ENFORCE31353 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

why, ~ ~1 DATE: April 21, 2007 V T~O: Tony Waldron ; pmt S 1/"~~, V FROM: Wally Erickson ~ ~ ~1~ RE: Request for AGO Representation," Petition for Reconsideration of a Board Decision, Hindmarsh Sandstone; Permit No. M-2006-009.' REGEIUEp NOV 0 5 2007 Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety Zo~7 ~ ~oY ~v- On April 13, 2007, the Division received a petition for reconsideration of a Board decision from Douglas Conger, submitted on behalf of Mesa Sandstone. Mesa Sandstone is the Operator for the Hindmarsh Sandstone permit. Through the petition, the Operator requests that the Board reconsider its decision from the March 14, 2007 hearing, during which the Board denied an appeal of the Division's determination that a permit amendment is required for alterations to the permit boundary where acreage not previously included within the permit area is added. The appeal of the Division's determination was submitted by Mr. Conger, on behalf of the Operator. The Board's order for the hearing is available for review in the imaged file. The matter is related to violation MV-2007-002, which was also issued during the March 14, 2007 hearing. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 2.9.3, the Division staff appears to have party status in these proceedings and will not act as staff to the Board. Accordingly, Division staff may benefit from AGO representation. Summary of Issues for the Petition The Board's order for this issue was signed April 11, 2007. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 2.9.2, the petition is timely. However, the petition does not appear to identify new and relevant facts that were not known at the time of the March 14 hearing. Pursuant to Rule 2.9.1(2), a petition must set forth a clear and thorough explanation of the grounds justifying reconsideration, including but not limited to new and relevant facts that were not known at the time of the hearing and the explanation why such facts were not known at the time of the hearing. Rather than providing new and relevant facts, Mr. Conger alleges that an oversight exists in the Act and Rules and through his petition Mr. Conger attempts to negotiate a deal which circumvents the requirements of the Act and Rules. Mr. Conger proposes that the incomplete application for TR- 01,originally received November 6, 2006 and reviewed by the Board during the hearing, should be automatically approved upon submittal of proof of notice to the landowners of the affected land; landowners within 200 feet of the new affected land boundary; Montezuma County; Soil Conservation District; applicable electric, gas, and telephone utilities; and appropriate adjustment in the amount of financial warranty for the new acreage. Rather than providing new and relevant facts, Mr. Conger's proposal appears to be a request for exemption from the.. requirements of the Act and Rules for the benefit of his client.