Laserfiche WebLink
35 <br /> <br /> <br />• <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />could be ass~•;so• but 1 think the issac~ here that the <br />staff is recr;mmendinq is taus violztion• two days, Lim <br />have r•ye-witness testimony, <br /> CHAIRMAN T1~12NLR: Woll, this ignores the <br />testimony that wi have hear.l fran ad_i~''< nt landown• rs that <br />they have seen activity. <br />D1R. Lr'ciOD: Corri•-r, I starnl r..orrc•:ted. <br />MR. EARRY: It doesn't ignore .it. It dr:esn't <br />use it as a basis for the motion becac~;e I thin.':, ,ou know, <br />I go back to my t~nce, but my $2,O~O.f'~ nenal.t_y i•~ more or <br />less in line with similar -- at least my faelinq for <br />similar sorts of occurrences with othrr. counties n~•~1 ~ <br />operators. I think that is a~: appropriate penalt}• and ] <br />don't want -- just the unr.~ve111ng of the history of 197;?, <br />'79 and '80 is not worth it to me or to the IIoard t-o qo <br />through. That's all. <br />CHr~112MAN TCIRNER: Any furt?:e r: discussi~ r. oI <br />Chips' motion from the IIoard? <br />Any further dis.•ussion from the comolainants:' <br />P4I2. KURD: I am just wondering if the &~n~-d's <br />decision is going to be ba:;ed on the two c]ays the~.o p~•or~l~~ <br />were actually present and •ictually -- or. i.f it. is based i <br />i' <br />on operations prior to tha' time that caused al: _h~s <br />dama~te, sprmkinq them for '_wo days' o,~~ration. <br />r <br />CHAIRMAN TURNLR: it is based only on .`ie two <br />