Laserfiche WebLink
Clearly, : im :,nd Ann Tatum :.re persor.> why could be "ad:~ersely affected" <br />[utdeT the ,1a and tie Ruins by a decision by D?vIG t.o vacate an NOV, because it is <br />their hous: that is apparrntly;tifferinc coatinuine s-~~s[dence-related damage from <br />Basut's undergrotmd coal mining operations. Conversely, Basin, the coal operator, is <br />not a petsort who has been "adversely affected" by D2YtG's decisien to vacate the <br />NOL' issued against Basin; whether that ~%OV is vacated with or without prejudice. <br />Or. ~:.ontr-. , E;_::.-.:::.s c~nzrited front the vscat:oa, xcause :ac potrn:lai that <br />Basin ~~ill rave a cavil penalty assessed agairss: it and a record of noncompliance ~vtth <br />its permit has been removed. Basin's only poteaaal ittjnry would occur if DbiG <br />issues another subsidence-related NOV in the fixture, and Basin's speculation about <br />'he potential issuance of another NOV by DMG to Basin simpl•> doss no: rise to the <br />level of an injury in far*. to Basin. D?~1G's vacation of the NOV .vith:•u: r c;:::::~e <br />does not adversely affect Bann, and Basin therefore has ::o standing to r:qupst ltat <br />the Board'Yeinstate" theNOV. <br />Basin's "equitable" argument that it needs :ertainty regarding the NOV <br />(lviot:on at 4), when examined related to the fa.-u of this cage, is wit:~out meet. Evrn <br />if DMG were to have gone forward K~:h this subsidence-related NOV, and even if <br />the Board found in Basin's favor, tl[e Tatums could bring another ci••izen complaint at <br />anytime the Tatw-ns believe that new subsidence-related damage [s occurring. Basin, <br />thr, afore, cannot claim tha[ going io[~•a:d with [bis `~OV will bring them any more <br />cettainry regarding continuirgsubsldence-related citizen, complaints and consequer.: <br />possible ~iOV issuance b;~ DMG than DhfG's vaca:[on without prejudice affords <br />Basin. <br />