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 will be submitted to the Board for approval and any necessary <br /> 2 permits will be obtained. I assume you have to go to the <br /> 3 County to get approval on that too. <br /> 4BN: We already have approval from the county. <br /> 5MH: You do. <br /> 6G: I understand that there is some machinery, is this there some <br /> 7 cement plant or some structures on location at this point in <br /> 8 time? Are they currently being used? <br /> 9MH: No. <br /> 1OG: But they exist there so we' re not talking about some idle <br /> 11 possibilities. <br /> 12RW: Well, except that we don' t have the ability to deal with the <br /> 13 things in the future. <br /> 14G: I don' t think that we ought to get into a lengthy argument on <br /> 15 the merits here because I 'm not prepared to and I don' t want <br /> 16 to say that there is definitely a problem there. I just want <br /> 17 to give you some pause here. That there may be some substan- <br /> 18 tive problems. We haven' t had the time to review it, and the <br /> 19 property interests which are substantial in this area could <br /> 20 be directly affected. We request that time from the Board if <br /> 21 possible. We feel that the notice problem was not a techni- <br /> 22 cal problem, that Eagle River Trust and its beneficiaries are <br /> 23 concerned in this situation with the recreational use and <br /> 24 value of it could be significantly diminished. So we would <br /> 25 like to have the time to review this application and present <br /> 26 our objections. We feel that the notice problem is signifi- <br /> 27 cant there is a statutory requirement not just a regulatory <br /> 28 requirement and formal notice in this situation, which was <br /> 29 never received. <br /> -25- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.