My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-04-27_ENFORCEMENT - M2001085
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M2001085
>
2011-04-27_ENFORCEMENT - M2001085
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:32:53 PM
Creation date
4/28/2011 2:04:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2001085
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
4/27/2011
Doc Name
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
From
DRMS
To
GSL/Brush LLC
Violation No.
MV2010038
Email Name
DB2
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.
/
5
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
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />4. The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to sections 34- <br />32.5-104 through 107, and 124 of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the <br />Extraction of Construction Materials, Article 32.5 of Title 34, C.R.S. (2010) ("Act") <br />5. Rule 2.5.1 of the Mineral Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Mined <br />Land Reclamation Board for the Extraction of Construction Materials ("Rules") <br />allows any person who may be directly and adversely affected and whose interests <br />are entitled to legal protection under the Act to "petition the Board for declaratory <br />order to terminate controversies or to remove uncertainties as to the applicability to <br />the Petitioner of any statutory provision of or any rule or order of the Board" made <br />pursuant to the Act. <br />6. Operator's petition does not expressly state the controversies to be <br />terminated or uncertainties to be removed by declaratory order. In essence, <br />however, the petition asks the Board to determine that removal of material from the <br />unpermitted portions of the site would not violate the Order. <br />7. The Board considers, among other things, whether a ruling on a <br />petition will terminate a controversy or remove uncertainties as to the applicability <br />to the Petitioner of any statutory provision or rule or order of the Board. Rule <br />2.5.3(a). The Order clearly prohibits "all activities" on the unpermitted portions of <br />the site, with one exception. The Operator's proposed activity does not fall within <br />the exception. As such, there is no controversy or uncertainty as to the Order's <br />applicability of the Order. The Operator's proposed activity would be contrary to <br />the cease and desist order. It is appropriate and within the Board's discretion to <br />deny the Operator's petition for a declaratory order. <br />8. The Board also considers whether the Operator has some other <br />adequate legal remedy, other than declaratory relief. Rule 2.5.3(e). As required by <br />the Order, the Operator has submitted a 112 Construction Materials Amendment <br />Application for unpermitted portions of the site ("Application") to the Division. The <br />Division has not made a decision regarding the Application. Upon approval of the <br />Application, the area at issue will be permitted and the Operator may conduct <br />appropriate activities thereon. The Operator, therefore, has an adequate legal <br />remedy and is pursuing it. It is appropriate and within the Board's discretion to <br />deny the Operator's petition for a declaratory order. <br />GSL/Brush LLC <br />120th Estates Partners, File No. M-2001-085 2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.