Laserfiche WebLink
rights are partially owned by Zellitti Properties. <br />Division Comment <br />The Division has determined that the Applicant has satisfied the requirement related to legal right of <br />entry to the amended acreage. <br />2. Rule 1.6.2(1)(e) - General Applicant Procedures <br />a.) The objection letter states that Zellitti Properties, as an adjacent landowner to the property <br />proposed to be added to the permit in the amendment application, was not properly noticed <br />of the amendment application; that the Applicant made a "material and intentional <br />misrepresentation and refusal to comply with the notice deficiency letter and refusal to <br />properly disclose affected landowners, specifically Zellitti Properties"; and that notice of <br />the amendment application was sent out later than the deadline specified in the Act and the <br />Rules. <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety Responses <br />The question raised by the above comment is related to Rule 1.6.2(1)(e) of the Construction <br />Materials Rules and Regulations, which states, "Except for 111 Special Operation Permit <br />applications, the applicant shall mail or personally serve a copy of the notice in Rule 1.6.2(1)(d) <br />to (ii) the Owners of Record of all land surface within 200 feet of the boundary of the affected <br />lands." <br />The Division believes notices of the amendment application to adjacent landowners were adequate <br />even though they were sent out beyond the deadline set in the Rules, the first publication having <br />been published on March 2, 2009, and the notice to Zellitti Properties having been sent on March <br />23rd after erroneously being sent to the wrong address on March 18, 2009. Notices to all other <br />adjacent landowners were also mailed out on March 18, 2009. The re-mailed notice was received by <br />Zellitti Properties on March 26, 2009. Although the notice to Zellitti Properties was sent out beyond <br />the date specified in the Rules, the Division took reasonable steps to ensure that Zellitti Properties <br />was properly notified of the application and was given ample time to comment oil the application <br />prior to the comment deadline of April 13, 2009. The Division determined that this error in notice <br />did not warrant re-publication pursuant to Rule 1.6.6. Further, Zellitti Properties did submit <br />comments within the designated deadline; therefore Zellitti Properties suffered no harm related to <br />the delayed notice. All comments received by Zellitti Properties have been considered and Zellitti <br />Properties was allowed to provide additional information to the Division to assist in the <br />determination of property ownership rights. <br />Division Comment <br />The Division has determined that, although there was error in when notices were sent, which <br />resulted in a deviation from the requirements identified in the Rules and Regulations and the Act, <br />such error did not warrant new notice and publication pursuant to Rule 1.6.6. The Division took <br />reasonable steps to ensure that the Applicant complied with the notice process so that notices were <br />5