Laserfiche WebLink
iii iiiiiiiiniii iii • • <br />MASSEY SEMENOFF STERN 83 SCHWARZ~ P.C. <br />ATTORNEYS Az LAw <br />THE EQUITABLE OUILDING <br />730 SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 330 <br />DENVER, COLORADO 80202 <br />PMONE (303) 893-1815 <br />FACSIMILE (303)893-1829 <br />www. mssaenverlaw. com <br />Jsnnar W. 9cxvcxz, &e9. <br />D~aECrDw.: (30318930999 <br />E-M,uL: jschwarxfnhnssdenvalaw.com <br />May 10, 2000 <br />VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL <br />Ms. Pam Acre <br />rdr. B.L J..~ cndcrleir. <br />Tuttle Applegate, Inc. <br />11990 Grant Street, Suite 304 <br />Denver, Colorado 80233 <br />RECEIVEp <br />MAY 1 1 1000 <br />Re: Response to May 2, 2000 Comment Supplied by Counsel for Pinnacle Pines, LLC <br />Dear Pam and Bill: <br />1 thought it might be useful to shaze my thoughts with you regazding the above referenced <br />comment on the Mobile Premix Concrete, Inc. mined land reclamation permit application. The <br />comment was supplied by counsel for Pinnacle Pines, LLC ("Pinnacle") on May 2, 2000. <br />First, as Pinnacle recognizes, the comment was submitted late. While it will be, <br />arguably, within the Mined Land Reclamation Board's ("Board's") discretion to consider the <br />comment, should it take this step, the Board should also quickly conclude that Pinnacle has <br />misstated the applicable law. <br />Pinnacle cites a case called Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners v. Colorado <br />Mined Land Reclamation Boazd, 809 P.2d 974 (Colo. 1991) for the proposition that the Board <br />"is prohibited from granting a permit t'or a new mining operation [it] the application is <br />inconsistent with a county [land use] plan unless the affected government has declared its intent <br />[o change or waive [he plan's prohibition." As footnote 2 in the case sets forth, at the time of the <br />Colorado Supreme Court's 1991 decision, various provisions of the Mined Land Reclamation <br />Act had been previously amended in 1988, but since such changes were enacted subsequent to <br />the underlying case, the Court was constrained to a review of the statute in efTect at the time the <br />Boazd denied the mined land permit application in question. <br />The application at issue was to convert a limited impact Section 110 permit to a Section <br />112 permit for a moss rock mining operation on leased State school lands. At the time, Sections <br />34-32-109(6) and 34-32-I 15(4), C.R.S. precluded the Board from granting a mined land permit <br />application that violated local land use zoning authorities. Therefore the Court in the Land <br />Commissioners case upheld the Board's denial of the mined land application because it did not <br />