Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MINE iD n CF. F2CS2ECT'NG iv ~ ~(-~(g-['2.1F <br />iaS2ECT iGN D:,TE_ f^.-+1C'f 4q <br />(?ace 2) <br />C3S=-~; ,T IONS <br /> <br /> <br />This inspecucn was corducted primarily in _esccrs >_ to a complaint by ken E=_rshey cnc~ has <br />indicated that he is the owner of the property south of and adjacent to the San Acacia ?ic. <br />Mr. Fershey stated in h'_s ecmplaint chat the Ccu;:c'~ had encroached ucon his prepertf with the <br />mining cneracion and has also mentioned that he was never notified o_ the Ccunty's permit <br />application for the pit. The aptlication was received by the Divisior. cn a~121l59 and called <br />complete on 4/30/99. Approval of the permit application by the Division was made 9/21/99. <br />The pit was inactive at the time of the inspection. The County was represented during the <br />inspection by Mathew Valdez of the Costilla County Plarzirg and Zoning Office. Ervin Jaccuez, <br />District Foreman and Clarence Pence were also present briefly during the inspection. <br />The ID sign for the site was in order and the southern boundaries of the pertnit area, where <br />the inspection was focused, were adequately marked by steel fence posts. The permit area <br />boundaries correspond to the boundaries of the County's property in this area. <br />An inspection of the site was conducted by the Division on 6/17/99 during the permit <br />application review process and prior to its approval. At that time, there was evidence of <br />mining related disturbance outside of the proposed permit boundaries. County representatives <br />at chat time indicated the County was hoc responsible for this disturbance. As a result, the <br />Division's report of that inspection included a recommendation that the County fully describe <br />and illustrate [his disturbance on the Exhibit E Mans in the permit application in order that <br />the County not be held responsible for it in the future. <br />This inspection revealed that these disturbed areas, outside of the approved <br />permit area boundaries, had now been graded to slope into the pit. In that <br />the County apparently did not secure the adjacent landowner's permission to <br />extend their reclamation efforts onto his property and outside of the permit <br />area, the County's grading and sloping activities amount to damage outside <br />the permit area. The total disturbance related to the grading outside of the <br />approved permit area boundaries is estimated at a minimum of 0.65 acres. This <br />is a possible violation and will be included on Paae 4 of this report. <br />~-- <br />In regard to Mr. Hershey's report of not being notified, as an adjacent <br />landowner, of the County's permit application in early 1999, Mr. Hershey has <br />provided evidence indicating his purchase of the property identified in the <br />permit application as belonging to Margaret Munro prior to the time of the <br />County's permit application. If Mr. Hershey did own the adjacent property at <br />that time, he should have been notified of the application. Rule 1.6.2 (1) <br />(e) o;_ the. Construction Materials Rules and Regulations requires, in part, <br />that the applicant for a perlP.it shall mail or personally serve a cony of the <br />notice (of th_ application) to all owners of record of surface lands within <br />200 feet of the boundary of the affected land. Since all landowners adjacent <br />