a legally described area containing 36 <br />acres, more or less. See also discussion infra <br />regarding expansion of a nonco'n~orming gravel/mi nni g <br />operation. <br />3. was there a time limitation imposed on the approved <br />gravel operation? The formal resolution imposed no time <br />limitation on the gravel operation although the matter <br />was discussed at the various County public meetings. in <br />1979, the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board <br />partially released the reclamation bond given in <br />conjunction with the issuance of its permit to operate <br />open mining on the subject property, and fully released <br />such bond in 1982. <br />4. Was the Board's 1974 location approval limited to a <br />non-commerical gravel operation) Again, the formal <br />resolution and associated petition did not specifically <br />limit the location approval to a non-commercial gravel <br />operation. The issue should not be the commercia_1 or <br />non-commercial nature of the gravel operation, but <br />rather, the land use impacts associated with the subject <br />- 3 - <br />