Laserfiche WebLink
DRA <br /> FT' <br /> Subject To Board Approval <br /> Minutes, November 15, 1989 PAGE 5 <br /> Mr. Gary Wright, representing the operator, addressed the Board and <br /> requested that if a decision is made to hold a Hearing, the Hearing be <br /> held within 30 days. He stated that he had not had an opportunity to <br /> review and address the objectors ' Motion for a Stay. <br /> In response to a question from the Board, Staff related that the <br /> Division could address the concerns of the objectors and further stated <br /> that the Division's decision to approve this permit should stand. <br /> Staff said that issues regarding the hydrologic balance, water quality <br /> monitoring, etc. , had been addressed irr the permit with stipulations. <br /> Regarding the road, Staff referred to the Rules and Regulations for <br /> affected lands. The road is pre-existing; it is currently a county <br /> road and was not constructed specifically for the purpose of serving <br /> this operation. The SCS had submitted a soil survey in which they <br /> stated that the road would not be significantly upgraded for this <br /> operation. Therefore, the road would not be included in the affected <br /> lands. <br /> At the Board's request, Mr. Wright briefly responded to concerns of the <br /> objectors. He explained the process that the applicant went through to <br /> obtain Division approval of this permit. <br /> At this point, the Division discussed the request for an Appeal , the <br /> road issue and the completeness of the application. Staff said the <br /> application was complete and, in detail , further addressed this from - <br /> the initiation of the permit through its approval . <br /> Mr. John Church , representing the Wilderness Society, addressed the <br /> Board briefly and requested that a Hearing be granted. <br /> It was MOVED that the Board hold a Hearing to review the Division's <br /> approvaT-decision in regard to the issues raised in the requests for <br /> Administrative Appeal , at the December Board Meeting. SECONDED AND <br /> PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (Kraeger-Rovey, Donald, Jouflas and Cooley). <br /> On behalf of the Division, Mr. Johnson asked the Board to adopt an <br /> order limiting the scope of the Hearing to the issues that were <br /> presented in the petitions submitted by the objectors. He also asked <br /> the Board to direct the parties in this case, i.e., the two objectors, <br /> the operator and the Division to meet to consider ways to simplify the <br /> issues and to consider admissions of facts and documents and consider a <br /> limitation of witnesses; he asked that the Board order the Division to <br /> submit a proposed order to regulate the course of the Hearing. This <br /> would include deadlines for the submittal of all information to be <br /> considered so that the other parties would have adequate time for <br /> review. A date should set for the parties to submit a list of <br /> documents, exhibits and witnesses for the Hearing. <br /> It was MOVED that the Board 1 ) direct the parties to this case to <br /> submit copies of documents and a list of witnesses to all other parties <br /> by November 29, 1989; 2 ) direct the parties to meet on December 4, <br /> 1989, for a conference to consider simplification of issues; 3) direct <br /> the scope of the Hearing to be limited to the matters submitted in the <br /> petitions already submitted by the objectors and 4) delegate the <br /> Board's powers to Mr. Donald. SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY <br /> (Kraeger-Rovey, Donald, Jouflas and Cooley). <br />