Hood_Creek_Hearing_Report_Final

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
BRIAN WRENN
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
HOOD CREEK SOILS COMPANY, LLC. NEW MINING PERMIT APPLICATION
PUBLIC HEARING
Hearing Report
Hearing Officer: Zahid Khan
August 26, 2021
E Q�� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1612 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
NORTH CAROLINA -
OepanmeMalEnvimnmenWQualN e` 919.707.9200

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
❖ Hood Creek Soils Company, LLC. New Mining Permit Application Public Hearing Summary
❖ List of Issues from the Oral and Written Comments Provided in Response to Hood Creek Soils Company,
LLC. New Mining Permit Application Public Hearing
❖ Appendix
A.
Public Hearing Notice
B.
Public Hearing Format
C.
LQS Presentation
D.
LQS Presentation Slide Show
E.
Written Comments
F.
List of Registered Speakers
G.
Recording of Hearing
H.
Affidavit of Public Notice

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F6D2FOF-OE8D-4BB5-86C4-A76DFD7D395A
HOOD CREEK SOILS COMPANY, LLC. NEW MINING PERMIT APPLICATION
PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF HEARING
To receive public comment related to Hood Creek Soils Company, LLC.'s request for a new mining permit for the
operation of a soil and rock mining operation located off SR 1307, Hood's Creek Rd., near the town of Lenoir in
Caldwell County.
DATE, TIME, PLACE
Due to COVID-19 impacts on the State of North Carolina, the Public Hearing was held virtually using the WebEx
application. Persons wishing to speak were requested to register on the Department of Environmental Quality
website before noon on August 26, 2021.
The hearing was held on August 26, 2021, from 7:00 PM to 8:11 PM.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Zahid Khan, Hearing Officer, Mooresville Regional Office Regional Engineer, Division of Energy, Mineral, and
Land Resources (DEMLR)
Brian Wrenn, Director, DEMLR
Toby Vinson, Chief Operations Officer and Land Quality Section Chief, DEMLR,
David Miller, State Mining Engineer, DEMLR,
Adam Parr, Assistant State Mining Engineer, DEMLR,
Josh Kastrinsky, Public Information Officer, DEMLR
OPENING
Zahid Khan called the hearing to order at 7:00 PM, welcomed everyone in attendance, introduced the staff,
explained the purpose of the hearing, outlined the hearing agenda, and stated the guidelines to follow for providing
comments at the hearing. Zahid Khan stated that the proceedings would remain open for a period of ten days
following the hearing for additional comments.
Zahid Khan then explained the action for which the mining permit application is required:
"The applicant proposes to operate a soil and rock mining operation located off SR 1307, Hood's
Creek Rd., near the town of Lenoir in Caldwell County. The applicant has submitted an erosion
and sedimentation control plan for the mine site intended to protect surrounding areas and
watercourses. A reclamation plan has also been submitted to the Department for review
concerning restoration of this area to a useful land use once mining has terminated. "
Adam Parr presented an overview on the mining permit procedures pursuant to the Mining Act of 1971 and
explained how it relates to the subject permit application.
Full text of the presentations made by Zahid Khan and Adam Parr are attached as Public Hearing Format and Land
Quality Section Public Hearing Presentation.
9 people registered for the event and all 9 people desired to speak.
Page 1 of 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F6D2FOF-OE8D-4BB5-86C4-A76DFD7D395A
9 people who registered to speak provided oral comments during the hearing. There were 2 people who called the
Mining Program before the meeting to provide comments. In total there were 11 speakers.
ORAL COMMENTS
Prehearing Speakers
Lynda Renegar — Ms. Renegar called to ask about the details of the hearing and how to call in if the intemet was
not available.
Kiersten Raynor — Mr. Raynor commented that she and her husband suffer from asthma and are concerned about
dust and pollutants. She also commented that there were wells in the area that could be impacted and that there is
too much industrial waste in the state already. She commented that the mine will bring down property values.
Speakers During the Hearing.
