Laserfiche WebLink
with C.M.R. 6.4.13. C.M.R. 6.4.13 requires an Exhibit M, which states in <br />pertinent parts as follows: <br />6.4.13 EXHIBIT M - Other Permits and <br />Licenses <br />A statement identifying which of the following <br />permits, licenses and approvals the <br />Operator/Applicant holds or will be seeking in <br />order to conduct the proposed mining and <br />reclamation operations:...county zoning and land <br />use permits...." (emphasis added). <br />C.M.R. 6.4.13 requires an affirmative statement from an applicant <br />identifying which local permits it will be seeking. This obligation is necessary to <br />enable the MLRB to determine whether the mining operation will be in compliance <br />with state and local law as required by Section 34-32.5-115(4)(d), C.R.S. <br />Lastly, all parties agree or at least all of the parties cannot deny that <br />CCDWP's application did not identify the local zoning or land use permits or <br />approvals that CCDWP held from Gilpin County nor did it identify the local <br />zoning or land use permits or approvals that CCDWP would seek from Gilpin <br />County. <br />The record does not contain a listing of any permits that CCDWP has agreed <br />to seek from Gilpin County. Moreover, during the hearing, CCDWP did not agree <br />to seek a special review use permit from Gilpin County, despite testimony from <br />Tony Petersen, Gilpin County's Director of Community Development, that such a <br />permit is required. Record, p. 3019, Transcript at p. 142:2-142.9. Neither CCDWP <br />nor the MLRB mention this omission in their Reply Briefs. Rather, they argue that <br />3 <br />