Laserfiche WebLink
EC-14-2000 THU 10;00 AM WEST ELK MINE FAX N0. 19709295015 P. 03 <br />Luncl Use Resolution Comments <br />December ll, 200 <br />Page l <br />reguhtion of the use of land are provided by law, such requirements shall control." This <br />provision of the enabling statute suggests that the Colorado Surface Coal Mining and <br />Reclamation Act, CRS §34-33-lOlthrough 137 preempts the local zoning function otherwise <br />provided by slate law. You may not be familiaz with the state's surface mining act, but it <br />provides for precisely the type of carefully planned mineral extraction embraced by the proposed <br />resolution. <br />Second, pursuant to the provisions of CRS §30-28-101 which authorizes counties to enact <br />planning and building codes, section 106(c) requires the county master plan (which 1 assume the <br />resolution will constitute), "to include a master plan for the extraction of commercial mineral <br />deposits pursuant to section 34-1--304, CRS." The latter referenced section provides a detailed <br />description of the factors which must be considered by a local government in the adoption of any <br />regulation governing mining. Given the fact that Mowttain Coa] Company clearly is an <br />"extractor" of a "commercial mineral deposit" as defined by this act, the absence of provisions of <br />the proposed resolution which comply with this statute is conspicuous. <br />Third attd finally, CRS § 35-15-404 provides how local ordinances must be adopted. 1 question <br />whether the publication and discussion envisioned by the state statute have been met with respect <br />to this proposed resolution. Moreover, section 411 of the same statute provides that no ordinance <br />may conflict with state statutes. For reasons already suggested, the proposed resolution clearly <br />dots. <br />It is not the purpose of Mountain Coal to frustrate the legitimate land use authority of the Board <br />of Cowrty Commissioners. Our cotnpany, however, has invested trillions of dollars for the <br />putpose of coal mining in western Gunnison County. As ]have reviewed your proposed <br />resolution, not only does it ignore our considerable investment, it disregards the considerable <br />Icgal protection that we believe we have long enjo}'ed under state law. We are willing to discuss <br />how your resolution might be amended to avoid the various problems i have described in this <br />letter. Otherwise, i will have no choice but to tum this matter over to legal counsel for resolution <br />as they may direct. <br />Sincerely, <br />`~~Q 5~-.~P~- <br />Phil Schmidt <br />Manager of F,ngineering and Environmental Affairs <br />cc: Henry Barbe <br />Gene DiClaudio <br />Blair Gardner <br />'ferry O'Conner <br />Greg Schaefer <br />Jim Starr <br />Marlene Zanetell <br />