Wolf plans gravel pit

By Clara Aucoin
Gilpin County News Senior Writer

While Gilpin County constitutionalist Philip Wolf has been fighting the county in county and district court over building permits, he has been courting the state to secure permits that would allow a gravel pit on his property. That property consists of approximately 700-800 acres and is located on the east side of SH. 119 near mile marker two and three.

In fact, according to Gilpin County Planner Tony Petersen, Wolf actually said he would not be applying for any Gilpin County permits for his gravel business because he does not recognize the authority of Gilpin County.

However, it seems Wolf recognizes the authority of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the State of Colorado, particularly the Mine Land Reclamation Board.

In May 2003 Wolf received a permit from CDOT which allowed him to construct an egress and access lane and permission to run up to 19 round trips per hour, during peak hours, of trucks, supposedly to transport the gravel from the proposed gravel pit. CDOT approved the permit, but CDOT is also participating in a study that would designate the expansion of lower SH. 119 in the vicinity of mile marker three, as the option to improve access to the Gilpin County gaming markets. The Silver Dollar Metro District, a funding organization established by the Black Hawk Gaming Association has been working on plans to build a twin tunnel system that would connect I-70 to SH. 119 at that same general area.

On November 9, Wolf applied for a permit from the State of Colorado to build the gravel pit. As part of the permit process, the State notified Gilpin County, because normally the application process includes county and state permission. Thomas Schreiner, the Environment Specialist handling the case of the State of Colorado notified Gilpin County, advising the permit application had been made, and asked for any comments Gilpin County may have on the process. In addition, according to Schreiner, an advertisement noticing the public of the application is required to be printed in the local papers. After the end of the comment period, estimated to be approximately December 20, the State will schedule a public hearing on the subject.

In response Schreiner got a lengthy letter from Petersen explaining what is going on between Gilpin County and Wolf. The letter explained that Wolf had come into Petersen’s office before the process began and said he would not apply for a county permit because he does not recognize the authority of Gilpin County. Petersen also brought the State up to date on the court actions the county has been forced to undertake to protect and uphold its zoning and building codes. He also asked the State to not approve the permit if Wolf does not apply to the county.

Petersen says that the system in place is meant for the three entities, CDOT, State, and County to all work together. He says each of the three looks at different components and what the county evaluates is not even addressed by the State. He said, “If Wolf does circumvent the County, the comprehensive approach becomes ineffective. One third of the checks and balances are missing because each one of the authorities looks at something different.” Petersen said he asked CDOT for the same consideration before it approved the permit in May 2003, but CDOT went ahead with the approval.

For example, the county will look at the noise, dust, traffic on county roads, and most importantly, according to Petersen, the end use of the land after the end of gravel mining. The gravel mine is expected to be in existence for 15 years. Petersen said the county is very interested in seeing what the property owner plans to do with the property after the end of the 15 years. He said the county is assuming the end use would be to reseed the area and use it as a wildlife habitat (aka reservoir), but there is nothing to support that assumption. The county wants that nailed down, as well as the other issues. Petersen says, “The County does not control the mining, it controls the offsite impacts of the mining.” He said the county would have to review the project and determine what the potential impacts would be.  

At this point the state seems somewhat sympathetic to the county’s wishes. According to Schreiner, “It is our understanding the applicant will have to get approval from both entities to be legal. But the two entities are completely separate and look at different issue.” He said a public hearing would be set. But Gilpin County is not the only opponent to the gravel pit idea.

Medill Barnes, a consultant to the Black Hawk Gaming Association, has been contacted by one of the casinos. Barnes says he will be soliciting comments from the other members of the Association, but he anticipates the Association will oppose the plan for a gravel pit on lower SH. 119.  Barnes says he has been approached by the Douglas Mountain Homeowners Association who has asked for his participation in its fight against the gravel pit. Another Gilpin County entity not in favor of the plan is the Black Hawk/Central City Sanitation District, which is building a new sanitation site and headquarters near the place the gravel pit would intersect with SH. 119. In addition, contiguous county owners will be notified of the application and opposition is expected to be generated in that camp as well.

Petersen wrapped it up and said, “The County is on top of this and we will make sure, to the best of our ability, that this project will not proceed without county involvement.”