Laserfiche WebLink
.•b2/14/2004 12:25 <br />Caunusatonen <br />web sal,1* Dimicr <br />Jeanne Nldwlson, 2n0 Dlstr~t <br />Km Bye, 3'^ Die4ict <br />~~ <br />Roger Seker <br />Commaoitr Devdoproenk <br />Dtrecror <br />Tmry Petelaeo <br />BrAdlag Cak Canplieuet <br />orrre~ ;. <br />Plenoer <br />Rey W. Rears <br />rr/cts s~rl.t <br />Jaoeea Rosseil <br />Ofllce Auistant <br />JemiS~ wear <br />~:. <br />C~mmii<yv 1lavclbpment <br />DoPe?udentE, :: <br />. r, <br />P.O. Box 66r" ~,, <br />genarat coy, co soazr <br />CDD: 303.582-3931 <br />Admin.; 303.582.5214 <br />3o3-ss2aaao <br />r.a~ted in iLe Historic <br />Crnmry Courthouse, <br />3m soot, <br />203 &ueka 3treee <br />contrat ctry, Colorndo <br />3035625440 <br />December 2, 2004 <br />GILPIN COUNTY <br />Thomas Schreiner, Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Division of Minerals & Geology <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 60203 <br />RE: Clear Creek District Water Providers, LLC MMRR Quarry <br />Mlle No. M-2004-067 <br />Dear Mr. Schreiner. <br />PAGE 02 <br />Thank you for the opportunity to comme~ on the above referenced <br />application Gilpin County would like to formally record its objection to the <br />proposed MiviftR Quarry. Consequently, as per State statute we hereby <br />petition fot ti formal public heaSng before the Mined Land Reclamation <br />Board <br />Our objections are based in §34-32.5-115 (4) (d) C.RS. which lists mining <br />operations, reclaznation or proposed future uses that are contrary to local <br />permitting and approvals as Bounds for denial. Gilpin County contends that <br />the proposed operation and the likely end use are contrary to local permitting <br />and approvals tie follows: <br />Mining Operatlon -The owner ofihe subject p~ropetty, Phillip Wolf, has <br />stated, verbally and in writing, to Gilpin County of5oials and in District <br />Court, that he does not recognize Cowtty authority and therefore will not <br />apply to the County for permits, In fact, the property owner is currently in <br />violation of Gilpin County building codes for building two structruea, <br />including his home, without County permits. Mr. Wolf lost his <br />jurisdictional argument in court and is presently accruing daily fares as a <br />IC9ult. <br />Qilpin County requires mining operations to be permitted by Special Use <br />Review (SUR) as per Gilpin County Zoning Resolution, Section 6.1.d <br />(attached). "Exhibit A, SUR Mining Limits, adopted S/12/03" (attached) is <br />a review process identification matrix applicable to all mining activity <br />proposed in Gilpin County. a1s per Exhibit A, tlu proposed mining <br />activity would fall within Gilpin County review process, `°I'ier 4, Open <br />Cut Mining". Gilpln County Tier 4 open Cut Muting reviews require a <br />complete SUR application, as application fee, and an environmental <br />impact study (EIS) addressing potential off-site impacts. None of the <br />above has been submitted to Gilpin County. <br />Exhibit 96 <br />