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 based upon the staff' s recommendation, urge the Board to <br /> 2 approve the application. <br /> 3RW: Let' s spend a little time with our own lawyer, here, and it <br /> 4 appears the question of possibility of a change of land owner- <br /> s ship that may have occurred, we don' t have the full evidence <br /> 6 of that, presented to did occurred, somebody who may not have <br /> 7 been an affected landowner or adjacent to the affected land, <br /> 8 has become so in the last few months. <br /> 9RW: I think there' s no question in my mind about the good faith <br /> 10 effort on the part of Nottingham, they tried to inform the <br /> 11 one that they knew about. <br /> 12WJ: I think that you need not get bogged down in worrying about <br /> 13 whether this change of ownership is a problem. I think it is <br /> 14 basically undisputed, that at the time the application was <br /> 15 being processed, that the Trust was the proper owner. Those <br /> 16 statements are not disputed and I don' t think that should be <br /> 17 a problem for the Board. I think the bigger problem is the <br /> 18 notice and you've had discussions in the past, as you well <br /> 19 recall and that notice lies with the noted requirements of <br /> 20 our law, our jurisdiction and that you must look for complete <br /> 21 compliance with the law and at the same time I 'm aware that <br /> 22 there is that the Board has taken. a position in the past as <br /> 23 expressed as recently as yesterday by John Ward, actual notice <br /> 24 was sufficing. I think what you' re going to have to do is <br /> 25 make it binding if you decide to, that actual notice was in <br /> 26 fact given based upon the evidence that you have, the testi- <br /> 27 mony you heard, and then proceed on that basis. I think that <br /> 28 places the operator in a vulnerable position, but I think <br /> 29 they 're willing to proceed then that' s their business. I <br /> -27- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.