My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE111462
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE111462
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:08:00 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 8:38:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2000047
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
3/11/2003
Doc Name
Board Order
From
MLRB
To
Diamond B Enterprises LLC
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.
/
3
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
BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER <br />IN THE MATTER OF THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE APPROVAL OF A 110c <br />PERMIT APPLICATION OF DIAMOND B ENTERPRISES, LLC, FILE NO. M-2000- <br />047. <br />THIS MATTER came before the Mined Lands Reclamation Boazd on February <br />25, 2003 in Denver, Colorado for a hearing to reconsider the 110c permit application of <br />Diamond B Enterprises, LLC (Applicant), in accordance with Construction Materials <br />Rute 4.1(2}. Anthony Blasi appeared on behalf of the Applicant. Tony Waldron <br />appeared on behalf of the Division of Minerals and Geology. <br />The Board, having considered the parties' presentations and having been <br />otherwise fully informed in the premises, hereby enters the following findings of fact, <br />conclusions of law and order: <br />FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />1. The Applicant applied for a permit to operate a 9.9 acre surface sand and gravel <br />mining operation in Section 4, T30S, R67W, 6`h P.M., Huerfano County, Colorado. <br />2. The Division approved this application on December 29, 2000. After the Applicant <br />failed to provide a financial warranty within one year of approval, the Division asked <br />the Board to reconsider the application during its Apri124, 2002 meeting. The Board <br />heard the case on that day and decided to continue the hearing until its January 2003 <br />meeting because the Applicant maintains an active interest in the operation and was <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.