My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE112503
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE112503
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:08:51 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 9:34:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1994117
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
2/21/1995
From
GOLD HILL MILL MINING INC
To
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.
/
10
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
;, ' <br />o M. Steen reply to the above MLRD letter, dated September 23, <br />1985. <br />Objection 1 Failure to Provide Notice <br />Para. 1.6.1(2)(c) of the MLRB Rules requires that the Board shall give <br />written notice to any municipality within two miles of the proposed <br />operation, by mail. No such notice has been received by the Gold Hill <br />Town Meeting, inc., the Gold Hill town governing body. Such notice <br />may be sent to: <br />Gold Hill Town Meeting, [nc. <br />531 Main Street (Gold Hill) <br />Boulder, CO 80302 <br />Abjection 2 Failure to Comply with General Provisions <br />The applicant appears to be in violation of the requirements of Section 34- <br />32-109(6) of the Colorado Revised Statutes in that he seeks a permit for <br />a milling operation as a 'ncipal use of the property legally described in <br />the application, whereas Boulder County Zoning for a Forestry Zone only <br />allows milling as an accessory to mining, which is a use by right in such <br />zone. The County's position has been extensively documented (see first <br />reference bullet, above) and upheld on appeal to the Boulder County Board <br />of Adjustment. Under present circumstances, it is difficult to see how the <br />proposed operation can legally be permitted. <br />Objection 3 Application Deficiencies <br />The applicant appears to be in violation of the requirements of para. l .4. l <br />in that his application does not fully meet the requirements of rule 6, para. <br />6.1.2 and pars 6.3, including applicable subsections. Specifically: <br />(a) Exhibit A - Legal Desg_:ption and Location Map: The first two <br />paragraphs describe properties not owned by applicant, with the <br />exception of the Good Enough Lode Claim no. 15838 and the <br />Oscar Lode Claim no. 17992. Para. 3 conflicts with page one of <br />the application and with page one of the Cash Mine Amendment <br />of 1985. The millsite and tailings impoundment (para. 4) area <br />includes BLM land (the JoAnne unpatented Lode claim). Paza's <br />5 & 6 discuss properties not part of the proposed milling operation. <br />Para's 7 & 8 appear not to relate to the legal description and in any <br />case discuss properties unrelated to the proposed milling operation. <br />7. <br />.` <br /> <br />(h) Exhibit B -Site Description: This description appears [o have been <br />lifted, with a few interesting omissions, from pp 6 - 10 of the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.