Laserfiche WebLink
Counsel to the Boazd. Charles G. Kinney, Esq., who is not admitted to practice in the State of <br />Colorado, appeared as the only witness on behalf of Applicant Stephen H. Kinney. Stephen <br />Kinney did not appear. <br />Having listened to the testimony of Charles G. Kinney, Esq. on behalf of Applicant <br />Stephen H. Kinney; of witnesses called by the Division and of Blake Ivfitchell, having further <br />considered cross-examination and rebuttal closing statements; having reviewed documents <br />submitted in evidence; and having conducted public deliberation, the Board rules as follows: <br />1. Two of the issues set forth under Part III of the Pre-Hearing Conference Order, take <br />precedence, because their resolution determines whether or not [he Boazd reaches the remaining <br />issues. These issues are: (1) whether Kinney's Orion Pit Application was automatically <br />approved pursuant to § 34-32.5-115(3), C.RS. (1997)? and (2) whether Kinney's Orion Pit <br />Application meets the adequacy criteria sec forth is §§ 34-32.5-112, 3=1-32.6-115, and 34-32.5- <br />118, C.RS. (1997) and Rules 1.4, 1.6, 4.19, 6?, and 6.4 of the Construction Materials Rules and <br />Regulations? <br />2. The Division is charged with interpretation and implementation of the provisions of <br />the Colorado Land Reclamation Act and the Construction bfateda! Rules and Regulations. <br />3. The Division properly deemed the Orion Pit Application to be complete on June 3, <br />1447, and 12U days have not passed since that date. Therefore, the Orion Pit Application has not <br />been automatically approved p~~*~~a*+t to § 34-32.5-115(3), C.RS. (1997). <br />4. The Division has set forth seventeen specific inadequacies, supported by citations to <br />the Colorado Laad Reclamation Act and the Construction Material Rules and Regulations and <br />argues that these constitute grounds for denial of the Application. The testimony and exhibits <br />presented by the Division regarding the inadequacies of the Application are persuasive. The <br />inadequacies aze substantial and require denial of the Application <br />5. The remaining issues set forth is the Pre-Hearing Conference Order are addressed in <br />the Division's statement of inadequacies and are therefore resolved by the Boazd's denial of the <br />Application, for reason of these inadequacies. <br />C'ON .L iSiONS OF LAw <br />1. The Boazd's authority to review an application for a permit is set forth in §§ 34-33.5- <br />1 l5(4) and 34-32.5-116, C.RS. (1997). <br />2. Kinney's Orion Pit Application was not complete until June 3, 1997 and therefore has <br />not been automatically approved pursuant to § 34-32.5-1 l5(3), C.R.S. (1997). <br />2 <br /> <br />