Laserfiche WebLink
could be handled through a policy describing a modified process that required reduced <br />application fees if certain conditions were met. <br />3. The Operator informed the Division that it wished to appeal the Division's determination <br />through the appeals process set forth in Construction Materials Rule 1.4.11. That rule <br />authorizes anyone who can demonstrate that he/she has been adversely affected or <br />aggrieved by an action of the Division, and whose interests are legally protected, to <br />petition the Boazd for a hearing. The specific question posed by the Operator's appeal is <br />whether a change to permit boundaries that neither adds nor subtracts from the total <br />permitted acreage can be accomplished through a technical revision rather than a permit <br />amendment. <br />4. The Boazd has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Sections 34-32.5-104 and 34-32.5- <br />107 of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials, <br />Section 34-32.5-101 et seq. C.R.S. (2006) ("Act"). <br />5. A technical revision is defined in Construction Materials Rule 1.1(49) as a "change in the <br />permit or an application which does not have more than a minor effect upon the approved <br />or proposed Reclamation Plan." An amendment is defined in Construction Materials Rule <br />1.1(6) as a "change in the permit or an application which increases the acreage of the <br />affected land, or which has a significant effect upon the approved or proposed Reclamation <br />Plan." <br />The Division testified that any request for additional acreage is treated as an amendment <br />request by the Division. The Division stated that the activity proposed by the Operator in <br />this instance requires two separate processes: a release request under Construction <br />Materials Rule 4.17 to reduce the permitted acreage, and a permit amendment to add <br />Mesa Sandstone Appeal <br />M-2006-009 <br />