ENFORCE22832 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

R 3. The Operator appealed the Division's determination through the appeals process set forth in Construction Materials Rule 1.4.11. That rule authorizes anyone who can demonstrate that he/she has been adversely affected or aggrieved by an action of the Division, and whose interests are legally protected, to petition the Board for a hearing. 4. On Mazch 14, 2007, the Boazd heazd the Operator's appeal. After considering the evidence presented, the Boazd denied the appeal and issued a cease and desist order requiring the Operator to amend the permit to incorporate all lands affected by the mining operation. The Boazd also found the Operator in violation of Section 34-32.5-116(4)(1) of the Act by failing to protect areas outside of the affected land from slides or damage during mining operations. The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Sections 34-32.5-104 and 34-32.5- 107 of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials, Section 34-32.5-101 et seq. C.R.S. (2006) ("Act"). 6. Pursuant to Construction Materials Rule 2.9, any party to a hearing may petition the Board to reconsider its decision. Such petitions must set forth a clear and thorough explanation of the grounds justifying reconsideration, including but not limited to new and relevant facts not known at the time of the original hearing. On April 13, 2007, after receiving the Board's written order, the Operator filed a timely petition asking the Boazd to reconsider its prior decision. The Operator azgues that the proposed subtraction of 5.60 acres and the proposed addition of 5.60 acres constitute a "minor effect" upon the approved reclamation plan and that it therefore meets the definition of a technical revision. The Operator supplied acknowledged and/or notarized letters from adjacent landowners showing they had received notice of the proposed permit Mesa Sandstone Petition for Reconsideration M-2006-009