Laserfiche WebLink
c. Allen has complied with Rule 1.4.1(5)(c). <br />Objectors also claim that Allen's application is incomplete because it did not name "Mr. <br />Cargill" as owner of the subsurface rights of the affected lands pursuant to Rule 1.4.1(5)(c). For <br />the reasons discussed above, that claim has no basis. N.C. Cargill is deceased and holds no <br />interest in any property. Additionally, as set forth above in pazagraph b, there are no records in <br />either the County Assessor's office or the Park County Cletk and Recorder's office indicating <br />that Robert Cargill owns any interest in the subject property. Assuming for the sake of azgument <br />that Robert Cargill actually has an interest in Allen's property, Allen could not have discovered <br />that fact by examining the records of the County Assessor or the Clerk and Recorder. Allen <br />complied with the requirements of Rule 1.4.1(5)(c), and his application should no[ be denied on <br />that basis. <br />Additionally, the owners of any mineral interests in the property were previously given <br />the opportunity to comment on Allen's proposed operations as a part of the re-zoning process <br />which took place in 2005. In July of 2005, Allen published notice for two consecutive weeks in <br />the Park County Republican and Fairplay Flume, of its application for re-zoning (Exhibit 63). <br />This notice specifically asked all holders of severed mineral interests to come forwazd. Neither <br />Allen nor the Park County Planning Department received any comments from any purported <br />mineral interest owners. Allen has complied with all the applicable notice requirements under <br />the Rules and has gone beyond the requirements of those rules to ensure all parties have notice of <br />his proposed operations. Objectors' assertions to the contrary are unfounded and should not <br />cause the application to be denied. <br />9 <br />