2003-09-12_REVISION - M2001090 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

suit was against the original property and as shown, settled in August 2002) August 13, 2003 A cover letter and packet from Mr. Schreiner was sent to all parties conceming the Pre-hearing Conference set for 10:00 A.M. on August 28, 2003 and the formal Public Hearing scheduled for September 23 - 24, 2003. August 19, 2003 Lafarge response letter concerning the O'Dell's objection letter. A copy of this was sent by facsimile to Mr. Tremaine on August 25, 2003 and is acknowledged as received in Mr. Tremaine's August 27, 2003 correspondence. August 27, 2003 Facsimile from Mr. Tremaine to the DMG concerning the Pre-hearing Conference. In this letter, Mr. Tremaine outlined his rationale for not being able to be at the hearing, conference in by phone, and not reschedule before the September 2, 2003 deadline. August 28, 2003 Pre-hearing Conference at the DMG with Mr. Schreiner, Mr. Brown, Ms. Sandy Brown, Gary Tuttle, and John Rozelle. At this conference, Lafazge agreed to try to conference with Mr. Tremaine by phone. Mr. Tremaine's paralegal, Karen Dierkes, indicated that Mr. Tremaine was not available. September 10, 2003 Two letters sent to the DMG by facsimile from Mr. Tremaine detailing why he believes that his clients should still be granted party status. As indicated above and during the entire permit amendment process, Lafarge has complied with all of the applicable Rules and Regulations and has in fact offered additional opportunities to Mr. Tremaine over-and-above those outlined in the Rules and Regulations. This coupled with the baseless claims concerning the Legal Right-to_Enter made by Mr. Tremaine are the reasons that Lafarge does not believe party status should be granted to the O'Dells. Original Permit Timeline March, 2001 Halsnes v. More lawsuit filed. Source of so-called Legal Right-to-Enter September, 2001 December, 2001 December, 2001 February, 2002 July, 2002 August, 2002 September, 2002 September, 2002 July, 2003 "cloud" noted by O'Dell. Original DMG application submitted Halsnes petitions MLRB for party status due to missed objection deadline. Denied by MLRB. Halsnes v. More trial and bench order Halsnes v. More written order by Judge Party settlement on Judge's order Judge dismisses lawsuit based on settlement Halsnes letter to DMG confirming settlement and lawsuit dismissal (enclosed) and support of application DMG staff approves original application DMG issues permit for original 105-acre property As seen above, the timing of the approval by DMG staff for the original 112 permit application correctly corresponds with the dismissal of the lawsuit. II is interesting to note that a party status issue was heard and denied by the MLRB in the original application.