Laserfiche WebLink
Ob ector Dated Date Received <br />Sleeping Lion Ranch, d/b/a Baz-A-Ranch and ER June 12, 2006 June 12, 2006 <br />Ranch, LLC; Alfred Fisher & family, and Egeria <br />Pazk LLC and Cazl Luppens & family <br />(represented by Hogan & Hanson) <br />Sleeping Lion Ranch, d/b/a Baz-A-Ranch and ER <br />Ranch, LLC; Alfred Fisher & family, and Egeria June 7, 2006 Juno 12, 2006 <br />Pazk LLC (represented by Porzak Browning & <br />Bushong, LLP) <br />Jahn and Stephanie Bjork (represented by James June 12, 2006 June 12, 2006 <br />WM Stovall, P.C.) <br />Objections Received After the Comment Period: <br />Objector Dated Date Received <br />The Ranchers at Five Pine Mesa June 12, 2006 June 13, 2006 <br />II. ISSUES RAISED BY OBJECTORS: <br />Issues raised by objecting parties are listed below, along with the names of the objectors. Due the length of the <br />objections raised, only the key azguments aze quoted. The Division's response to the objections follows, and the issues <br />aze listed under the section of the Rules to which they pertain. Issues that the Division believes are not within the <br />jurisdiction of the Division or the Mined Land Reclamation Boazd ("Boazd" or "MLRB'~ follow. <br />A. ISSUES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION AND BOARD AND RAISED <br />DURING THE INITIAL APPLICATION PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD <br />Jurisdiction for the MLRB to Anarove CN-Ol <br />1. "C.R.S. 34-32.5-110(5)(a) (the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act (the "Act's) expressly states that <br />'[a]rty operator conducting an operation under a permit issued under this section [Section 110 permit] <br />who has held the permit for two consecutive years or more and who subsequently desires to expand it <br />to a site in excess of the limitation set forth in subsection {1) of the section may request the conversion of <br />the permit....' (emphasis added). Under that plain statutory language, King Mountain may not convert the <br />110 Permit until it has operated the gravel pit for a minimum of two years - i.e., until September 10, 2006, <br />at the eazliest." (Hogan & Hanson; June 12, 2006 & James YI'M. Stovall, P.C.; June 11, 2006) <br />Division's Response -See attached response from the Attorney General's Office dated December 6, 2006 <br />regazding the jurisdictional azguments to support the Division's decision to consider and approve CN-01. <br />Kane Mountain's Failure To Comply Wlth The Financial Warranty Requirements: <br />2. "...King Mountain did not submit that financial warranty within one calendaz yeaz of such approval under <br />C.R.S. 34-32.5-117(3)(a) and Rule 4.2, the Boazd refused to issue the permit and, in accordance with Rule <br />1.6.5(1), required King Mountain to re-notice its application. King Mountain's failure to provide a <br />financial warranty, through perhaps based on a technicality, should not be overlooked. Indeed, it is <br />grounds for revocation of a previously approved pemut or conversion thereof. Moreover, with respect to <br />its initial Permit Conversion Application, King Mountain did not post a bond with the Boazd until Mazch <br />8, 2005, just seven days before the Boazd's approval expired. Given this pattern, the Boazd should be <br />concerned about King Mountain's reliability on the issue of fundamental importance to the Boazd: King <br />