Laserfiche WebLink
<br />February 25, 20091 Volume 31 No.4 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />pressly preempt) the legitimate exercise of counties' land use authority <br />over mining operations. <br />The court did, however, conclude that the county's Ordinance was <br />impliedly preempted by the MLRA. The court said this was because <br />the Ordinance effectively negated the role that the General Assembly <br />had assigned to the Board-to comprehensive~y regulate the use of tox- <br />ic or acidic chemicals'in mining operations. Specifically, in light of the <br />"sufficiently dominant state interest in the use of chemicals for min- <br />eral processing," the court found that the Ordinance was preempted <br />by the MLRA because it: (1) impeded the MLRA's goal of encouraging <br />mineral development while protecting public health and the environ- <br />ment; (2) was inconsistent with both the General Assembly's decision <br />to authorize mining operations that use chemicals for extraction and <br />the resulting Board-regulated permitting regime for mining operations; <br />and (3) "state statutes and canons of statutory construction" required <br />the court to resolve the conflict between the MLRA and the Ordinance <br />in favor of the MLRA. <br /> <br />See also: Voss v. Lundvall Bros., Inc., 830 P.2d 1061 (Colo. 1992). <br /> <br />See also: Banner Advertising, Inc. v. People of City of Boulder By and <br />on Behalf of People of State of Colo., 868 P.2d 1077 (Colo. 1994). <br /> <br />Case Note: In reaching its conclusion, the court emphasized that <br />the county's Ordinance was "unusual in that it ban[ned] an activ- <br />ity the state statute authorize[d]." The court noted that its deci- <br />sion did not preveht counties from "considering and implement- <br />ing regulations that [we]re valid under [Colorado law]." Counties <br />could, said the court, regulate mine siting and impacts consistent <br />with the MLRA. . <br /> <br />Standing-Neighboring property owners <br />challenge zoning board's decision to grant <br />special use permit <br /> <br />Permit holder argues neighbors do not have the legal <br />standing to bring the challenge <br /> <br />Citation: Mangum v. Raleigh Bd. of Adjustment, 362 N.G. 640, 669 <br />S.E.2d 279 (2008) <br /> <br />NORTH CAROLINA (12/12/08)-In 2005, PRS Partners, LLC and <br />RPS Holdings, LLC (collectively, the "Partners") filed with the city's <br />Board of Adjustment (the "Board") an application for a Special Use <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />100 <br />