My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV96687
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV96687
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:21:17 AM
Creation date
11/22/2007 12:02:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977251
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
10/16/2000
Doc Name
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSTIONS OF LAW AND BOARD ORDER APPEAL TO DIV DECISION TR-001 LARIAT MINE PN M-
From
DMG
To
ROBINSON BRICK CO
Type & Sequence
TR1
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.
/
7
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
<br />Page ~ <br /> <br />located. The mineral rights are owned by the Colorado State Land Board, and leased to <br />Robinson Brick. The technical revision approval authorized the company to concurrently <br />mine stages 1 and 2, meaning the company would be authorized to mine in stage 2 now, <br />instead of several years from now afrer stage 1 is finished. <br />4. The Division accepted Robinson Brick's application for a technical revision, and approved <br />the same on June 23, 2000, thereby authorizing the company to concurrently mine stages 1 <br />and 2. <br />5. Robinson Brick wants to mine in the Stage 2 area now because the Colorado State Land <br />Board recently informed the company that it risks losing its mineral lease in the Stage 2 <br />area if it does not mine that area sooner than planned. <br />6. Mr. Stockwell challenged the Division's decision that this change constituted a technical <br />revision on the grounds that it should have been considered a significant change to the <br />permit, thereby requiring a permit amendment, and because the 3efferson County <br />Commissioners have disapproved Robinson Brick's plan as an extension of a <br />non-conforming use. <br />7. Mr. Stockwell asked the Board to consider two issues. First, does Robinson Brick's <br />proposal qualify as an amendment under Construction Materials Rule 1.1(6)? Second, is <br />Robinson Brick's proposal contrary to the laws or regulations of this State, and therefore <br />subject to denial pursuant to § 34-32.5-I l5(4)(d), in light of Jefferson County's decision <br />that its proposal is not a legal non-conforming use? <br />8. The Board has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to <br />§ 34-32.5-107(2), C.R.S. <br />9. The first issue is diapositive to this appeal. If the subject change should be processed as an <br />amendment, Robinson Brick would need to comply with the public notice and hearing <br />requirements applicable to a new permit. Construction Materials Rule 1.10(3). In that <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.