Laserfiche WebLink
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES <br />Was the prehearing order prepared in substantial compliance with Board rules? <br />2. Were Plaintiffs prejudiced by the absence of Water Quality Control Division witnesses? <br />Did the Board deny any Plaintiffs a full and fair opportunity to present evidence? <br />4. Does the record demonstrate that the Board is biased? <br />5. Did Four States' application comply with § 34-32.5-115 and 116, C.R.S.? <br />6. Is the Board authorized to adjudicate plaintiffs' county zoning issues? <br />STATEMENT OF THE CASE <br />I. Nature of the Case, Course of Proceedings, and Disposition Below. <br />This case is an original action in which the Plaintiffs petition for judicial review under the <br />Administrative Procedures Act, § 24-4-106(7), C.R.S. ("APA"). The Plaintiffs challenge the <br />Mined Land Reclamation Board's decision to approve the permit application of Defendant Four <br />States Aggregates, LLC (hereinafter Four States). <br />On May 23, 2001, the Boazd conducted an adjudicatory hearing on the reclamation <br />permit application of Four States, pursuant to § 34-32.5-114 and § 24-4-105, C.R.S. i~ol. 3, p. <br />1018. The Board issued its decision approving Four States' permit application and established <br />the company's financial warranty for the mining operation at $91,917.00 on June 22, 2001. Pol. <br />3, PP~ 1227-1228. <br />STATEMENT OF FACTS <br />On January 8, 2001, Four States applied to the Division of Minerals and Geology, Office <br />of Mined Land Reclamation (hereinafter Division) for a reclamation permit. Four States sought <br />to mine sand and gravel at a location known as the Line Camp Pit. This site is located <br />