Laserfiche WebLink
13 <br /> 1 those orders and the right to interpret MR-82 by the 1 provided -- that Snowcap Coal provided these <br /> 2 Board, there is no reason that the Board should not 2 documents to the Division in order to prove their <br /> 3 go forward with those efforts. 3 ability to enter the lands -- the surface property <br /> 4 Nothing more. 4 mined by Mr. Fontanari. <br /> 5 MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Schultz, do you 5 Snowcap Coal did provide those <br /> 6 have anything to add? 6 documents to the Division, and my motion lays out <br /> 7 MR. SCHUTLZ: Scott Schultz on behalf 7 why those documents are necessary as part of their <br /> 8 of the Division. I have nothing further to state 8 record for TR-69. It talks about the statutory <br /> 9 that's not stated in my motion. 9 provisions where we have 34-33-114(1), the -- what <br /> 10 However, I think we do need some 10 is considered a complete permit application. <br /> 11 clarification on whether this motion is being 11 We have 34-33-114(2)(b), and in that <br /> 12 withdrawn, whether it's -- what is the status? If 12 the applicant has demonstrated that reclamation is <br /> 13 it's not being withdrawn, I think the Board still 13 required by this article. It can be accomplished <br /> 14 needs to rule on it. 14 under the reclamation plan contained in the permit <br /> 15 I know there's a district court 15 application. <br /> 16 matter that was filed-- well, Mr. Beckwith stated 16 TR-69 is an application by Snowcap <br /> 17 it was filed yesterday. I have no information at 17 Coal for their permit. And, again, the reason that <br /> 18 all about this matter. But I still think we need 18 these documents must be a part of the record is that <br /> 19 some clarification as to whether it's withdrawn or 19 they are required documents from Snowcap Coal to the <br /> 20 whether the Board still needs to rule. 20 Division that shows that they have the right to <br /> 21 MR. BECMTH: No, it is not 21 enter Mr. Fontanari's surface property. <br /> 22 withdrawn. Not at all. Because we intend -- 22 And in those documents it talks about <br /> 23 because of any adverse rulings, we intend to file 23 an easement that was provided by Mr. Fontanari to <br /> 24 judicial review. We also intend to seek other 24 Snowcap in the purchase and sale agreement that <br /> 25 judicial review that will involve the Board. I25 allows Snowcap Coal to then go forward with their <br /> 13 15 <br /> 1 And the question then is whether or 1 application for TR-69. So that is the need for <br /> 2 not the Board has exceeded its statutory authority 2 those documents to remain in the record, and <br /> 3 to interpret a contract and apply the rights and 3 specifically the rule is Rule 2.03.6(2). <br /> 4 liabilities of the parties. 4 Is there any other further questions <br /> 5 So no. I appreciate the inquiry 5 on (sic) the Board or any clarification needed on <br /> 6 Mr. Schultz, but procedurally, the motion is not 6 this specific issue? <br /> 7 withdrawn. 7 MR. SINGLETARY: Any further <br /> 8 MR. ROBERTS: Does the Board have any 8 questions? Jill, are you okay with that? <br /> 9 questions? 9 MS. VAN NOORD: Yeah. Thank you. <br /> 10 MR. SINGLETARY: Any questions with 10 MR. ROBERTS: Ask for a mention. It's <br /> 11 the Board? 11 grant or deny the motion. <br /> 12 MS. VAN NOORD: Scott, can you just 12 MR. SINGLETARY: Is there a motion to <br /> 13 do us a favor and summarize your motion again? We 13 grant or deny? <br /> 14 have a lot of information before us. I want to make 14 MS. VAN NOORD: I move that we deny <br /> 15 sure we have it all clear. 15 the motion in limine to strike the contract <br /> 16 MR. BECKWITH: His motion? His j16 documents. <br /> 17 response? 17 MR. SINGLETARY: Is there a second? <br /> 18 MS. VAN NOORD: His response. I 18 MS. UTTERBACK-NOMM: I second. <br /> 19 apologize. His response to the motion. 19 MR. SINGLETARY: It's been moved and <br /> 20 MR. BECKWITH: Okay. 20 seconded. All those in favor. <br /> 21 MR. SCHMZ: In my motion I state 21 (All Board members were in favor of <br /> 22 out why the Division, as staff to the Board, 22 the motion.) <br /> 23 believes that these -- that these docurents can't be 23 MR. SINGLETARY: Those opposed. <br /> 24 stricken from the record. 24 (No response from the Board members.) <br /> 25 Again, Mr. Justus stated that they 25 MR. SINGLETARY: Hearing none, motion <br /> 14 16 <br />