Laserfiche WebLink
was waiting for the applicant to provide the missing Exhibit R information as requested in our January <br />3, 1995 correspondence to the applicant. It was the applicant, not the Division, who took no action <br />on the application for 2 1/2 years. The Division fulfilled its responsibility by responding in seven (7) <br />calendar days lour January 3, 1995 correspondence) to the applicant's December 23, 1994 <br />correspondence (received by the Division on December 27, 1994) wherein the Division informed the <br />applicant that the Exhibit R information had not been received. The Act or Rules do not require that <br />the Division re-inform an applicant if required completeness information is not received within a certain <br />period of time after the applicant has been informed that additional information is required before the <br />application can be deemed complete. <br />The important issue regarding completeness and Exhibit R (now Exhibit O) in the current version of the <br />Construction Materials Rules is that the applicant did not meet the requirements of the Rule 1.6.2 (11 <br />lal (i) & liil or the Requirements of Rule 6.4.17 for the Orion Pit application until June 3, 1997. <br />Specifically, the applicant did not provide the Division return receipts of Certified mailings or date- <br />stamped copies of the two notices acknowledging receipt by the local Board of County Commissioners <br />or the Board of Supervisors of the soil conservation district within which the proposed operation would <br />be located, with the application at the time the application was submitted to the Office for filing. This <br />information was not provided to the Division until June 3, 1997. Additionally, the Exhibit R (now <br />Exhibit O) information required by Rule 6.4.17 to be included in the application was not provided to <br />the Division until June 3, 1997, therefore the Application was incomplete until that date. <br />You are incorrect in asserting that recipients of notices did not have objections to the Orion Pit <br />application. Attached are letters of objections from various individuals that commented on the <br />incomplete Orion Pit application. <br />Regarding your comments about the return receipt card numbers, the Division has, in correspondence <br />to you dated June 9, 1997, previously provided you with a detailed explanation of which cards <br />attached to your May 29, 1997 correspondence were in our files at what point in time and to which <br />application package the cards belonged. To reiterate, the copies of the cards having numbers Z 743 <br />379 139 and Z 743 379 137 were not received by the Division until June 3, 1997. Card numbers Z <br />743 379 153 and Z 743 379 1 52 were submitted as an attachment to the applicant's 1 /16/95 Mars <br />Pit correspondence and therefore do not fulfill the Exhibit R requirement for the Orion Pit. There is no <br />reference to the Orion Pit application in Mr. Kinney's 1 /16/95 Mars Pit correspondence. This set of <br />cards was submitted by the applicant to satisfy notice re-submittal requirements that became <br />necessary after the applicant made substantial changes to the original Mars Pit application which in <br />turn required re-issuing the notices and providing the Division with proof of receipt by the parties being <br />re-noticed. <br />Regarding your comments about the decision dates for the Orion Pit and Young Gravel Source <br />applications, the Division is unaware of any provisions in the Act or Rules that prevent submittal of <br />more than one application for the same proposed permit area or for proposed permit areas that overlap. <br />However, it is my understanding tram discussing the matter with the Minerals Program Supervisor, that <br />more than one permit can not be issued for the same permit area or for overlapping portions of permit <br />areas. The decision dates are set based on the completeness date and the requirements of Rule 1 .4.5 <br />f3). <br />Contrary to the assertions made near the end of your correspondence, the Division is not in any way <br />"pursuing a common plan or design to deny any sand and gravel applications submitted by mineral <br />owners", has not in any way "waived" any of its rights, and as has been explained to you previously <br />in this correspondence, it was the applicant, not the Division, who took no action on the application <br />00188 <br />4 <br />