Laserfiche WebLink
Committee on Mining & the Environment <br />Gold Hill Town Nteeting, InC. <br />Gold Hill, Colorado RECEIVED <br />APR 12 1995 ,ate <br />R ~'. mason P.U. F3oz~ <br />chrnrperson April lt), 1995 4wWtler.co eu306 <br />Division o~ wune4ais s Geology <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Attn: Mr. Allen Sorenson <br />Dear Mr. Sorenson: <br />Page 1 of 3 pages <br />Thank you for your letter dated March 27, 1995, which included your <br />clarification of notice criteria applicable to Rule 1.6 of the MLRB Rules. I am <br />forwarding your comments to the Gold Hill Town Meeting, Inc. for appropriate <br />action (presumably registry with the Colorado Municipal League). <br />Thank you additionally for our copy of your Adequacy Review letter dated <br />March 27, 1995 to Mr. Hartley. It does, as you noted in your letter referenced <br />above, address many of the issues raised in our Statement of Comments and <br />Objections, dated February 20, 1995, as well as a significant number of others. <br />We found your clarifications of MLRD Staff positions most helpful. <br />Nevertheless, our understanding remains incomplete on some points, which we <br />have enumerated below. Your patience in responding to these will be deeply <br />appreciated. <br />1. In our Objection 2, we cited Section 34-32-109(6), CRS, which apparently <br />requires that applicants be in compliance with applicable County and local <br />regulations. In view of the Boulder County position identified under reference <br />bullet one of our Statement, and upheld on appeal to the Boulder County Board <br />of Adjustment in November of 1994, it appears that astand-alone milling <br />operation as contemplated in the present application would be in violation of <br />County Zoning requirements, and thus in violation of the requirements of the CRS <br />section just cited. Any violation of CRS provisions, if allowed to stand, would <br />of course set an unwelcdme precedent and represent bad public policy. Please <br />request the comment of a MLRD Staff attorney on this issue and forward the <br />same to us. <br />2. Under point 4 of your Adequacy Review letter, you mention the possibility <br />of a Notice of Temporary Cessation under Rule 1.13. Our review of the cited <br />Rule has led to much puzzlement on our part, since it seems to apply to minin , <br />not (stand-alone) milling. Moreover, para. 1.13.1(1) states "A permit granted <br />pursuant to these Rules shall continue in effect as long as: (b) mineral reserves <br />