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

Home Browse Search

Those statements are not disputed and I don' t think that should be a problem for the Board. I think the bigger problem is the notice and you've had dis- cussions in the past , as you well recall and that notice lies with the noted requirements of our law , our jurisdiction and that you must look for complete compliance with the jobi and at the same time I 'm aware that there is that the Board has taken a position in the past as expressed as recently as yesterday by John Ward, actual notice was sufficing in this case?? I think what you' re going to have to do is make it binding if you decide to, that actual notice was in fact given based upon the evidence that you have ?? and then proceed on that basis. I think that places the operator in a vulnerable position but uh, you know I think they' re willing to proceed then that ' s their business. I think your business and your problem is to satisfy yourselves and then to make a finding that actual notice was in fact given. When you fail to find that written notice as proscribed by the statutes is not given. RW: Sherman SB: Mark, then at the time of the application, was filed submitted or for the records here, was notice given to the then current adjacent landowners? In your opinion, to the proper owners. MH: Well , I don ' t know really as far as the map concerned if that is correct , yes SB: That 's what you had to go by. MH: The evidence that he presented was that it was transferred back prior to when this map was made, you know I suppose this could be in error, I don' t know, though I don ' t have any evidence to show that it is. ?: Can I just interject this, for your benefit , that I have here a certified copy now, I 'm not much up on the legal descriptions in the area but I think it will suffice as of October 2 , that the owners of interest of Eagle Trust were established in the land which is contiguous, would you like me to make a copy. . . RW: Well , that ' s the kind of thing, that you have to evluate for us to see if that is indeed the correspondence and that WJ: Well , I think that in the absence of any dispute to that to the fact that I think that the Board can proceed under the assumption that the owner at the time this application was submitted was the Trust. Do you have any problems with that? Mr. McCarthy, on the behal fof nOttingham? MC: I don ' t have any basis to controvert his assertion. That the trust was in fact the owner at the time the permit application . . Can I insert just one more port. Mr. Goldstein mentioned that his firm had notice as of Feb. 16 G: No, I didn' t say that . . . MC: Now, that was my understanding anyway, but that notice was not provided to the Eagle River Trust, well I guess another fact that troubles me is that there was no formal writing submitted to the _aord or to Mr. Nottingham or to the Division regarding this effective notice until this appearnance today and as I under- stand the rules and regulations of the Board require that if someone' s going to object to the permit that that objection must be timely made and it must be made with some specificity. The Eagle River Trust submitted some objections as reflected in the Feb. 16 letter and Mr. Stimwiddel was representing the Eagle River Trust at that time according to his letter and that' s the letter that I think the Nottinghams have to be able to rely upon. There was no mention whatever in that letter of any defect in the notice. Yet, now we've come all this distance and we' re here now before the Board, and we now have an objection made to the notice.