PERMFILE64197 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BENDELOW LAW FIRM, P.c. Attorneys at Law Glenda Williams November 19, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Halsnes received a letter from More's counsel dated October 23, 2001, (Exhibit 2) to which two key documents were attached. These key documents were: (1) an Application for a Special Use Permit that had been submitted to the Routt County Commissioners by letter dated August 23, 2001 from Lafarge Corporation and (2) of even greater importance, Lafazge's Reclamation Permit Application dated August i5, 2001! The statutory rules in the underlying utigation dictate that isore has an ongoing obligation to disclose relevant documents as they arise. These key documents are of the very kind for which the Rules were written. These key documents arose, for all practical purposes, on August 15, 2001 but not disclosed to Mr. Halsnes until late October. MLRB Rules The disclosure of these documents is critical as reflecting the ongoing intentions of More to engage Lafarge to begin gravel mining operations on the More property to the detriment of the Mr. Halsnes. However, a far more critical issue has arisen as a result of the late disclosure of the Reclamation Permit Application. Because of the conveniently late disclosure, Mr. Halsnes has lost the ability to file a timely objection with the Office of Mined Land Reclamation (the "Office") within the Division of Minerals and Geology (the "Division") and receive "Party Status" in the matter of the Reclamation Permit Application. In accordance with C.R.S. §34-32.5-113, Rule 1.7.4 of the ConstructionMaterial Rules and Regulations of the MLRB (2 C.C.R. 407-4), the Office must receive an objection to an application within twenty calendar days of the last day of publication in order for an objector to receive party status, to have the application set for a hearing before the MLRB and to have an Informal Conference schedule in the matter. As a result of the very late disclosure and the time required for receipt and review by Mr. Halsnes's counsel, Mr. Halsnes was one day too late to file an objection to the Reclamation Permit Application and receive party status in the matter. The Division consequently denied Mr. Halsnes's request for party status, and Mr. Halsnes has had to file this Petition for Party Status. MLRB Rule 1.6.2(1)(6) dictates that prior to filing an application for a Reclamation Permit, the Lafarge is required to "post notices (signs) at the location of the proposed mine site, as required by the Office, of sufficient size and number to clearly identify the site as the location of a proposed mining operation giving name, address, and phone number of the Applicant, and stating that (name of Applicant) has applied for a mining permit with the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board." Mr. Halsnes has been diligently surveying the proposed site over the course of the Summer and Fall and has not detected any such signage. (Exhibit 3, Affidavit of Mr. Halsnes) After learning of the existence of the Reclamation Permit Application, Mr. Halsnes was able to locate one small sign (11" x 17") on a telephone pole at an insignificant location on State Highway 131. The speed limit is on Highway 131 is 65 mph. The information on the sign could not be read unless one were to pull off the highway at that location. Such notification clearly fails to meet the "sufficient size and number" criteria established under the Rule, and intimates that More and Lafazge did not want the existence of the Reclamation Permit Application known to Mr. Halsnes. Having received no notice, Mr. Halsnes missed the deadline in which to file his objection. All of which fits with the conveniently late appearance of the Reclamation Permit Application as an attachment to More counsel's letter of October 23, 2001.