Laserfiche WebLink
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 APPLICATION OF MOFFAT COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT FOR A <br />SECTION 112 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PERMTf, FILE NO. M-2002-059. <br />THIS MATTER came before the Mined Lands Reclamation Boazd on September 18, 2002, in Denver, <br />Colorado for a hearing on the application of Moffat County Road Department for a Section 112 pernut, in <br />accordance with § 34-32.5-114 and 115, C.R.S; The Applicant did not appeaz. No Objector appeared. Gregg <br />Squire appeared on behalf of [he Division. The Board, having considered the testimony and exhibits of [he <br />Division, and having been otherwise fully informed in the premises, hereby finds and concludes as follows: <br />FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />1. The Board has jurisdiction over this matter and the parties hereto pursuant to C.R.S. § 34-32.5-114 and I15. <br />2. The Applicant seeks a permit to mine sand and gravel at a site known as the Sunbeam Pit #1. This site is <br />located in Section 16, T7N, R96W, 6's P.M., Moffat County, Colorado, approximately five mites west of <br />Maybell. The proposed permit area is 68.15 acres. The State of Colorado owns the surface and mineral. <br />The Applicant estimates that it would actually disturb approximately 45 acres. The Applicant proposes to <br />grade slopes to no steeper than 4:1, to topsoil the area with six to twelve inches of topsoil and seed the azea <br />for a vaziety of vegetation capable of supporting rangeland as the proposed final land use. <br />3. The Applicant filed its application on May 31, 2002. Neither the applicant nor the Petitioner appeared, <br />despite having received due notice of this proceeding. <br />4. The Division received one objection letter from Todd and Carol Weber on July 2, 2002. The Objectors <br />complained that the Applicant did not contact them at the time they commenced this project. They also <br />raised concems regarding wildlife, revegetation, sediment control, noise, dust ,truck traffic, and visual <br />impacts. They also questioned whether the Applicant has established access to the site. <br />5. On August 14, 2002, the Division recommended approval of this application over the Weber's objections, <br />with one condition. That recommendation reflects that, in the opinion of the Division, the application <br />satisfactorily addresses all concerns raised by the objectors. <br />