Well, Loaded, I hope you are right.
I took another look at the statute, and this does not seem to conform unless there is some amendment I did not see.
I expect the Clerk to be acting in good faith. If not, though, looks to me like the procedure could create a way for the Clerk to circumvent the time limit in the statute (45 days), as well as the statutory right of the applicant to use the stamped application as a de facto permit if there is too much delay in reviewing the application.
If it turned out the clerk was not acting in good faith, the application could potentially disappear for any amount of time, no limit, and with (theoretically) no recourse for the applicant. (Except maybe to start all over again from scratch ... ). The procedure definitely sets up arguments that could be used to justify that.
It's likely the applicant could ultimately win in court (since the Clerk has mandated the non-statutory procedure), but it would certainly be unfair to make the applicant go through all that.
This could just be a good-faith attempt for the Clerk to relieve time pressure created by delays at the state level, that are not the Clerk's fault. On the other hand, I can see how it could be used as a contrivance to deny the applicant the statutory procedure which protects his/her rights.
Any additional thoughts, anybody? (Thanks in advance.)