Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />within that calendar year, the Board must hold a hearing to reconsider the previous <br />approval. Constniction Materials Rule 4.1(2). Despite numerous letters and telephone <br />communications between the Division and the Applicant, the Applicant failed to post a <br />bond within 365 days of the approval. The matter was set for a hearing before the Board. <br />At the hearing, the Applicant informed the Board that the delay in posting a bond was the <br />result of a misunderstanding with the Applicant's bank. The bank had informed the <br />Applicant that the financial warranty had been posted, but the Division had no record of <br />the receipt of the Applicant's financial warranty. Once the discrepmtcy was noted, the <br />Applicant went through the application procedures again, including the posting of public <br />notice of the proposed operation. No public comments were received. The Division has <br />now accepted a financial warranty from the Applicant. <br />6. Based on the Applicant's posting of the required financial warranty and based in part on the <br />Division's recommendation, it is appropriate for the Board to re-approve the Applicant's <br />Section 112 Reclamation Permit application. <br />ORDER <br />Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Board hereby <br />approves the Applicant's Section 112 Reclamation Permit. <br />G' r `'`' <br />2007. <br />TION BOARD <br />~G~ <br />DATED this ~ ~ day of <br />FOR THE <br />C/-.. <br />Land Reclamation Board <br />Nick Gray, M-2005-012 <br />