2016-11-30_PERMIT FILE - M1986074

Home Browse Search

The letter goes on to state that it intended as a legal declaration of the rights of the parties regarding the Dollerschell pit area. Notwithstanding Ms. Hradecky's attorney's claim that this letter applies only to a different permit than M-1986-074, in fact the letter expressly acknowledges Mr. Schure's ownership of the minerals in the Hradecky property and his rights of access thereto. A copy of the letter is attached for convenient reference. I Ms. Hradecky's attorney asserts that Mr. Schure cannot have a legal right to enter, because both Ms. Hradecky and Mr. Schure are parties to a restrictive covenant that prohibits commercial mining. Leaving aside the question of whether DRMS adjudicates private party disputes, I must point out that the covenant to which he refers expressly exempts mining on the southern property line as reserved by the Declarant, Mr. Schure. A copy of that Declaration is attached. 4. Finally, I would point out that the Division approved the conversion of the former 11 Oc permit(Number M-1986-074)to a 112c permit (Number M-1986-074) on November 19, 2015. Ms. Hradecky was given notice of the application for conversion and had the opportunity to participate in the Division's review and approval process. Indeed, Ms. Hradecky filed an objection to the application,which is part of the record of that proceeding. Ms. Hradecky's attorney's letter asserts that Mr. Schure is mining without a legal right to enter. Since Mr. Schure has a permit, that amounts to an objection that the permit was issued improperly. The Division's approval of Mr. Schure's application for conversion of the permit from 110 to 112 was final agency action, an appeal of which had to have been made within 30 days of the decision. See Construction Materials Rule 1.4.1 l(1)(b); see also C.R.S. 24-4-106(a)(4). Ms. Hradecky's objection needed to have been made during the conversion approval process. Because it was not made then, it was waived as an issue on appeal. If it had been made during the approval process it could have been made on an appeal, but such appeal must have been brought within 30 days following the Division's approval of the conversion. The 30 day time limit is an absolute jurisdictional bar on appeals of administrative agency actions. Ms. Hradecky's objection of September 27 is without legal foundation. Her objection does not allege a permit violation. If her objection is treated as an appeal of the Division's decision to approve Permit No. M-1986-074, it is time-barred. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or comments.