Laserfiche WebLink
Cfea~y, : im :,nd Ann Tatum :.cc persar.; who could oe "advcrsel;~ a$ccted" <br />~utder the Act and t:te Rules by a decision by D?v1G to ~ acate an NOV, because it is <br />their hous: that is apparently sifiering continuine s•.t~stdenc~-related damagt from <br />.Basin's underground coal mining ooen?ions. Conversely, Basin, tl;e coal operator. is <br />not s person who has bcrn "adversely affeKed" by D?~iG's dccisien to Vacate the <br />NOti' issued against $asin; whether tbat NOV is vacated with or without prejudice. <br />O.^. _.- :ontr~-; , ~;_,:_.::; orrerited front the vacation. bccaus: ac pote :tint that <br />Basin will have a evil penalty assessed against it and a record of noacornpliance with <br />its pert:tit has been removed. Basin's only potential ittjury would occur if DiriG <br />issues another subsidence-related NOV in the futttre, attd Basin's speculation about <br />:he potential issuance of another NOV by DMG to Basin simpl doss no: rise to the <br />level of art injtuy in fact to Basin. D?viG's vacation of the ;vOV with::.; r r _:.ic_ <br />does riot adversely affect Bann, and Ba_ctn therefore has : o standing to request tt,at <br />the Board 'Yeinstate" the NOV. <br />Basin's "equitable" araburnent that it needs certainty regarding the i~IOV <br />(?dlot:on at 4), when examined related to the farts of this case, is without meet. Even <br />if DMG were to have ;one forward ~ri:h *his subsidence-related VpV, and even if <br />the Board found in Basins favor, the Tattuns could bring another ci*izrn complaint at <br />an}'timc the Tatutns believe thet new subsidence-related damage is occutting. Easin, <br />thr. efore, cannot Claim ;hat going iotu•ard with this NO'S wil(bring them any more <br />cet:ainty regazdirg connnuirg subsidence-related citizen comflla:nts and consequent <br />possible ~iOV issuance b;~ DMG than D?~1G's vacation without prejudice affords <br />$asin. <br />