Laserfiche WebLink
December 30, 2004 <br />Page 5 <br />of an unsound legal azgument based on the concept of federal preemption. See letter from Mr. <br />Wolf to CDOT dated November l7, 2003, and CDOT's response dated December 1 S, 2003, both <br />attached hereto for your review. <br />The applicant's documented desire to skirt Gilpin County regulations is distwbing and <br />relevant to the Board's review considering the Board's duty to enswe compliance with all <br />applicable laws under C.R.S. § 34-32.S-I 1S(4)(d), Construction Material Rule 6.4.13, and C&M <br />Sand &Gravel v. Board of County Commis of the County of Boulder, 673 P.2d 1013 (Colo. <br />App. 1983). <br />Further, the City wishes to briefly address the unfounded federal preemption argument <br />Mr, Wolf made to CDOT so that, should he or the applicant raise it again during the Board's <br />proceedings, it does not obfuscate the real issues of this case. Quite simply, federal preemption <br />as Mr. Wolf described it to CDOT does not apply to this situation to prevent state or local <br />regulation of this land or any proposed mining activities to occw on this land. The legal <br />authority on which Mr. Wolf relied involved local regulation of federal lands, where the federal <br />preemption doctrine clearly does apply. However, the property at issue here is not federal land, <br />and, if it were, the Act anticipates and addresses that issue under C.R.S. § 34-32.5-I IS(4xf), <br />which permits the Boazd to deny an application when the mining operation is to be located on <br />federal lands. For Mr. Wolf or the applicant to azgue otherwise is simply misleading and wrong. <br />For all of the foregoing reasons, the City respectfully submits that good cause exists to <br />hold a hearing oa the application and requests that the Board deny the application as incomplete <br />and as proposing a mining operation that is contrary to state and local laws and regulations. <br />In closing, the City strenuously objects to the application, requests a hearing thereon, <br />believes it cannot be approved according to the plain meaning of the Act, and is prepared to seek <br />judicial review of the Board's decision pwsuant to Construction Materials Rule 1.4.9(4} and <br />C.R.S. § 24-4-106(2) should the permit be issued despite the objections raised by the City and <br />the many able others. <br />Thank you for your time and consideration. The City looks forwazd to receiving notice <br />of the pre-hearing conference date. <br />Very truly yours, <br />7~~ <br />Corey .Hoffmann <br />~~ <br />Hilary Mogue Graham <br />JziJOina <br />Q:I USERSIBIi1nMGU41NJNG APPLJCATTOMOBJECTTON LETTER -!,0(.DOC <br />