Laserfiche WebLink
4. C.R.S. & 34-32.5-112(91X) and Rule ].6.2 (1)(e)tii) -Notice Requirement <br />During the course of the Division's adequacy review process, on July 31, 2006, objector Bob <br />White informed the Division that adequate notice had not been supplied to Robert Cargill, a <br />possible half owner of mineral rights of the affected property. Upon further review, it was <br />determined by the Office, in accordance with Rule 1.6.2(1)(f), that Robert Cargill, as well as <br />the Cargill Family Trust, are potential owners of one-half of the mineral rights of the affected <br />property and should have received notice of the permit application. <br />DRMS Response <br />The question raised by the above comment is related to C.R.S. 34-32.5-112 (9)(c) and Rule <br />1.6.2(1)(e)(ii) of the Construction Materials Rules and Regulations. C.R.S. § 34-32.5-112(9)(c) <br />states: <br />The applicant shall mail a copy of such notice immediately after first <br />publication to all owners of record of the surface and mineral rights of the <br />affected land, the owners of record of all land surface within two hundred feet <br />of the affected lands, and any other owners of record designated by the board <br />who maybe affected by the proposed mining operation. Proof of such notice <br />and mailing, such as certified mail with return receipt requested, where <br />possible, shall be provided to the board or the office and shall become part of <br />the application. <br />Rule 1.6.2(1)(e)(i) of the Construction Materials Rules and Regulations mirrors the statute and <br />requires the Applicant to mail or personally serve a copy of the notice required by Rule <br />1.6.2(1)(d) immediately after the first publication to all Owners of Record of the surface and <br />mineral rights of the affected land. Rule 1.6.2(1)(f) states that a copy of the notice required by <br />Rule 1.6.2(1)(d) be mailed to any other Owners of Record who might be affected by the <br />proposed mining operation. It further states that the Division office shall designate such owners, <br />if any, during its adequacy review process. <br />Therefore, according to Rule 1.6.2(1}(f), Robert Cargill, as well as the Cargill Family Trust, as <br />potential owners of one-half of the mineral rights of the affected property, should be given the <br />notice required by Rule 1.6.2(1)(e)(i). <br />The Division reached this conclusion based on the fact that the 1963 Warranty Deed, which was <br />filed and of record in the Park County Clerk and Recorder's office, listed Lora E. and N. C. <br />Cargill as record owners of one-half of the mineral rights of the affected land. On May 25, <br />2006, the Objectors attached two exhibits to a Motion they filed in this case which indicated that <br />Robert Cargill and the Cargill Family Trust may have succeeded to all interests held by Lora and <br />N.C. Cargill, including the rights to one-half of the minerals on the site. Thus, the Division <br />believes that the Applicant had both record notice-the 1963 Warranty Deed -and actual notice <br />-the May 25, 2006 Motion exhibits, that mineral rights holders may exist who need to be <br />notified of the proposed mining operation. Moreover, because mineral rights are property <br />interests, the Division believes that in order to satisfy constitutional due process requirements, <br />and to ensure that the Mined Land Reclamation Act is applied constitutionally; the Applicant <br />10 <br />