Laserfiche WebLink
considered received, filed, or submittedl, the applicant needed to publish notice in a newspaper <br />of general circulation in the locality of the proposed mining operation once a week for four (4) <br />consecutive weeks. Since the submittal date was June 3, 1997, the allowable time period for <br />publishing the notice was June 3, 1997 to June 13, 1997. Any notices published outside this <br />time period do not meet the requirements of the Rules and as such are invalid. Consequently, <br />any-written statements received by the Division that were based on a prematurely published <br />newspaper notice are also invalid. As such, the requirement of Rule 1.7.1 (21 for sending <br />copies of written statements to the applicant does not apply to written statements received in <br />response to a prematurely published newspaper notice. As already explained by the Division <br />in correspondence to the applicant dated July 30, 1997, the newspaper notice will need to be <br />republished and the decision date reset accordingly in order to allow the public an opportunity <br />to participate fully in the application review process. <br />31 For the notices to surface owners, the applicant's mailing of the notices in late 1994 was <br />premature and did not meet the requirements of Rule 1.6.2 111 (e). Our June 4, 1997 <br />correspondence to the applicant indicated that immediately after the first newspaper <br />publication, the applicant needed to mail a copy of the notice to all owners of record of surface <br />rights and atI owners of record of surface lands that are within 200 feet of the boundary of the <br />affected land. Since the submittal date was June 3, 1997, the surface owner notice mailings <br />would have had to occur immediately after the first publication date of the newspaper notice, <br />which needed to occur from June 3, 1997 to June 13, 1997. Any notices that were mailed <br />outside of the allowable time period do not meet the requirements of the Rules and as such are <br />invalid. Consequently, any written statements received by the Division that were based on a <br />prematurely mailed surface owner notice are also invalid. As such, the requirement of Rule <br />1.7.1 (21 for sending copies of written statements to the applicant does not apply to written <br />statements received in response to a prematurely mailed surface owner notice. As already <br />explained by the Division in correspondence to the applicant dated July 30, 1997, the surface <br />owner notices will need to be re-mailed and the decision date reset accordingly in order to allow <br />the public an opportunity to participate fully in the application review process. <br />You are incorrect in asserting that "the Division has ignored this application by neglecting to forward <br />those objection letters" or that the Division has "had a common plan or design to ignore applications <br />by mineral owners for sand or gravel applications". It should become readily apparent to anyone <br />reviewing the 1,121 page Mars Pit application file, no. M-94-89, with over 80 documents and items <br />of correspondence generated by the Division during the review period, that the Division has not in any <br />way "ignored" applications submitted by mineral owners as asserted in your letter. Furthermore, the <br />Division has explained to you in previous correspondence for the Orion Pit application that it was the <br />applicant, not the Division, who took no action for 2 1 /2 years by not providing the Exhibit R (now O) <br />information to the Division until June 3, 1997. Rule 1 .6.2 clearly indicates that the applicant, not the <br />Division, is responsible for mailing and providing proof of mailing the Exhibit R (now O) notices to the <br />Division. The Division fulfilled it's application completeness review responsibility in a timely manner <br />by responding in seven (7) calendar days (our January 3, 1995 correspondence) to the applicant's <br />December 23, 1994 correspondence (received by the Division on December 27, 1994) wherein the <br />Division informed the applicant that the Exhibit R (now O) information had not been received and that <br />the Division did not consider the application submitted until all required exhibits were received. <br />In order for the Division to respond to your query regarding "when has the Division approved a sand <br />or gravel application by a mineral owner over the objections of a surface owner?", it would be <br />necessary for the Division staff to review over 2,000 permit files. The Division does not have the staff <br />resources to provide this type of extensive research service, and there is no legislative mandate that <br />00232 <br />2 <br />