My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352 (11)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1978352
>
_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352 (11)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2022 2:33:32 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:04:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1978352
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Name
AFFIDAVIT OF MARK A HEIFNER 79-CV-1633
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.
/
47
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
1 Why are you objecting to the permit? • <br /> 2G: I can respond to the several points that were raised by Mr. <br /> 3 McCarthy here and I think I ' ll be responding to you as well . <br /> 4 The principal objection we have is the failure to notice, <br /> 5 which has not given us sufficient time. I believe Mr. Stem- <br /> 6 wedel sent that letter on February 16 on behalf of Eagle <br /> 7 River Trust. He had in the past on a very limited transac- <br /> 8 tion represented the Eagle River Trust be he was not noticed. <br /> 9 Eagle River Trust was never noticed of this transaction and <br /> 10 we have not time. Our firm was never noticed. The Eagle <br /> 11 River Trust was never noticed, to analyze the application-- <br /> 12 now in a very short period of time as of February 16, when <br /> 13 Mr. Stemwedel realized that there were contiguous landowners, <br /> 14 he felt an obligation, though technically he was not under <br /> 15 any obligation, we were never noticed, to let you know that <br /> 16 we had some objection, well we did not have time to develop a <br /> 17 substantive objection here because February 16 did not give <br /> 18 us time. He realized there was a problem here. We weren' t <br /> 19 noticed and he felt there were some defects in the application <br /> 20 which he did not have time to review. The application may be <br /> 21 fine, maybe the rights of our client are not affected, but we <br /> 22 want to have that time which we are entitled to legally to go <br /> 23 into this application. The requirement for notice is right <br /> 24 after the first date of publication, which I believe in this <br /> 25 case was January 11, which is something like 7 weeks prior to <br /> 26 this date, which most individuals who are adjacent landowners <br /> 27 have to prepare their objection which we have not had. There <br /> 28 may not be defects, there are a couple of things which I am <br /> 29 concerned about, misstatements of fact in the application, <br /> -18- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.