PERMFILE104058 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Tom Schreiner May 20, 2005 Page 2 5. On or about April 1, 2005, Mr. Wolf filed an application with CDOT for a new access to state highway 119. The proposed new access is directly opposite the existing access to a convenience store/gas station. (See Exhibit C attached). 6. On April 5, 2005, the County of Gilpin received notification from CDOT that Mr. Phillip Wolf, land owner, had applied to CDOT for an access permit for the new access point described in the amended application. Since Gilpin County has assumed responsibilities for access permits, CDOT forwazded the application to the County of Gilpin for review and issuance of any permit. 7. Mr. Wolf, as the owner of the property upon which the proposed mining operation would be conducted, has notified the County of Gilpin that he does not recognize Gilpin County as a governmental entity with any jurisdiction over his property and specifically, with any jurisdiction to issue an access permit for the proposed mining operation. Accordingly, Mr. Wolfwill file no access application with the County. (See letter with attachments, attached as Exhibit D.) 8. Access to the mining site will require construction of a roadway from State Highway 119 to the site. By reason of terrain, such a roadway will be on a minimum 65% slope. No such road can be constructed under the Gilpin County Uniform Building Cade §3306 without a grading permit issued by Gilpin County. Mr. Wolf continues to refuse to recognize the County of Gilpin's jurisdiction or legal authority to issue grading permits and has previously constructed a driveway with multiple switchbacks in the same vicinity in flagrant disregazd of County permitting requirements 9. The 112 permit is properly denied because the proposed mining operation cannot be conducted on the described property without proof of legal access to the mining site. §34-32.5- 115(4)(d) C.R.S. 10. The post mining use, intended by the applicant in this matter, Clear Creek Water District Providers LLC, is development of water resources, not "wildlife habitat" as stated in the amended application. See attached Denver Post article dated December 24, 2004, quoting the President of Clear Creek Water Providers LLC. (Exhibit E.) 11. The amended permit application does not reflect the true post mining use of the property and to that extent misrepresents the proposed mining operation and reclamation plan. Applicant has thereafter failed to submit a proper application and the permit is properly denied under 34-32.5-I 12(2)(d)(I)(I1].