IN RE: PLAIN OCCUPANCY ACT APPEAL
OF STEPHEN M. HUGHES

Cause No.: 87-9-32/87-16-c

The Natural Resources Commission, having considered the Proposal for Decision dated June 30, 1988, and the Proposal for Decision Supplement Upon Remand dated August 21, 1988, of the Administrative Law Judge, and the files, pleadings briefs, and oral argument in this matter, hereby determines and orders that:

The Proposal for Decision and Supplement Upon Remand is adopted and affirmed in its totality and is further incorporated into this final decision by reference and is adopted by the Department of Natural Resources as its findings of fact and conclusions of law. (See Proposal for decision, Cause No. 87-9-32/87-16-C, dated June 30, 1988, and Proposal for Decision Supplement Upon Remand, dated August 21, 1988, attached hereto.)

Date
David D. Olson, Chairman
Natural Resources Commission

Pursuant to the order of the Natural Resources Commission, I have reconsidered the file in the matter of Stephen M. Hughes (#87-9-32/87-16-C). I reviewed my Proposal For Decision, the transcript of the testimony taken, the relevant exhibits, notes from the Commission meeting of August 3-5, 1988, and the letter and location map prepared by Thomas E. Joiner. With one exception, I find no reason to alter my original decision.

Establishing the flood plain high water level for this property was the crux of this hearing and is the only issue upon remand.  Based upon the exhibits and testimony, I found the elevation of the property to be no greater than 585 feet and the 100-year flood level to be 592 feet.

The record contained three exhibits which were in conflict--Defendant's Exhibit 22 and Plaintiff's Exhibits K and L. The Department presented testimony from Charles Leap regarding this conflict. Mr. Hughes stipulated that Mr. Leap was an expert in hydroanalysis. Hr. Hughes presented no witnesses. Mr. Leap testified that Exhibits K and L submitted by Mr. Hughes which asserted a flood plain elevation of 587.0 feet were "inconsistent with the historical data of the lower Grand River." He testified that he developed the data in Exhibit 22 from "all the historical flood data as well as the present flood studies both upstream and downstream of Robinson Township as well as the Army Corps of Engineers report through this region" and established "a high water elevation at 12 mile point of 591.3 and a similar corresponding 1904 (level at) approximately 16 mile point of 594.6." He then stated that he would expect the elevation to be 592.0 at the site.

Except for the words "100' year flood plain 587" printed on Plaintiff's Exhibit L, there was nothing to sustain the flood level asserted by Mr. Hughes. Given the expert testimony and the comprehensive nature of the efforts used to prepare Defendant's Exhibit 22, the only reasonable conclusion was to find the 592.0 foot level. The only evidence to the contrary was a hearsay document which did not even identify the source of the asserted flood plain level it contained.

Plaintiff's Exhibits K and L did agree with Defendant's Exhibit 23, the Ottawa County Road Commission map of elevations for the property located near the Hughes lot. All these documents establish an elevation very close to 585 feet for this area. Page 6 of my opinion discusses Exhibit 23 and accepts the elevations set forth in it. They vary insignificantly with those in Exhibits K and L, a matter of a few inches at most.

Unfortunately, I introduced a typographical which I did not catch at this point. I stated that "the water level in December, 1986 at this location was 591.5 feet." The water level on that date is irrelevant to the decision in this case, since only the elevation of the property and the high water level of the 100 year flood must be established. I mentioned the December level to give some perspective of the elevation of the lot above the "normal" water level. The figure was obtained from Exhibit 23, which I was discussing in that paragraph. On both pages of Exhibit 23, the top of the water was found to be 581.5 on December 3, 1986. I was not attempting to find the water level at the property for the 1986 flood. I used the figure 591.5 instead of the correct figure 581.5 inadvertently, and apologize to the parties and the Commission for any inconvenience I may have caused.

As I understand it, the August 1, 1988 letter from Mr. Joiner to Mr. Hughes was somehow put before the Commission. It does not appear from the minutes that Mr. Joiner testified or was cross-examined. It also does not appear that the Department was given notice that additional testimony or exhibits would be entered. Obviously, I did not have the letter before me at the hearing in this matter, which was held on June 28, 1988.

