GENERAL33125 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Decanter 7, 1988 Page 2 Castle, in further follow-up response to staff questions, the exact date of receipt by the Mined Land Reclamation office I do not know, but prior to the permit being issued made engineers' camnents. Question number 1, which r~uired including the access roads, was first answered. A Dopy of the engineer's camnents to question 1 and answer 1 is enclosed. At that point, it was said an additional 13 acres of land would be affected. However, after further evaluation and consultation, I believe with staff consultation with Lynn Obernyer, Esquire, the attorney general deputy assigned to the Mined Land Division at that point, and based on a showing that it is not Castle's land exclusively, accessed by this road, and based upon the fact that it is a permanent road which will be there after all mining is done, a changed response was made to the staff on the question of access road inclusion. A copy of that amended response is enclosed. Again, the exact date of its receipt in the MLR files, I do not know. Castle had then included about 2 acres of the road in that original permit. It was the second position which was accepted by the staff and approved by the board. When the development and extraction mining permit was issued on May 27, 1980, Exhibit A of the permit file was the legal description used with a limitation that the total disturbed acreaye was not to exceed 27 acres. You should be aware that the affected land was a floating concept at this quarry and at the time seemed to be a unique issue presented to the staff. Not all 27 acres were actively mined at that time so the required access road acreage I believe was included in the 27 acre figure. The bonded legal description under that permit, which bond was then at $50,000.00, a copy of which is enclosed for your ready reference, shows that the access road is within the bond. Since the initial permit was issued, the Snyder Quarry permit has been amended on several occasions. There has been no issue regarding the road raised by the staff or the board during those amendments. Castle currently has a 5148,000,00 bond, with its last amendment being in the spring of this year, and Castle is currently at 38.29 permitted acres. As you are aware, last spring we had sane opposition fnm neighbors from the adjacent Cedar Heights subdivision making claims, which they had no legal standing to make and which, even worse, had very little, if any, factual foundation. If it is to be argued that the road is not in the permit, I believe under Rule 1.1(2), as recently amended, that this is an off-site road which existed prior to the permit application to the Division and needs not to be included as "affected land". Yet, as I have argued and as the docents included in this letter support, and I am sure your file supports, Castle has always included this road in its permitted legal description and feel that, at best, only a fee adjustment would need to be made if the calculations of acreage are incrnq~lete. Castle feels very strongly that no permit application amendment need be made. 0 Nfiile I do not believe the staff can now reverse a board approval made in 1980, L'~ ~ I am sure you are aware and as the records of the Mined Land Reclamation ~t~~ti~g Division will attest, Castle Concrete Canpany has endeavored to work with the