Laserfiche WebLink
coal permit evidences that the industrial or commercial land use of the permit area has <br />commenced, and the entire remaining reclamation bond for the Carbon Junction Mine should <br />accordingly be released in connection with the sand and gravel operation." <br />The HRO letter explains Oakridge's opinion that the Division was not authorized to separate <br />the sand and gravel permit area from the coal permit area; therefore, the industrial land use in <br />the sand and gravel permit area can be used for demonstrating the approved industrial <br />postmining land use has substantially commenced in the coal permit area. <br />The Division has made the following observations regarding the six actions in Oakridge's <br />demonstration, following the same numbering as the actions are numbered above. <br />1) Oakridge's characterization of the 35-acre parcels as a "subdivision" should not be confused <br />with the more common use of that term when referring to a planned unit development of <br />more than one residence on a 35-acre parcel, which requires substantial county land use <br />review (unlike Oakridge's "subdivision" which requires only individual building permits, <br />well permits, and septic permits). Neither commercial or residential structures been <br />constructed on the site, nor have building permits, well permits, or septic permits been <br />obtained for such construction. <br />2) Oakridge's Letter of Intent with La Plata County regarding county roads that will cross the <br />bond release area is a non-binding agreement expressing the two parties' intent to execute a <br />future formal agreement providing easement rights-of-way for roads that La Plata County <br />desires for providing an alternate route between downtown Durango and a recently <br />constructed regional medical center. Such roads would improve access to the bond release <br />area and facilitate future development there. The Division believes the non-binding nature of <br />this letter does not provide enough assurance to the Division that these roads will be <br />constructed. Therefore, the Division believes the letter of intent does not demonstrate the <br />approved postmining land uses have substantially commenced in the bond release area. <br />3) Oakridge's dedication of an easement to the county in the late 1990s for a recreation trail in <br />the undisturbed eastern part of the permit area may make the disturbed area more attractive <br />for residential development. This trail, however, was not developed in the disturbed area <br />proposed for bond release. The trail is a recreation use that apparently would support future <br />development of the residential postmining land use, but because the trail was not developed <br />within the area requested for bond release, the Division believes that the trail does not <br />represent substantial commencement of development of a residential use in the disturbed <br />area. <br />4) Oakridge's expenditure of approximately $110,000 on engineering, surveying, and legal <br />services equates to an average of $58 per acre for the 1,898-acre "subdivision". This level of <br />expenditure on these types of services is consistent with activities that precede land <br />development. <br />5) The expired option to purchase Oakridge's property may have at one time demonstrated <br />11