This document would not have been admitted by me, if it had been offered to prove that the flood plain level for this property was 587.0 feet. It would have been excluded by me as hearsay evidence. Mr. Joiner made the statements in the letter. He was not presented as a witness, nor made available for cross-examination. The document attempts to use an out of court statement to prove the essential fact in this matter. As such, it is hearsay. Further, Mr. Joiner's statement itself also contains hearsay, since he states that he was told by yet another party that the level was 587 feet. Mr. Joiner does not say that he developed the figure himself, but instead invokes a third party.

The third party's statement is introduced through the letter of the second party. Like the writer of the letter, the third party is not present or available for cross-examination. The third party's statement is asserted as proving the ultimate issue in this case. Thus, this is double hearsay.

The letter attributes the 587.0 figure to an unidentified person, referring only to the Ottawa County Health Department as the source. No specific person is named. The next paragraph implies that the health department reasserted the 587.0 foot figure, but does not say so directly. The first conversation allegedly occurred in 1981 and the others in 1982 and 1985, dates ranging from three to seven years ago. I am not sure of the authority of a county health department to establish flood levels, but I suspect they would get the figure from someone else, such as the county road commission or a state agency. This letter may actually constitute triple hearsay.

A hearing officer can admit hearsay evidence under the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act, but only if of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs. I would not admit this letter if it were offered to prove the level of the flood plain. It is riddled with hearsay, vague as to the source of the information, and questionable in reliability.

Even if this document were admitted, I would find in favor of the Department. Its exhibits and testimony were explicit, detailed and unequivocal. The expert witness testified and was cross-examined. The ultimate sources of the figures developed were identified and discussed. The evidence presented by Mr. Hughes is indirect and there has been no opportunity to cross-examine or even discover the makers of the statement that the level should be set at 587.0. Mr. Joiner did not testify at the hearing or the meeting, nor did the unidentified health department officials, nor did the sources of the health department. The record overwhelmingly favors the 592.0 foot level.

The letter, in the next to last paragraph on page one, refers to another letter sent to Mr. Joiner. The assertion that the DNR established a level in that letter is also hearsay and violates the best evidence rule. The record should contain the letter referenced, which was not submitted at the hearing. There is no proof that the 592.0 level for this property was in error.

The last paragraph on page one of the letter again contains hearsay and violates the best evidence rule. No documents were submitted to support the assertion that the levels stated are accurate. The witnesses to the 586.5 foot level at Grand Valley Marina were not identified or presented to testify.

I have no reason to believe that the data presented at the hearing was inaccurate. Mr. Leap's expert testimony was made on the record and subjected to cross-examination. Exhibits 22 and 23 are clear and convincing. Joiner's hearsay letter contains undocumented assertions nearly all based upon further unreliable hearsay and was offered long after the hearing. Mr. Joiner was not cross-examined and the documents referred to by him were not submitted for the record. These assertions have not undergone the level of scrutiny that the Department's proofs were subjected to.

Upon review I find no reason to alter my Proposal For Decision except to correct the typographical error on page six. The Proposal For Decision contains a typographical error in the first full paragraph on page 6. The last line of that paragraph should read "The water level in December, 1986 at this location was 581.5 feet," not 591.5 feet as it appeared.

August 21, 1988
Don LeDuc
Administrative Law Judge

#87-9-32/87-16-C

This is a flood plain occupancy appeal brought by Mr. Stephen M. Hughes, 11769 Van Lopik, Apt. #7, Grand Haven, Michigan, 49417. Mr. Hughes applied for a permit to work in a riverine flood plain on January 22, 1987, seeking to "construct a 32' X 40' (approx) chalet type summer home, and a 26' X 32' garage on my lot, to replace existing 10' X 361 trailer set up on site." (Exhibit 1). The Department of Natural Resources made public notice on February 3, 1987 that Mr. Hughes had applied for a "permit under authority of Act 167, Public Act (sic) of 1968, to place approximately 170 cubic yards of material to construct a 32 by 40 summer home and raise (sic) an existing driveway in the floodplain of the Grand River, T8N, R15W, Robinson Township Ottawa County, Michigan, in accordance with plans attached to this notice." (Exhibit 2).

