Well, the chance of "some type of notification" being sent to the website owner is pretty close to nil, so there's no point in speculating what would happen then.
What happens more often is: a site is suggested, then significant additional unique content is added. At this point the webmaster may well wonder whether the original site was too void to be listed, and whether a new review would prove different.
In such a case, then it is (in my opinion) not unreasonable to suggest again, ONCE, at least six months after the last suggestion, at least three months after the addition of content -- and with a bracketed note in the suggested description: something like [added the following content since last suggestion: bla bla bla...]
This is also a pretty rare occurrence, by the way, so far as I can tell.
Caveat: this is ESPECIALLY not the official ODP line. I'm just speaking as one editor, saying what I as one editor wouldn't consider a peremptory or importunate imposition.
The approach I describe would make sure that EITHER you didn't submit again right after the new content was reviewed, OR the new content wouldn't have made any difference anyway.
This approach would keep people from doing the incessant resubmittals that class them with the spamming jerks.
This approach would make sure that an editor had the information up front, to decide whether there's a possibility of the new unique content making a difference.
And then after that it's in the editor's hands. Nothing keeps us from re-reviewing a site even if nobody re-suggests us. So even if by some mischance or malignance both suggestions get deleted (a VERY unlikely case), we might well still find the site by some other means (remember that outside suggestions are a very small adjunct to editors' real core of activity.)
And, just one more time -- this is a personal, maybe even an idiosyncratic opinion. Some other editor may look at it a different way...feel free to disagree, guys!
