Laserfiche WebLink
x4/10,2001 •00:?B 7:39957191 ~l~d Tra~i'Jid g550r: pgOF L0 <br />l 1. Also on March 8, 2001, the TATClMS rcqucstcd that D1ViG va~atc witLout prejudice <br />Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009 and allow Anrt Tatuttt to withdraw her request for <br />inspection and enforcement. <br />12. Ott March 12, 2001, DMG informed the Tatums that the agency had in Fact (a) vacated <br />Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-Oi09, (b) allowed Ann Tatum to .vithdra~• her rcqucst <br />for inspection and enforcement, and (c) cancelled the heating previously scheduled on <br />BASIN's rtxlucst fur administrative review of Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009. <br />13. On or about Mazcb 13, 2001, BASIN movcd the BOARD to adjudicate Notice of <br />Violation No. CV-2000-009 or to vacate that notice with prejttriir.e. <br />14. BASIN has ncvcr bccn, and i9 not now, a proponent of Notice of Violation No. CV-2000- <br />009. <br />15. On Mazch 19, 2001, the TATUMS moved the Board for permission to intervene iu <br />proceedings on BASIN's motion to adjudicate for the limited purpose of contesting the <br />Boazd's jurisdiction of that motion. <br />l6. Ou Man:lt 21, 2001, tltc BOARD grntttcd lltc TATUMS' mvliuu fur limited intervention <br />in proceedings on BASIN's motion to adjudicate and permitted counsel for the <br />TATUMS to participate in the hearing telephonically. <br />17. At the conclusion of the administrative hearing on BASIN's motion to adjudicate, a <br />mnjority of five members of the BOARD voted in favor of o motion tv enter an order (n) <br />holding that DMG lacked authority to vacate Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009 and <br />(b) rescheduling an administrative hearing on BASITY's challenge to Notice of Violation <br />No. CV-2000-009 for Apri125, 2001. Two members of the BOARD voted against enhy <br />of the order. <br />18. The TATUMS have filed a petition and complantt for judicial review of the BOARD's <br />March 21, 2001, order sintultancousPy with the filing of this application. <br />19. The TATUMS have arranged for concurrent service on each other party of {a) their <br />petition and complaint for judicial review, (b) this application, and (c) notit:e of the time <br />and date of the hearing scheduled on this application. Additionally, on the date on which <br />they filed this action, the TATUMS trartcmitted each of those documents by ovemigltt <br />delivery to counsel of record for each other party in the proceedings before the BOARD. <br />20. There is a substantial likelihood that the TATUMS will prevail en rite merits of the final <br />determination of this activn because: <br />A. the BOARD lacked jurisdiction to review DMG's decision to vacate Notice of <br />Violation No. CV-2000-009, in thnt, a3 nn opponent of Notice of Violaton *Io. <br />CV-2000-009, BASIN (tlte only party requesting administrative review) was not a <br />3 <br /> <br />