On February 12, 1987 DNR denied the request, setting forth several reasons for its decision. After reviewing the application and its attachments, past on-site investigations, and historic information, the DNR concluded that the site was located within the 100-year floodplain and floodway of the Grand River. The floodway included the channel on which the site is located and was associated with moving water, which in turn presented a threat to persons occupying the floodway and to possible rescuers. The elevation of the 100-year flood exceeded the level of the earlier flood at the site "this year." The proposal involved new construction under the BOCA Basic National Building Code, requiring that all currently-applicable laws and ordinances be met. Citing the Floodplain Regulatory Authority Act, which requires that those portions of floodplains that are in floodways not be inhabitated, the DNR found a conflict with current law. The conclusion stated "because your proposal would require the Department to permit an occupation of the floodway of the Grand River, and because your proposal does not appear to meet the requirements of local ordinances and regulations governing replacement structures within flood hazard areas, we must deny your application." (Exhibit 3).

On March 3, 1987 Mr. Hughes submitted a revised plan for the site, limiting his proposal to the construction of a garage. On about the same date Mr. Hughes wrote to the DNR asking that the denial be reconsidered. The revised plan was approved with conditions and a conditional permit was issued on March 10, 1987. Included among the conditions was a limitation on human habitation (Exhibits 9, 11, 12).

In a petition dated March 15, 1987 Mr. Hughes sought a contested case hearing regarding the denial, asserting that the property is on a residential street and that denial was inconsistent with the decision to grant a permit for the garage (Exhibit 13).

In December, 1987 Mr. Hughes sought permission to place a 10'X 40' mobile home on this site. The record is unclear whether this was considered a modification of the former request or a separate request, although the DNR assigned the old file number to it. This request was denied because it proposed to place a habitable structure in a floodway (Exhibits 14, 15).

Mr. Hughes again in January, 1988 sought permission to replace the former mobile home on this site with a newer unit of comparable size, and was again denied permission to do so (Exhibits 16, 17).

A hearing was held in this case on June 28, 1988 in Lansing, Michigan. The Department of Natural Resources was represented by Mr. Terry L. Norton, Assistant Attorney General. Mr. Hughes represented himself. He was advised of the nature of a contested case hearing and that he was permitted to be represented by counsel at the hearing. He stated that he understood and that he desired to proceed without counsel.

At the appointed time of hearing the parties conferred and developed a stipulated set of exhibits. The DNR submitted 27 exhibits and Mr. Hughes submitted 17, all of which were accepted in evidence. These are identified as Defendant's and Plaintiff's exhibits, respectively. By mutual agreement two witnesses were presented by the DNR and cross-examined by Mr. Hughes. Closing argument was offered by each party. Both waived the right to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

This controversy involves Act No. 167, P.A. of 1968, being M.C.L.A. 323.1 et. seq. (sections 2a-5b). Section 2a provides:

The commission shall have control over the alterations of natural or present watercourses of all rivers and streams in the state to assure that the channels and the portions of the floodplains that are the floodways are not inhabited and are kept free and clear of interference or obstruction which will cause any undue restriction of the capacity of the floodway.

Section 5b provides:

It shall be unlawful for any person to occupy or permit the occupation, for residential, commercial or industrial purposes of lands or to fill or grade or permit the filling or grading for any purpose other than agricultural of lands in the flood plains, stream bed or channel of any stream, as ascertained and determined for record by the commission, or to undertake or engage in any activity on or with respect to the lands which is determined by the commission to harmfully interfere with the discharge or stage characteristics of a stream, unless the occupation, filling, grading, or other actively shall have been permitted by an order or rule of the commission, or by a valid permit issued therefor by the department of natural resources under the provisions of law.

Rules effective August 17, 1984 were filed with the Secretary of State to regulate floodplains and floodways.

R. 323.1311 Definitions includes as Rule 311(a) ""a 100-year flood" means a flood with a magnitude which has a 1% chance of occurring or being exceeded in any given year." In 311(e) flood is defined as "a temporary increase in the stage of a river or stream resulting in the inundation of lands not normally covered by water." Rule 311(f) defines floodplain as "that area of land adjoining a river or stream which will be inundated by a 100-year flood," while floodway is defined in 311(g) as "the channel of a river or stream and those portions of the floodplain adjoining the channel which are reasonably required to carry and discharge a 100-year flood."

Rule 311(h) defines harmful interference:

"harmful interference" means causing an increased stage or change in direction of flow of a river or stream which causes, or is likely to cause, any of the following:

(i) Damage to property

(ii) A threat to life

(iii) A threat of personal injury

(iv) Pollution, impairment, or destruction of water or other natural resources.

