My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2007-01-16_REVISION - M1978314
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1978314
>
2007-01-16_REVISION - M1978314
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 6:06:00 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:34:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1978314
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
1/16/2007
Doc Name
Board Order
From
MLRB
To
King Mountain Gravel, LLC
Type & Sequence
CN1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
4. The Applicant argues that the Motion to Dismiss should be denied because it serves no <br />rational purpose for a subsequent Section 110 permittee to wait two years before applying <br />for a permit conversion when the mine is more than two years old. The Applicant <br />contends that Construction Materials Rule 1.11.2(1) clarifies that the two-year waiting <br />period applies to the original pennittee only, not to subsequent operators. The Applicant <br />argues that the Objector's interpretation of the two-yeaz waiting period would irrationally <br />act to create an incentive to create large mines in new locations, an intent that is not <br />expressed anywhere in the Act. Finally, the Applicant aggues that the two-year waiting <br />period is no longer relevant because the Applicant has now operated the existing facility <br />for longer than two yeazs. <br />5. The Division argues that the Motion to Dismiss should be denied because the two-year <br />requirement functions as a permit condition, not grounds to deny jurisdiction to the Boazd. <br />The Division and the Board are acting within the jurisdictional confines of their enabling <br />statutes in considering this permit conversion application, the Division argues. The <br />Division also contends that Construction Materials Rule 1.11.2(1) indicates that the Board <br />intended the two-yeaz requirement to apply to the permit itself, not to subsequent <br />operators. Finally, the Division argues that the matter is now moot because the Applicant <br />has held its existing Section 110 Reclamation Permit in excess of two years. <br />6. Based in part on the Division's recommendation, and on the entire record, it is appropriate <br />for the Board to deny the Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the two-year waiting <br />period operates as a permit condition, not as a jurisdictional prerequisite. The Board <br />possesses subject matter jurisdiction over this matter by virtue of the Board's enabling <br />statutes, which provide that the Board has the "full power and authority to carry out and <br />King Mountain Gravel, LLC <br />M-1978-314 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.