Laserfiche WebLink
4. On November 23, 2015, the Division received a written performance <br />warranty from Operator in which Operator (referred to as "Permittee") promised <br />as follows: <br />NOW, THEREFORE, the Permittee hereby promises the Board <br />that it will comply with all applicable requirements of the Act <br />and rules and regulations of the Board with respect to the <br />Affected Lands. <br />FURTHER, the Permittee hereby promises the Board that it will <br />comply with all of the terms of the application for a permit, as <br />amended and supplemented, as well as any conditions attached <br />to the permit by the Board. <br />5. On September 27, 2016, the Division received a complaint from an <br />attorney representing Deborah Hradecky ("Ms. Hradecky"), a surface owner of a <br />portion of the affected land, alleging that Operator did not have a legal right to <br />enter the site. Mrs. Hradecky had not previously raised this objection during the <br />permit conversion process. <br />6. On October 31, 2016, the Division forwarded the complaint to Operator <br />and requested that Operator, by November 30,2016, demonstrate his legal right to <br />enter Ms. Hradecky's property. <br />7. On November 30, 2016, the Division received a written response to the <br />complaint from Christopher Hayes for Operator, dated November 29, 2016. <br />8. On January 4, 2017, the Division sent Operator a notice of inadequate <br />response, stating in part: <br />The Division has reviewed your [November 29, 2016] response <br />and has determined that it does not demonstrate the site is in <br />compliance with Rule 6.4.14. The Correction Deed, attached with <br />the response, shows that you reserved the mineral rights and the <br />access thereto. However, the sand and gravel rights are limited <br />only on the 25 yards north of the entire southern boundary line. <br />This deed demonstrates you are in compliance with Rule 6.4.14 <br />for the affected lands within the 25 yards north of the property <br />boundary, but not in compliance on the approximately 70 yards of <br />affected lands north. Additionally, the letter provided in the <br />response from Robert and Deborah Hradecky, dated September <br />14, 2012, does not comply with the requirements of Rule 6.4.14 <br />because it is not current with respect to ownership and it is not in <br />regard to Permit No. M-1986-074. <br />Kym A. Schure <br />M-1986-074 <br />MV -2017-046 <br />2 <br />