PERMFILE137059 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MMRR Quarry, M-2004-067 Response to Sept. 20, 2005 Adequacy Review October 24, 2005 Page 6 concerned that a third party has, for all intents and purposes, been given license to act as a reviewer, but without the Division's subject matter expertise and without the Division's concern that review be efficient and thorough at every step. With the above objections noted regarding the source and timing of adequacy issues passed through from public comment, the Applicant submits that the M- 2004-067 application satisfies all pertinent regulations with reference to Gilpin County and City of Black Hawk comments. Technical responses are provided below. The attached letter from Project Attorney Chris Hayes, Bjork Lindley Little PC, provides a legal response to the referenced correspondence. Gilpin County (Petrock & Fendel, PC) -Local Government Approvals The stated position of the County is that the Applicant has failed to comply with Gilpin County Zoning Regulations because the Regular 112 application filed with the Division of Minerals and Geology does not contain the statement described in Construction Materials Rule 1.4.1(5)(d). As discussed previously and reiterated below, Rule 1.4.1(5)(d) does not have the effect of requiring a local zoning application to precede a state application. Moreover, there has been no violation of Gilpin County Zoning Regulations. The permitting representative, Banks and Gesso, LLC, and the Project Attorney, Chris Hayes, Esq., of Bjork Lindley Little P.C., provided a lengthy discussion of Rule 1.4.1(5)(d) in the August 19, 2005 Applicant submittal. The August 19 Applicant responses are incorporated into this letter by reference. To summarize the resolution of this issue, Rule 1.4.1(5)(d) is concerned with the content of permit application forms produced by the Division and is not intended to conflict with the Construction Materials Act, C.R.S. § 34-32.5-101, et seq. The Construction Materials Act was drafted to specifically exclude language in the original Mined Land Reclamation Act that had been held to require a prescribed permitting sequence. Furthermore, state statute regarding the review of permit applications clarifies that permits may not be denied on the basis of other state or local law unless a violation of such other law is already manifest or is unavoidable under any circumstance. In addition to previously stated considerations, Rule 1.4.1(1) instructs that "[a]pplication forms... shall be submitted in accordance with the specific requirements for each permit type." The Applicant for M-2004-067 has completed and filed the appropriate Regular 112 application form and submits that the Division has appropriately tailored the form to reflect the statutory requirements for a Regular 112 review process.