My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL46384
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL46384
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:19:28 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 2:36:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2001001
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Name
Boards Answer to Boyton et al v. MLRB
From
AGO
To
MLRB & DMG
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
187
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
This provision does authorize denial of a permit if the proposed operation is contrary to <br />the laws administered by another jurisdiction, but only if that jurisdiction has already properly <br />made such a determination. For example, it is not for the Board to decide that a proposed mining <br />operation is contrazy to county zoning laws. The county must make that decision. § 34-32.5- <br />109(3), C.R.S. provides that: <br />"The operator shall be responsible for assuring that the mining <br />operation and the postmining land use comply with city, town, <br />county, or city and county land use regulations and any master plan <br />for extraction adopted pursuant to Section 34-1-304 unless a prior <br />declaration of intent to change or waive the prohibition is obtained <br />by the applicant from the affected political subdivisions. Any <br />mining operator subject to this article shall also be subject to <br />zoning and land use authority and regulation by political <br />subdivisions as provided by law. <br />In C&M Sand & Gravel v. Board of County Com'rs of Boulder County, Colo., 673 P.2d <br />1013 (Colo. App. 1983), the Court addressed the Mined Land Reclamation Boazd's limited <br />jurisdiction: <br />It is significant that the Reclamation Act does not mention the <br />many matters which are traditionally of concern to local zoning <br />authorities such as lessening of traffic congestion, compatibility of <br />land use, distribution of land use and development, protection of <br />tax base, effect on property values, increased noise, nuisance <br />conditions, off-site safety problems, and the nature of the end use <br />of the land. (citations omitted). Id. at p. 1017. <br />The Board may deny a permit on the ground that the proposed operation violates county <br />land use laws. However, the Board relies on the county finding the violation. See, e.g., <br />Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners v. Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board, 809 <br />23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.