Laserfiche WebLink
13 <br /> The operator disappeared as of October of 1992, and all of the <br /> Division' s notices have been returned unclaimed. The Division <br /> has no means of contacting the operator. <br /> Staff recommended that the Board revoke the operator's permit <br /> and forfeit the $5, 000 financial warranty covering the site. <br /> The Board revoked the operator's permit and forfeited the <br /> $5, 000 financial warranty. <br /> 10. DISCUSSION ITEM <br /> SOUTHDOWN, INCORPORATED File No. M-93-041 <br /> dba SOUTHWESTERN PORTLAND CEMENT. This matter related to a <br /> 112 permit application for a limestone and shale quarry in <br /> Boulder County. The Division received five objection letters <br /> during the public comment period. <br /> An Informal Conference was held on September 20, 1993 and the <br /> issues within the Division' s jurisdiction were clarified. <br /> Staff said that no one withdrew their objection at that time <br /> and, therefore, a Pre-hearing Conference must be held. <br /> Staff requested that the Board appoint a Pre-hearing <br /> Conference Officer to hear this matter and that the Pre- <br /> hearing Conference be held in Lyons. Staff said that November <br /> 30, 1993 is the decision date for this matter, and that the <br /> Pre-hearing Conference would be held after that time. <br /> The Board appointed Member Luke Danielson as Pre-hearing <br /> Conference Officer to preside over this matter and Member <br /> Catherine Kraeger-Rovey to serve as back up. <br /> 11. FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING <br /> WESTERN MOBILE NORTHERN, INCORPORATED File No. M-78-133 <br /> John Hickman. Staff distributed a package of information, <br /> including a presentation form and assorted maps or drawings. <br /> Staff said this matter related to a possible violation for <br /> mining outside the permit boundary. <br /> The Division' s presentation form contained a recommendation <br /> that the operator be required to submit an amendment to <br /> correct the situation. Staff said that a technical revision <br /> could resolve the problem, since the major portion of the <br /> current permitted area was never disturbed. Staff referenced <br /> the maps, showed slides and discussed the area in detail . <br /> Staff explained that the site was inspected, due to a request <br /> from the operator to be released from the permit. <br /> Staff said the operator' s disturbance was less than the 9 .9 <br /> acres covered by the permit and that it has been reclaimed. <br />