Although Mr. Hughes argued that he had been treated unequally or differently from others similarly situated, he cited no particular laws, rules or ordinances. I shall address those arguments later.

Most of the facts in this case are uncontested. Mr. and Mrs. Hughes are the owners of a lot in the Spoonville Ferry Resort Subdivision, Robinson Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, commonly known as 11459 Van Lopik, Grand Haven. The property is bordered on the north by the Grand River and on the east by a channel to the Grand (Exhibit 22). A mobile home was formerly located on this site (Exhibit D), but was removed in February, 1987 (Exhibit 11). There are no restrictions in the deed prohibiting construction of a residence on the property (Exhibit A).

In 1986 Mr. Hughes was granted a permit by the DNR to replace a seawall and add up to 100 cubic yards of backfill on the site (Exhibit E), but this was prior to his request to replace the mobile home. Earlier, he had received a Department of the Army permit to replace the seawall (Exhibit H). At one time he received a holding tank permit from the Ottawa County Environmental Health Code Board of Appeals, but that action was rescinded when the DNR denied the permit in question in this proceeding (Exhibit F). On March 10, 1987 Mr. Hughes was granted a permit to construct a garage on the property upon the condition, among others, that the garage was "not for human habitation" (Exhibit G). Mr. Hughes was granted two earth change permits, one in November, 1986 (Exhibit I) and one in April, 1987 (Exhibit J), but both stated that the permit did not relieve the owner of the responsibility to secure any other permits.

The property in question is clearly part of a residential neighborhood. Mr. Hughes presented evidence that a house existed at 11473 Van Lopik, which had been built in about 1974 (Exhibit Q), and that several residential construction projects had been carried out in the subdivision (Exhibit O). Photographs of numerous houses in the area demonstrate the long-standing residential character of this subdivision (Exhibit P). The assessed valuation on the property, which was classified as residential by Robinson Township, rose from $4,800 to $12,300 between 1987 and 1988. The record is unclear whether the 1987 rate was lower than 1986 due to the removal of the mobile home from the property.

The major area of controversy in this matter is the floodplain elevation for this property. Mr. Hughes presented two exhibits regarding the elevation of the floodplain, both of which are land survey maps bearing the seal of Thomas E. Joiner, Land Surveyor, and indicating that they were prepared for Mr. Hughes by Joiner Engineering, Inc., of Spring Lake, Michigan. Exhibit K sets forth a 100-year floodplain level of 587 feet. Exhibit L states that the existing grade is 585 feet and designs a grade of 586 feet with fill and a finished floor of 587.5 feet.

Mr. Hughes does not contest that this property is located in a floodplain. He does contest the floodplain level asserted by the DNR. However, he presented no testimony regarding the existing grade or the 100-year floodplain elevation. Mr. Joiner was not used as a witness, nor was there any documentation of the source of the Joiner levels. He also did not contest the assertions in the exhibits and testimony that a 1986 flood, which did not reach the 100-year level, inundated the area and produced damage to homes and boats in the area, including Mr. Hughes' mobile home (see Exhibits 4, 7, 8, testimony of Charles Leap).

Further, the testimony and exhibits make it clear that this property is located in the floodway of this floodplain. The proximity of the property to both the Grand River and the channel makes the conclusion that this property lies in a floodway inevitable. All the photographs entered in evidence show that this property is located next to the river on relatively flat land, which lies on the floodplain side o the river (Exhibits P, 24, 19, 22).

Mr. Daniel Morgan testified about the nature of a floodway, emphasizing that a floodway is that portion of land adjoining a channel or a river which is reasonable required to discharge a flood. Although this township has not been the subject of a flood insurance study, a study of the next township upstream, Allendale, showed that the floodway extended 650 feet from the left bank. The DNR found that area to be comparable (Exhibit 19). The 100-year high water level extends over one-half mile south of this property (Exhibit 22). The evidence that this property is located within the floodway of the Grand River is overwhelming.

A review of the exhibits and testimony also shows that the DNR properly determined the 100-year flood level and the elevation of this property. The key documents are Exhibits 22, 23, 19, 4, and 8. They are supported by the expert testimony of Mr. Charles Leap, a specialist in hydraulics and river mechanics at the DNR. Mr. Leap testified that he prepared Exhibit 22, using as his basis historical data, flood insurance studies from nearby areas, information on upstream and downstream locations, and the 1932 study by the Army Core of Engineers, which he referred to as the 308 study.

