GENERAL51771 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 -The Plkes Peak Journal - Frlday, Apri121, 1989 ~.. ~~ Dor~'t,let past error hurt Waldo 11 dr,~9 uu lfie. concern many people have expressed over the•p~eeittitt4ihining operation in Waldo Canyon steiria#'rpai~ environmental and aes- thetic causes: ~~ieie?tfigrequesr to quarry Wa1do.Canyon~imitedto.those concerns it would likely riot have.gotten as far as it has. Despite the outcry.ovet matters of beauty and preserving nature, the question of quarrying Waldo Canyon resides largely on laws and permits. In a nutshell, must a mining permit issuedl5 years ago to another applicant be honored by EI Paso County today? Let us return to 1974 when county com- missioners granted a mining permit to Rocky Mountain Paving. Because that applicant had permission to mine in Waldo Canyon and no expiration date was set, the current applicant, Rocky Mountain Asphalt, feels it should be allowed to quarry there. The asphalt company's azgument is that the right to quarry is both vested and transferable. However, there is room to argue because the county acted sloppily in 1974. A look a[ the minutes of the meetings leading up to that approval shows that the mining was in noway intended to be as extensive as what Rocky Mountain Asphalt is proposing today. Let's look m the spirit and the circum- stances by which the original was issued. The county had virtually no zoning powers. The state had less rigid riles Cor reclamation, water and air quality, wilderness preservation or traffic safety. There was even a law at the time, allowing gravel to be removed without any county permission, provided the material was not sold. So, when Rocky Mountain Asphalt threatened to give the rock away, the Board of County Commissioners was pressured either to grant the permit and retain some regulation over the site or to be simply shut out. This came out in the minutes of the hearing March 1, 1974, at which the quarry was approved by a 2-1 vote. In prior meetings, before the county commissioners and planning commission, rep- resentatives of the applicant had stated for the record that the land was to be mined largely for the purpose of clearing the land for future development. Only loose gravel would be taken from a 4 1/2-acre area over atwo-year span and no blasting would be done, according to statements in the minutes of those meetings. Unfortunately, when the permit was issued, the comfy commissioners neglected to require in writing all the good things that had been said. Five of the six conditions anached to the 1974 approval pertained to traffic safety only. The other said that rock slides were to be avoided. Ironically, many of the traffic conditions are now outdated, as the state Highway Department indicated in a recent letter to Rocky Mountain Paving, the current applicant. Since 1974, El Paso.County, like the state, has progressed significandy and set intelligent, useful precedents. In 1982, the county adopted a master plan for Ute Pass which said that because of existing residential use and recreational appeal, no new mining should be permitted and existing mining operations be camouFlaged. Consistent with this rationale, the EI Paso _County Park Board has recommended that the_ present request by Rocky Mountain Asphalt_ not be granted The Manitou SDrings City., Council has passed a resolution expressing concern, and some 500 people have written letters to the county asking for denial. If the original request were coming forward now, it would likely be sunk on sight. Public record makes it clear in what spirit the permit was issued in 1974. Sadly no one saw fit to put the necessary stipulations as conditions on the permit To allow the present applicant to inherit the privilege without the accountability which figured into its authoriza- tion is wrong. The beauty of Ute Pass must be preserved, for it is an asset W all of us. It contributes aesthetically and because of our strong links to tourism, economically as well.