My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2017-12-21_PERMIT FILE - M2017049 (105)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2017049
>
2017-12-21_PERMIT FILE - M2017049 (105)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2021 2:02:30 AM
Creation date
12/21/2017 1:00:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2017049
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/21/2017
Doc Name
Objection
From
Steven Mulliken
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
Objection Received
Email Name
AME
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
TABLE OF CONTENTS <br /> I. ISSUE FOR REVIEW.....................................................................................4 <br /> II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................................................................4 <br /> III. STATEMENT OF FACTS..............................................................................5 <br /> IV. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.......................................................................8 <br /> V. ARGUMENT...................................................................................................9 <br /> A. Standard of Review ...............................................................................9 <br /> B. Transit Mix's Application was incomplete because it failed to <br /> demonstrate that it received the legal right to enter and initiate a <br /> mining operation on Little Turkey Creek Road. .................................I I <br /> C. The Application failed to minimize the impact of the proposed <br /> Quarry on the hydrologic balance of the proposed affected land <br /> and the surrounding area to the satisfaction of the Board...................12 <br /> D. The Application failed to satisfactorily take into account the <br /> safety and protection of wildlife at the proposed site to the <br /> satisfaction of the Board......................................................................17 <br /> VI. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................22 <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.