Mark Parsons — Mr. Parsons commented that there is no county water in the area and that everyone in the area is on
a well. The cost to repair a well from blast damage is 15 to 20 thousand dollars. Mr. Parsons questioned who
would pay for the repair and stated it would most likely not be the county. Mr. Parsons commented that the operator
started before securing a permit which is against the law. He also commented that there is already too much truck
traffic on the road from the nearby landfill. Mr. Parsons commented that the mining operation is a project with very
high risks and little rewards, offering few jobs while creating safety and environmental hazards.
Kristie Parsons — Ms. Parsons commented that she has lived in the area for the last 20 years and noted that it is an
impoverished area. She commented that the landfill 2 miles away is already a depressing factor. Ms. Parsons stated
that the blasting noise, traffic, and general operations will affect air and soil quality. She commented that blasting
will cause structural damage to homes and wells and will also produce flyrock. Ms. Parsons also mentioned the
fact that the applicant, Mr. Hoffman, started operating without a permit and has caused sediment to leave the
property on the road.
Jimmie Bryant — Mr. Bryant commented that previous operations produced flyrock that damaged his property. He
stated that the blasting is a safety issue and that he did not feel safe on his property if there was blasting in the
vicinity. He commented that he had sent previous information to DEQ regarding flyrock but was never provided a
copy of the blast report and no action was ever taken. Mr. Bryant commented that he as a constitutional right to
live safely on his property without fear from neighboring activity.
Sharon Bryant — Ms. Bryant commented that the community is disenfranchised and already home to a landfill.
Environmental Justice should prevent another similar activity. Dust from blasting could cause silicosis as well as
hazards to homes and school busses if there is flyrock. Ms. Bryant commented that the property is not properly
zoned, the applicant submitted an incomplete application and that the applicant started work without a permit. She
commented that the permit approval will endanger the health of the community, the quality of the freshwater streams
and ground water. Ms. Bryant also commented that the information provided in the application is not accurate.
Joyce McCormick — Ms. McCormick commented that she has been a resident of the county for 42 years and noted
that the operation is very close to residential areas and that access to the site is poor on the current road infrastructure.
She commented that truck traffic will endanger people on the roads. Ms. McCormick also commented that the
operation will lead to habitat destruction, air quality issues, ground water contamination, and noise issues.
Page 2 of 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F6D2FOF-OE8D-4BB5-86C4-A76DFD7D395A
Ronny Hendrix — Mr. Hendrix commented that the operation will cause groundwater issues, sedimentation to
surface waters, dust, and it will ruin property values of those living near the operation. He mentioned that the area
feels like it is unfairly targeted because of the nearby landfill and other "super sites" in the vicinity. Mr. Hendrix
also commented that the hearing was held too soon without enough notice and that the virtual format was not
adequate.
Bobby Miller — Mr. Miller commented that the area proposed for the mining operation is too small and that there
will be inadequate buffer. Mr. Miller commented that under denial criteria 2, the operation will have an adverse
effect on drinking water as the operation will cause soil, sediment, and chemical to leach into surface water and
springs. He commented that under denial criteria 4, the operation poses a direct and physical hazard to neighboring
properties from blasting flyrock. He commented that noise from the crushing operation and blasting qualifies as
pollution. Mr. Miller was concerned that the operation will ruin neighboring property value. Mr. Miller also had a
follow-up question to ask whether the mine would be restricted to a 20-foot depth.
Jenny Wheelock — Ms. Wheelock commented, as the Planning Director for the city of Lenoir, that 39 acres of the
84-acre parcel, are located in the city extra -territorial planning jurisdiction (ETJ) and that the land zoned residential
would most likely not be eligible to be up zoned in the ETJ. She requested that revisions be made to the mine map
to show the area within the ETJ, and that this area be utilized for a vegetative buffer.
Raymond Hoffman (applicant)— Mr. Hoffman commented that they have made improvements to the property and
some of the work from the previous landowner has been blamed on himself. Mr. Hoffinan commented that Hood
Creek Soils, LLC intends to be good neighbors and that they are willing to meet with neighbors to provide further
information if necessary.
