Laserfiche WebLink
to the Division within one year of the approval date must re-notice the application and the <br />matter must be heard by the Board. The Division determined that there have been several <br />deficiencies in the re-notice procedure. In addition, the Division concluded that there was a <br />significant change between the application originally submitted and the application that was <br />re-noticed. The Division determined that a new access road to the mine site constituted <br />"affected land" and should have been described in the original application or through a <br />permit amendment to be obtained following issuance of the permit. <br />4. The Applicant challenged the Division's interpretation of the access road by submitting a <br />petition dated January 25, 2007. The Applicant argues that the mining function of the road <br />is incidental to the road's other purposes: to serve as aright-of--way fora 16-inch natural <br />gas pipeline; to serve as aright-of--way for an irrigation pipeline; and to provide vehicle <br />access to other properties owned by the Applicant in the azea. The land will be disturbed <br />for construction of the roadway regardless of the mining operation. The Applicant testified <br />that the immediate area of the road will be further disturbed by extensive natural gas <br />drilling and development. <br />5. The Division recommended that due to extensive drilling and development activity in the <br />azea and because of potential disputes caused by overlapping jurisdictions, the Boazd <br />should require that no additional excavating take place until a permit is issued by the <br />Division. <br />6. Because the evidence shows that the Applicant's access road will perform functions other <br />than serving the mining operation and because the road will be constructed regardless of the <br />mining operation, it is appropriate for the Board to grant the Applicant's appeal and to <br />Hocker Const. Appeal <br />M-2004-063 <br />