The record shows that the property of Mr. Hughes is located at approximately 13 mile point on the Grand. Exhibit 22 shows a high water level at 12 mile point of 591.3 feet and a level of 594.6 feet at 16 mile point. Mr. Leap estimated that the level at 13 mile point would be approximately 592 feet, since it lies closer to 12 mile point.

He estimated that the 1986 flood was about 5.8 feet below the 100-year flood level. He further testified that the effects of dredging along the Grand since 1904, the date of the Goodyear flood, were minor and would have a very small effect on the flow in the lower river. He rejected the figures contained in the Joiner study, noting that no documentation was included in Exhibits K and L.

The elevation of the property in question is best determined from the Ottawa County Road Commission elevation surveys of 118th street and Van Lopik, particularly at the intersection of Van Lopik (Exhibit 23). This location is at the end of Mr. Hughes' property. At the centerline of the road, the elevation is about 584.5 feet, while on Van Lopik the elevation is consistently below 585 feet (Exhibit 23). The water level in December, 1986 at this location was 591.5 feet.

I conclude that the elevation of the property is no greater than 585 feet. Thus, I accept Mr. Leap's testimony that the Hughes property is at least seven feet below the floodplain level established by the 100-year flood. I also conclude that this property would be inundated by the 100-year flood to a greater degree than it was during the 1986 flood that the record shows was not a significant flood.

Mr. Hughes made two separate requests to build a residence on this property and both were denied for the same reason--the proposed use was to introduce a place of habitation in a floodway (Exhibits 3, 15). MCLA 323.2a requires that the Water Resources Commission assure that floodways are not inhabited. Thus, the request was properly denied if the proposed use was in fact to be located in a floodway.

Rule 311(g) defines floodway to include those portions of floodways reasonably required to carry and discharge a 100-year flood. Based on the testimony of Mr. Leap and the relevant findings of fact set forth above, I conclude that the property of Mr. Hughes is located in a floodway of the Grand River floodplain at mile 13. Based on the findings of fact set forth above, I conclude that this property would be inundated by a 100-year flood, presenting danger to the property, its inhabitants and those who might be called to perform rescue operations. I also conclude that Mr. Hughes proposes a use within the statutory definition of habitation.

Accordingly, I conclude that Mr. Hughes proposed a use in violation of Act No. 167, P.A. of 1968 and that the Department properly denied the permit.

This case can be disposed without further findings, since the elements required to be met to sustain the action of denial have been satisfied. However, I believe it is appropriate to address some of the concerns raised by Mr. Hughes during the course of both these proceedings and his dealings with the Department of Natural Resources.

Mr. Hughes argued that he was treated unequally by the DNR. The record shows that no other permit had been granted in Section 34 of Robinson Township. However, it is clear that other officials have allowed significant activity to take place in this subdivision. None of that involved the DNR. Whether some remedial action is required regarding that activity is a matter for determination in another forum. The Water Resources Commission would act in violation of its statutory duty if it granted a permit for activity it knew would be contrary to the prohibitions in the law. Nothing in the statute appears to give discretion to the Commission in this situation.

Mr. Hughes also argues that the prior approval of requests to build a seawall and construct a garage should operate to estop the denial of the request to build a dwelling. This request is clearly distinguishable, since it proposes habitation, something not included in the prior requests. The decision was squarely based upon the distinction between habitation and other uses.

Next, Mr. Hughes argues that the DNR failed to issue adequate guidelines to townships and municipalities regarding building restrictions and occupancy of property in a 100-year floodplain. No evidence was submitted to sustain this argument, nor was any authority presented which would support the notion, that the DNR had any duty to provide such guidelines or that the consequence of such failure would be to require issuance of a permit to occupy a floodway.

Mr. Hughes argued that approvals by other governmental authorities, real estate listings and the evaluation of his property as residential by local taxing authorities should impact this decision in some favorable manner. Government regulates the use of property at many levels and in diverse ways in order to protect the public and the environment. While those governmental agencies should do what they can to inform the public of their requirements, the ultimate burden of conformance rests with the landowner.

