My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1999-03-10_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1999-03-10_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/16/2021 12:46:59 PM
Creation date
5/3/2012 9:34:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
3/10/1999
Doc Name
Order Granting Morion to Strike
From
US District Court
To
Mid-Continent Resources, Inc. & DMG
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Control Enabling Act, C.RS. 29-20-101, et seq., confers broad authority on counties in land use <br /> regulations. In C&M Sand & Gravel v Board of County Commissioners, 673 P.2d 1013 (Colo. App. <br /> 1983), the Court noted the broad application of this act; and observed that statutes enabling county <br /> planning powers "vest broad authority in the county to regulate 'uses of land for trade, industry [which <br /> includes mining], recreation, public activities, or other purposes,' Section 30-28-111(1) C.RS. 1973 (1977 <br /> Repl.Vol. 12),through zoning and land use controls,including special use review." <br /> The Court went on to clarify that the Areas and Activities of the State Interest Act, C.RS. 24- <br /> 65.1-101, et seq., gives local governmental authorities the power to regulate mining operations by local <br /> permit The legislature appears to have forestalled needless conflict between the Coal Act and the land <br /> use acts by C.R.S.34-33-109(4)which states: <br /> No governmental office of the state,other <br /> than the board or office,nor any political <br /> subdivision of the state shall have the <br /> authority to require reclamation of lands <br /> affected or proposed to be affected by <br /> surface coal mining operations. <br /> And, in the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act, the legislature dealt with the <br /> problem again by stating, "...where other procedural or substantive requirements for the planning for or <br /> regulation of the use of land are provided by law,such requirements shall control." <br /> The BOCC is not an independent governmental entity with its own inherent sovereign authority, <br /> but instead is a political subdivision of the state, Board of County Commissioners of Dolores County v <br /> Love,470 P.2d 861 (1970). In Board of County Commissioners of La Plata County V. Bowen/Edwards <br /> Associates, 830 P.2d 1045 (Colo. 1992), the Court stated: <br /> There are three basic ways by which a state <br /> statute can preempt a county ordinance or <br /> regulation: first,the express language of <br /> the statute may indicate state preemption <br /> of all local authority over the subject <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.