Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br />5. In accordance with Construction Materials Rule 2.5.3(a), it is appropriate for the Board to mle on the <br />petition because it would remove uncertainties as to whether the Petitioner's objection should be <br />considered timely under § 34-32.5-114, C.R.S. <br />6. The Division was granted party status in accordance with Construction Materials Rule 2.5.5(1). <br />7. WMN was granted leave to intervene as an interested party in accordance with Construction Materials <br />Rule 2.5.5(2). <br />8. § 34-32.5-112(9), C.R.S. and Construction Materials Rule 1.6 establish the notice requirements for <br />WMN's application. <br />9. These laws place the burden of notifying interested parties on the applicant; they do not require that the <br />Division publish notice of any application on its web page. Therefore, the Petitioner should have been <br />looking for notice in the newspaper and notice at the mine site. Petitioner did not have a reasonable <br />expectation of receiving notice by means of the Division's web page because the law does not require <br />such notice. <br />10. Petitioner argues that he did look for notice at the none site, but WMN's posted notice was insufficient. <br />Petitioner argues that WMN only posted one 11x17-inch sign. He aggues that the mle requires more <br />than one sign, and that the signs should be lazge enough to clearly identify the site as the proposed <br />location of the mine. <br />11. Construction Materials Rule 1.6.2(1)(6) requires that WMN, "Prior to filing the application, post notices <br />(signs) at [he location of [he proposed mine site, as required by the Office, of sufficient size and number <br />to clearly identify the site as the location of a proposed mining operation....". <br />12. The Division testified that it approved the sign in question. The rule requires WMN to post notices "as <br />required by the office". WMN did post that notice required by the office. The notice was sufficient <br />because it was in the most obvious place to look for notice, which is the entrance to the proposed mine <br />site, beside a similar notice posted by the County. For these reasons, the Board concludes that posted <br />notice was sufficient. <br />13. Petitioner also asserts [hat he was entitled to personal notice as an owner of record who may be affected <br />by the mining operation. § 34-32.5-112(9)(c), C.R.S. requires that WMN provide personal notice to <br />