Laserfiche WebLink
<br />boundary change. The Operator offered these letters as "new and relevant facts" not <br />known at the time of the original hearing pursuant to Construction Materials Rule 2.9.1(2). <br />8. The Division filed a written response and provided oral testimony in opposition to the <br />petition. The Division azgued that the Operator failed to provide any new and relevant <br />facts for the Board's consideration. The Division testified that even though the Operator <br />provided acknowledged notices from adjacent landowners, the Operator did not provide <br />the opportunity for adjacent landowners and others to comment on the proposed acreage <br />transfer. As described in Division testimony at the Mazch 2007 hearing, the Operator <br />needed to file a release request under Construction Materials Rule 4.17 and seek a permit <br />amendment, not a technical revision. <br />9. The weight of the evidence suggests the petition should be denied. While the Operator <br />provided proof of notice to at least some of the adjacent landowners, it was not cleaz that <br />the landowners had a chance or opportunity to comment on the proposed acreage transfer. <br />Proof of notice, without more, does not constitute "new and relevant facts" not known at <br />the time of the original hearing. If the Operator wishes to add acreage, the Operator must <br />obtain a permit amendment. <br />Mesa Sandstone Petition for Reconsideration <br />M-2006-009 <br />