Finally, Mr. Hughes argues that this action results in condemnation of his property. While the action clearly prohibits the use of the property in some ways, it does not render it unusable. If the action amounts to condemnation, Mr. Hughes' remedy lies in a judicial action, not with the Water Resources Commission.

Although Mr. Hughes' situation presents some basis for sympathy, since he has bought property he thought he could use as a residence, his hardship is not an acceptable basis for granting the permit under the explicit terms of the statute.

I therefore recommend that the Commission uphold the action of the Department of Natural Resources in denying the permit to introduce a habitational use in this floodway.

Date
Administrative Law Judge

1. Handwritten List of Defendant's and Plaintiff's
Exhibits by the Parties at the time of hearing

A. Conveyance of 11649 Van Lopik, R#1, Grand Haven, Michigan from Hoogerhyde to Bailey Showing Restrictions (Recorded March 2, 1970)
B. Drawing of Site Showing Locations of Buildings and Services
C. Bacterial Analysis of Well (June 16, 1986)
D. Eight Photographs of Site at Time of Purchase
E. DNR Permit for Minor Activities--Seawall (October 28, 1986)
F. Letter--J. Szejda to S. Hughes re Revocation of Prior Permission to Install a Holding Tank (February 26, 1987)
G. DNR Permit to Construct Garage on Property (March 10, 1987)
H. Department of the Army Permit re Seawall (October 16, 1986)
I. Earth Change Application and Permit (November 3 and 17, 1986)
J. Earth Change Application and Permit (March 27 and April 7, 1987)
K. Land Survey Map and Engineering Shematic (Undated Joiner Engineering)
L. Exhibit L with Added Drawing of Grade and Footing and superimposed Portion of U.S.G.S. Map (Undated Joiner Engineering)
M. Cross-Section of Footing Detail (Undated Joiner Engineering)
N. Change in Assessed Valuation Notice (1988)
O. List of Other Construction in Area (1983-1988)
P. Photograph Album Showing Surrounding Areas and Existing Homes (April 16, 1988)
Q. Photograph and Listing of House on Adjoining Property Showing Age of Residential Use

1. Application for Work in Riverine Flood Plain Permit (January 7, 1987)
2. DNR Public Notice re Application (February 3, 1987)
3. DNR Letter of Denial of Application (February 12, 1987)
4. DNR Memo--S. Elms to File (February 12, 1987)
5. Letter--S. Elms to J. Vliet, Robinson Twp. Building Inspector February 20, 1987)
6. DNR Project Review Report--Initialed by S.K. (February 21, 1987)
7. DNR Memo--W. Wilson to S. Elms re Review (February 23, 1987)
8. DNR Memo--S. Elms to File (February 24, 1987)
9. Letter--S. Hughes to S. Elms re Revision of Application February 24, 1987)
10. Letter--S. Elms to J. Vliet re Construction by Others in Floodplain (February 26, 1987)
11. Letter--S. Hughes to L. Thomas re Appeal of Decision (February 26, 1987)
12. DNR Permit to Build Garage on Site (March 10, 1987)
13. Letter--W. Fulkerson to S. Hughes acknowledging Assignment of Case for Hearing (April 10, 1987)
14. Letter--S. Hughes to D. Morgan re Revision of Application (December 8, 1987)
15. DNR Letter of Denial of Revised Request (December 28, 1987)
16. Letter--S. Hughes to D. Morgan re Replacement of old Mobile Home with New Mobile Home (January 13, 1988)
17. DNR Letter of Denial (January 28, 1988)
18. Letter--D. Morgan to S. Hughes re Statute Applicable to Site (February 12, 1988)
19. Memo--S. Elms to File re Support Documents re Floodway (April 13, 1987)
20. Letter-W. Fulkerson to S. Hughes re Referral of Case for Hearing (April 10, 1987)
21. Case History Summary (Undated)
22. Composite Flood Hazard Profile for the Lower Grand River Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources, Water Management Division
23. Elevation Survey of Profile of 118th street and Van Lopik By the Ottawa County Road Commission
24. Four Photographs of the Proposed Site
25. Act No. 167, P.A. of 1968 and Rules 323.1311323.1315, Rule 323.1329
26. Three Letters and one permit re Actions in Area: D. TenBrink (March 17, 1988)
E. Monroe (January 6, 1988) J. Potter (May 10, 1988) P. Seavitt
27. Permit Granted to T. Potter with Documents