Laserfiche WebLink
owners of the surface and mineral rights of the affected land, owners of record of all land surface within <br />two hundred feet of the affected lands, and any other owners of record designated by the Boazd who <br />may be affected by the proposed operation. <br />14. Petitioner argues that he is entitled to personal notice as an owner of record designated by the Board <br />who may be affected by [he proposed operation. Petitioner does no[ argue [ha[ he has been so <br />designated, but instead seems to assert that he is entitled to this status without any action by the Board. <br />15. § 34-32.5-112(9)(c) specifically requires a designation by the Board. The Boazd has not done so, nor <br />has the Board received a request for such a designation. The Board does not consider this petition for <br />party status to constitute a request for such designation. Petitioner is not requesting to be designated an <br />owner of record with a right to personal notice; he is requesting that the Board conduct a contested case <br />hearing on his untimely objection. <br />16. Even if this petition were properly considered a request for owner designation, such designation by the <br />Boazd should be made prior to the applicant's effort to comply with all notice requirements, in order to <br />afford the applicant the opportunity to satisfy a personal notice requirement pursuant to such a <br />designation. The designation should not be made after the time for notice and objections has passed. <br />17. The Petitioner failed to make a request for this designation prior to the comment period, notwithstanding <br />the opportunity to do so. According to the Petitioner, he had contacted the Division to discuss this <br />application prior to the comment period. Thus, he established that he had the opportunity to request a <br />designation by the Boazd that he was entitled to personal notice. The Board did not receive any such <br />request, nor any suggestion that a designation would be appropriate until the deadline for objections had <br />passed. <br />18. The Division testified that WMN did satisfy the notice requirements by publishing notice in the correct <br />newspaper, notifying all owners of surface and mineral rights for the affected lands, and notifying all <br />owners of surface within two hundred feet of all affected lands. <br />19. WMN also testified that i[ has satisfied these requirements. <br />20. The Petitioner did not contest [his testimony. <br />21. The Division received the Petitioner's objection on October 30, 2001, one day late for filing objections <br />under § 34-32.5-114, C.R.S. The Petitioner received [he notice he was due, in the form of a published <br />