Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />being within 200 feet of his house and that the distance <br />between his house and the gravel crusher is irrelevant; <br />that he would be making the same assertion if the crusher <br />were five miles away from the house: <br />The photographs to which plaintiffs refer on page 4 <br />of the brief were taken by them. They are not in the record. <br />There is no connection between the photographs and any perti- <br />Went data whatever On the subject of whether the permitted <br />operation would have any adverse impact upon their residence <br />which is separated from the gravel operation by a paved <br />county road. <br />The statutory provision invoked by plaintiffs regarding <br />the distance between the boundary of the mining operation <br />and plaintiffs' residence does not forbid mining operations <br />closer than 200 feet to a stucture. It merely states that <br />if a mining operation is to be conducted within 200 feet <br />of a structure. dp~_if the proposed operation would "adversely <br />affect i:he stability "of the structure• then the operation <br />will not: be granted a permit without the consent of the "per- <br />sons having an interest in the structure." C.R.S. 1973, <br />34-32-11.5(4)(d). The board found in this case no evidence <br />of any e~dverse effect upon the Sadler residence and therefore <br />-11- <br />