Laserfiche WebLink
<br />And our statute, I believe to be quite <br />2 clear that we have no authority to issue a F~ermit so <br />3 long as a violation is in existence on the site. The <br />4 problem is that the law states that we can't issue a <br />5 permit so long as a violation has beer. four. c. to <br />6 exist. And we have not yet found it to exist because <br />7 we haven't held a hearing on whether there is a <br />8 violation and we can't hold that hearing today <br />9 because the operator is entitled to 20 days' notice <br />30 before we hold a hearing to determine whether there's <br />11 been a violation and we didn't get the inspection <br />12 done until there was less than 20 days before this <br />13 hearing, and the operator has decided to exercise its <br />14 legal right, which they have every right to Rio, to <br />15 insist or. the full 20 days. There's nothing at all <br />16 wrong with that. <br />17 The point is, we're not able to make <br />18 that determination. today if there is violation or not <br />19 and, therefore, we have a number -- you kncw, I will <br />20 just say, personally, I never had a case before this <br />21 Board, since I have been on it, that's generated mere <br />22 procedural issues. 5~t, at ar.y rate, I woulc. the r. <br />23 propose that we would ta ke t::ese matters is order; <br />24 that the first thing we consider would be the <br />25 operator's abjection to the second supplemental <br />to <br />MIRYETT°.E°ORTING SERVICE <br />f303) 424-221' <br />