Maxum, it's an adminstrative hearing. Every criteria listed is subjective. Read the requirements and you can quickly see how there are no lines in the sand.
Where are the engineering studies? Surveys? Depth charts? etc. From what I have seen most of the testimony is based on perception and not much more.
You have testimony largely against it. You have MP taking a no position on it.
It comes down to the opinion/discretion of the director. It's that simple.
Of course I am sure the petition filers may feel they can sue but they have an uphill battle. Courts are very reluctant to supersede the powers of governmental bodies. Given the subjective standards and a no vote from MP the filers have the burden to overcome if the director denies the petition.
Using your logic would imply just getting the signatures is automatic approval. That's not the case as the petitioners have the burden to prove the need for a NWZ. The reason why many of the petitions for NRZs and NWZs have gotten through in the past is they are done in February at local town halls so opposition is reduced significantly. Transparency does wonders.....
The DOS better get in front of this and get cooling off periods and NRZ/NWZ revocation petitions procedures written into the adminstrative rules.
The statement about holding their breath until they get what they want may very well come back to bite them.
|