Laserfiche WebLink
. ~ • <br />, BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER <br />IN THE MATTER OF GLENN SOUTHW[CK, THE MASONVILLE STONE QUARRY SITE, FILE <br />NO. M-1986-007, APPEAL OF DIVISION'S APPROVAL OF A 110 PERMIT <br />THIS MATTER having come before the Mined Land Reclamation Board ("Board") on June 27, 2001, for a <br />hearing pursuant to Construction Material Rules and Regulations Rule 1.4.7, the Board makes the following <br />Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and enters the following Order: <br />FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />1. Glenn Southwick operates a flagstone quarry in Larimer County, Colorado, Sec. 26, T6N, R70W, 6'" <br />P.M, pursuant to Permit No. M-1986-007. <br />2. On November 1, 2000, the Board issued Notice of Violation No. MV-2000-030 ("NOV") to Glenn <br />Southwick for disturbing areas outside the permitted area. On February 21, 2001, the Board revised the <br />NOV order due to the fact that the Boazd's Cease and Desist order had been omitted from the original <br />NOV order. <br />3. In its NOV, the Board ordered Southwick to amend his permit to include the areas he had disturbed <br />outside the originally permitted area. Southwick applied fora 110 permit amendment by November 20, <br />2000, as required by the NOV. <br />4. On February 9, 2001, the Division approved Southwick's 110 permit amendment. Southwick submitted <br />the required $22,100.00 bond on March 21, 2001, and the Division issued the permit on March 21, <br />2001. <br />5. On April 10, 2001, the United Neighbors of Buckhotn Valley, Inc. ("UNBV"), filed a written appeal of <br />the Division's approval of Southwick's 110 permit amendment. UNBV raised the following issues: <br />a. Engineering stability/compliance with engineering standards. <br />b. Erosion control. <br />c. Off-site impactlpotential for off-site damage. <br />d. Expansion of affected area prior to bond approval. <br />e. Inadequate bond. <br />6. The appeal was timely filed pursuant to Rule 1.4.7, and the matter was scheduled for the May 23-24, <br />2001, Boazd hearings for consideration of the merits of [he appeals. Upon [he request of UNBV <br />submitted May 22, 2001, [he hearing was rescheduled for [he June 27-28, 2001, hearing dates. <br />7. At [he hearing, the Division indicated that it had inspected the site for possible activity in the permit <br />amendment area prior to bond approval. However, as no violation had been found based on those <br />allegations and the inspection ,the Board does not have the authority to deny the permit. <br />