PERMFILE64218

• Permit No: C1982054
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 7/25/1990
• Doc Name: DRAFT MINUTES MLRB
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

t
Minutes, July 25, 1990
• DRAFT
Subject To Board Approval
PAGE 5
During a Formal Public Hearing before the MLR Board in September of
1989, the Board selected not to pursue a violation, but directed the
operator to convert to a 112 permit to include the additional area
prior to January of 1990. At that time, it was also noted that if the
operator did not comply with the Board Order, the notice of violation
would be reinstated.
In February of 1990, the Division received a letter from the operator
which initiated the conversion process. In March of 1990, the Division
received a complete, but inadequate application from the operator. At
the June 1990 Board Meeting, this matter was continued to the July
Board Meeting, in order to allow additional time to resolve adequacy
concerns. The operator committed to submitting responses to the
Division's adequacy comments by July 9, 1990. Those responses have not
yet been received by the Division.
Staff noted that, at this time, the operator wishes to request an
additional continuance of this matter to the August Board Meeting, in
order to complete negotiations with an adjacent landowner who objects
to this conversion application and to answer the adequacy concerns of
the Division.
On July 24, 1990, the Division received a letter (included in
ATTACHMENT D) from a law firm representing the adjacent landowner. The
letter stated that the operator had been pursuing a settlement
agreement with the landowner and that those concerns are expected to be
resolved prior to the August Board Meeting. The adjacent landowner
supports the operator's request fora continuance. It was noted that
the Board could pursue the notice of violation, because the operator
did not comply with the Order to complete this conversion by January of
1990.
Staff recommended that if the Board decided to grant a continuance ort
this matter, the operator be directed to respond to. all of the
Division's adequacy concerns prior to August 9, 1990. Staff also
recommended that the Board reinstate the notice of violation and
continue that matter to the August Board.
Mr. David Hammer, representing the operator, addressed the Board and
agreed with information provided by Staff. He stated that preparing
responses to many of the Division's concerns was dependent upon the
outcome of pending negotiations with the adjacent landowner regarding
an existing lake which crosses the adjacent landowner's property. Mr.
Hammer answered questions from the Board.
It was MOVED that the Board grant the operator's request for a
continuance of this matter to the August Board Meeting and direct the
applicant to address the adequacy concerns of the Division in full by
August 9, 1990, and to include the Staff's recommendation regarding
reinstatement of the notice of violation, also continued to the August
Board Meeting. SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (Kraeger-Rovey, Cooley,
O'Connor, Jouflas, Danielson and Entz).