PERMFILE108907

• Permit No: M1998058
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Name: FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

.. . ~~.
BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECI III IIIIIII IIIIII III
STATE OF COLORADO
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND OR
~~~
- DfLt~t2R.~C,
,~~~, ~;~
ON A PETITION FOR REHEARING IN THE MATTER OF JOHNSON EXCAVATING INC.,
NEW 112 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PERMIT APPLICATION, NO. M-98-058
THIS MATTER having come before the Mined Land Reclamation Board ("the Board") on
January 26, 1999, for a hearing pursuant to Construction Material Rule 2.9, the Boazd makes the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and enters the following Order:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board's Order in this matter, dated December 16, 1998, is incorporated by
reference herein.
2. At the final hearing on this matter on December 16, 1998, the Board received and
considered, pursuant to Construction Material Rule 2.8.1(a), a letter submitted by objectors
Diane E. and Thane R. Anderson, dated December 14, 1998. Under Rule 2.8.1(x), the Boazd
"may receive all or part of the evidence in written form." The letter from the Andersons was
considered written testimony by aparty-objector, and was treated as such in the Boazd's
deliberations.
3. The Andersons petitioned the Boazd, pursuant to Construction Material Rule 2.9,
for a reconsideration of the Johnson Excavating permit decision by a letter dated January 6,
1999. The petition was timely made within ten (10) days of the Andersons' receipt of the
Board's written decision under Construction Material Rule 2.9.2.
4. The Office presented the Anderson's petition for reconsideration as a discussion
item at the Boazd hearing on January 26, 1999. The Andersons did not appeaz at the hearing to
provide testimony in support oftheir petition, and so the Board considered the petition solely on
the Andersons' written submittal pursuant to Construction Material Rule 2.9.3.
5. The Andersons' petition for reconsideration reiterated the concerns raised in their
written testimony submitted to the Boazd at the December 16, 1998 final hearing on the permit.
6. A petition for reconsideration must show that the Boazd's decision should be
changed due to the existence of newly discovered evidence or facts which could not have been
discovered before the original decision was rendered. New Jersey Zinc Co v. Colorado Mined
Land Reclamation Board, 738 P.2d 51, 53 (Colo. App. 1987).