2000-06-16_PERMIT FILE - M2000002 ‎(4)‎

• Permit No: M2000002
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 6/16/2000
• Doc Name: TANABE PIT APPLICATION FOR REGULAR 112 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OPERATIONS RELCAMATION PERMIT FN M-200
• From: DORSEY AND WHITNEY PC
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
MINNanao Ll9 REPVBLIC PLAZA $UILDINe. $U17a 4400
NHm YOIUC 7~O SEVaNTEFNTH STRBaT
~'`~T- DENVER. COLORADO 80202-5644
DEnvgR SELPPHONE: (3031 629-3400
~n9fllNCroN. D.a. FA%_ [phone]
""' Day MOINas
ROSF.RT A BA56E17
ANCXOMGg [phone]
LoNnoN FA:r (9091 828-9450
baextt.bob®done~lav
eom
cosrA Main .
June 16, 2000
Division of Minerals and Geology
1313 Sherman Street, Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
iii iiniiiiiiiiiiii
999
91LPNGE
GREAT PN.L9
M1990vLn
aRL99a13
PARCO
HONG. LONG
ROCNP9TE1
SALT LAX£ C12Y
vANCOVVEJI
Re: Tanabe Plt Application for Regular (112) Construction Materials Operation
Reclamation Permit, File No. M-2000.02
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter is filed on behalf of our client Pinnacle Pines, LLC ("Pinnacle") as agreed
upon at the gre-hearing conference on June 13, 2000.
Pinnacle previously informed the Division of Pinnacle's concern that LaFarge does not
have a conditional use permit from Adams County for its operation at the Tanabe Pit. Pinnacle
raised this concern by citing the Division to the case of Colorado State Bd. of Land
Commissioner v. Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Bd, 809 P.2d 974 (1991). That case says
that the Board cannot issue a mining permit if the applicant is not in compliance with local law.
The case was decided under the general reclamation law, Article 32, of Title 43, of the Colorado
Revised Statutes-
At the pre-hearing conference in this matter, it was pointed out that Article 32.5, C.R.S.
controls the current application. Article 32.5 is similaz to Article 32, but specifically applies to
construction materials-
Under 32.5-115 the Board may deny a permit if the applicant is not in compliance~with
local law. I-aFarge acknowledged at the pre-hearing conference that it is not in complianae with
local law because it does not have a conditional use permit. Therefore, the Board may deny
LaFarge's permit application under 32.5-115.
Must the Board deny the permit? The answer would be no if 32.5-115(4) was the only
statute that applied. This is because 32.5-115(4) does not require the Board to deny a peanut if
the applicant is not in compliance with local law (unlike the general reclamation statute which
requires denial if local law is not complied with). Compare 32-115(4) with 32.5-115(4).