Laserfiche WebLink
during a June Su' inspection of the Abbott Gravel Pit. The Division inspected the <br />site after being informed of the damage by the Patzau's and Abbott Ready Mix. <br />3. On July 22"a, the Patzau's filed the request for ongoing party status. They are <br />owners of lands affected by the Abbott Gravel Pit and they were parties to the <br />Boazd's recent adjudication of Abbott Ready Mix's request for partial release of <br />its fmancial warranty. <br />4. Abbott Ready Mix opposes the Patzau's request, azguing that there is no statute or <br />rule authorizing the Patzau's to participate as parties to an enforcement action. <br />The Division filed a request for an extension on the deadline for a response to the <br />Patzau's request and opposed the Patzau's request. The Division received the <br />notice of the deadline to respond the day before the deadline. This circumstance <br />constitutes good cause for an extension. <br />6. The Division also argues that there is no express authority upon which the <br />Patzau's may rely to jusfify party status. <br />The Patzau's were unable to identify any persuasive authority to support their <br />request. They cite the defnution of "party" in Rule 1.1(34.1) of the Construction <br />Materials Rules. They azgue that they aze directly and adversely affected or <br />aggrieved by Abbott Ready Mix's mining operation and any corrective action <br />ordered by the Boazd. They also assert that their request is similaz to a motion to <br />intervene under the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. <br />8. Construction Materials Rule 1.1(34.1) defines "party" as "a person who <br />demonstrates that he/she/it is directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the <br />