Laserfiche WebLink
17 <br />i <br />~.... <br />1 <br />r <br />• • <br />1 feasible, given the different nature and purposes of <br />2 the two types of hearings, to combine them. <br />3 As to the order, Z guess my rationale <br />4 is this. T he legislature has gi ven us a message in <br />5 our statute that if an operator is in violation, they <br />6 don't want us to issue permits. I have a belief, <br />7 therefore, that we need to deter mine whether there is <br />8 a violation before we reach the other decision, <br />9 rather than the other way around . That's just simply <br />10 based on my understanding of the legislature's intent <br />11 in passing that statute. <br />12 On the motion for cor.tinu~nce <br />13 regarding the violations, I guess what I would say is <br />14 this: We're required to give people a minimum of 20 <br />15 days' notice. As we noted this morning, at past <br />16 meetings, we often have -- hearings on violations are <br />17 given exactly 2D days. or: only.~a..littl.e .over,:it., ....The . <br />18 fact is that, in this case, the operator has been <br />19 given between 40 and 45' days notice, so it's more <br />20 notice than we usually give. <br />21 Further, well, I understa:.zd the <br />22 operator is working diligently to correc~; the <br />23 conditions which were alleged to be violations, or to <br />24 get this geotechnical report done. The ::act is that <br />25 I -- we are often asked by operators in ~~ne way or <br />MIDYETT REPORTING SERVICE <br />(303) 424-2217 <br />