Laserfiche WebLink
10. On July 11, 2022, the Applicant filed a motion to strike certain exhibits <br /> and exclude testimony on matters that Applicant argued were irrelevant or <br /> prejudicial. At the hearing, the Board denied the motion to strike on the basis that <br /> the Board would evaluate the relevance of testimony and exhibits as they were <br /> presented during the parties'presentations. <br /> 11. At the hearing, the parties and Division presented information and <br /> testimony about the Application and the jurisdictional issues identified in the <br /> prehearing order. <br /> 12. Regarding a potential conflict between the Application and zoning, the <br /> Division stated that the Act and Rules do not predicate the issuance of a reclamation <br /> permit on an applicant having all permits or approvals prior to filing an application <br /> for a reclamation permit. Rather, it is the Applicant's obligation to ensure that all <br /> other permits and approvals, including appropriate zoning approvals, are obtained <br /> prior to engaging in any mining operations on the expanded permit area. Here, <br /> Jefferson County officials attended the Division's inspection of the site prior to the <br /> Division's recommendation to approve the Application, and Jefferson County raised <br /> no objections to the Application at any point through the process. <br /> 13. Applicant presented testimony that it was committed to working with <br /> Jefferson County to obtain all necessary approvals prior to beginning operations in <br /> the expanded permit areas. Applicant also directed the Board to legal arguments <br /> regarding the zoning issue made it its motion to strike, which addressed the <br /> language of the Act regarding compliance with land use laws and regulations, <br /> including legislative amendments that specifically removed language from the Act <br /> that made denial of an application mandatory if the permitted operation would be in <br /> conflict with local land use laws and regulations. Applicant's motion argued that the <br /> plain language of the Act and its legislative history "clearly demonstrate that the <br /> General Assembly removed any requirement for an applicant to secure zoning and <br /> land use approval prior to obtaining a reclamation permit." Based on that analysis, <br /> the Applicant reserved its right to renew objections to testimony on this subject that <br /> is irrelevant, prejudicial, or misleading. <br /> 14. Objector Kryzwicki argued that, based on his interpretation of the law, <br /> denial was mandatory because Application does not currently have zoning approvals <br /> from Jefferson County. Mr. Kryzwicki also stated that Applicant had not applied for <br /> a change to Jefferson County's zoning for the site. <br /> 15. Regarding the issue of hydrologic balance, the Division presented <br /> testimony that the Application had complied with the Act and Rules. The mining <br /> operation as proposed in the Application will not conduct dewatering operations and <br /> will not mine close to the groundwater level. The final elevation of the pit will be <br /> 6,050 feet above sea level, and nearby wells have static water elevation of 5,895 feet <br /> above sea level. In the unlikely event that ground water is disturbed during mining <br /> Denver Brick Company <br /> Golden Mine IM-1976-007UG S <br />