1979-02-28_PERMIT FILE - M1978352 (5)

Home Browse Search

!r G: But they exist there so we' re not talking about some idle possibilities. RW: Well , except that we don ' t have the ability to deal with the things in the future. G: I don' t think that we ought to get into a lengthy argument on the merits here because I 'm not prepared to and I don' t want to say that there is definitely a prob- lem there. I just want to give you some pause here. that there may be some substantive problems . We haven ' t had the time to review it, and the property interests which are substantial in this area could be directly affected. we request that time from the Board if possible. We feel that the notice problem was not a technical problem, that Eagle River Trust and its beneficiaries are concerned in this situation with the recreational use and the value of it could be significantly diminished. So we would like to have the time to review this application and present our objections. We feel that the notice problem is significant there is a statutory requirement not just a regulatory requirement. and formal notice in this situation which was never received. RW: Ok we 've heard the arguments , is there any further response from Nottingham on this? Ok, well this gets a little bit . . . yeah. . MC: What I 'd like to point out to the Board is I guess without addressing each one of these points which Mr. Goldstein has raised, just to take for example, the NPDES permit, the Co. Dept. of Health, has been consulted and as I understand, correct me if I 'm wrong, Mark, they have in fact informed you there is no re=- quirement for an NPDES G or MC: Can we clarify that , has has the Col . State Board been consulted with in giving you direcity any MH: They haven ' t to me, but there' s no proposal for any discharge in the opration, so there is no need for it, for an NPDES permit. Many S b G operations were operating, , there is no discharge. MC: I guess what I just would like to get back to, is Mark's point that the staff has in fact , reviewed the applciation, and as I understnad it that his recommendation they feel the reclamation plan is in fact adequate in that it is strong and based upon the recommendation of the staff, who have had an adequate opportunity to review the plan that the permit can be approved. And fundamental questions on fairness here in the sense that these objections are being raised literally at the eleventh hour where there's overwhelming evidence that actual notice was in fact provided to an attorney representing the Eagle River Trust and in fact that attorney did make the objection which made it possible for Mr. Goldstein to even appear here and make any statements in this regard. At all . I think based on that actual notice and based upon the staffs recommendation I urge the Board to approve the RW: Let' s spend a little time without own lawyer, here, and it appears the question of possiblity of a change of land ownership that may have occurred, we don ' t have the full evidence of that , presented to did occurred, somebody who may not have been an affected landowner or adjacent to the affected land, has become so in the last few months. RW: I think there' s no question in my mind about the good faith effor bn the part of Nottingham, they tried to inform . . WJ : I think that you need not get bogged down in worrying in whether this change of ownership is a problem. I think it is basically undisputed, that at the time the application weas being processed, that the Trust was the proper owner.