A recording of the above comments can be found at the following link:
https:Hedocs.deq.nc. gov/EnergyMineralLandResources/Browse.aspx?dbid=0&startid=3634
WRITTEN COMMENTS
As a part of the official record of this public hearing, the following written comments are attached:
1. Email from Mark Parsons dated June 1, 2021.
2. Email from Jimmie and Sharon Bryant dated June 2, 2021.
3. Email from Mark Parsons dated June 2, 2021.
4. Email from Shelley Stevens dated June 3, 2021.
5. Email from Sharon Bryant Dated June 3, 2021.
6. Email from Jimmie Bryant dated June 4, 2021.
7. Email from Mark Parsons dated June 8, 2021.
8. Email from Kristie Parsons dated June 8, 2021.
9. Letter from Mary Carswell received June 11, 2021.
10. Letter from Billy Carswell received June 11, 2021.
11. Email from Abby Parsons dated June 21, 2021.
Page 3 of 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F6D2FOF-OE8D-4BB5-86C4-A76DFD7D395A
12. Email from Gracie Parsons dated June 21, 2021.
13. Email from Sharon Bryant dated June 23, 2021.
14. Letter from John Parsons received June 29, 2021.
15. Letter from Bessie Parsons received June 29, 2021.
16. Email from Sharon Bryant dated August 23, 2021.
17. Phone call from Joyce McCormick transcribed to email by Josh Kastrinsky received on August 24,
2021.
18. Email from Sharon Bryant dated August 24, 2021.
19. Email from Jenny Wheelock dated August 25, 2021.
20. Email from Mark Scott dated August 26, 2021.
21. Email from Brian Flook dated August 27, 2021.
22. Email from Shannon Flook dated August 27, 2021.
23. Email from Sandi Layell dated August 30, 2021.
24. Email from Sharon Bryant dated September 2, 2021.
25. Email from Raymond Hoffinan dated September 3, 2021.
26. Email from Sharon Bryant dated September 4, 2021.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Zahid Khan thanked everyone for attending and for their comments and presentations. Zahid Khan stated that the
Department would review the items presented at the hearing as they relate to N.C.G.S. §74-51 of the Mining Act of
1971. Zahid Khan reiterated that the proceedings would remain open for a period of ten days following the hearing,
which is September 5, 2021, for filing of any addition comments or statements.
The hearing adjourned at 8:11 PM.
Respectfully submitted by:
EDocuSigned by, A,•
42CFABFC5B8C459...
Zahid Khan
Regional Engineer
Hearing Officer
Date: September 24, 2021
Page 4 of 4

LIST OF ISSUES FROM ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMENTS PROVIDED IN
RESPONSE TO THE HOOD CREEK SOILS COMPANY, LLC. NEW MINING
PERMIT APPLICATION PUBLIC HEARING
Comment Summary
Oral comments were given during the public hearing held on August 26, 2021. Written comments were received
prior to the public hearing and throughout the comment period which closed on September 5, 2021. The comments
have been grouped into general topic areas and outlined below.
Reclamation Plan (Denial Criteria d(1))
Comments were provided that addressed the current state of the site and the requirement to reclaim post mining.
The site was previously used as a 5 acre borrow pit by the previous owner; however, the site was not reclaimed and
there were concerns this action of mining and non -reclaiming would repeat.
Issues With The Application Denial Criteria d(1))
Comments were provided that addressed the incomplete information provided in the application. There were
concerns that proper notice was not provided to all adjoining property owners and municipalities.
Comments were also provided that addressed the denial of the Erosion and Sediment Control (E&SC) plan by the
Asheville Regional Office before the mining application was submitted. Comments questioned why the mining
application would be allowed to continue at the state level if the zoning had been denied at the local level.
Groundwater/Well Supplies (Denial Criteria d(2))
Comments were provided that addressed the impact blasting at the mine would have on neighboring wells and the
potential to cause the wells to go dry. There were concerns with sediment and chemicals will leach into surface
water and springs that are utilized for drinking water.
Impact To Wildlife And Fisheries (Denial Criteria d(2))
Comments were provided that addressed the impact the mine would have on local wildlife habitat. Comments also
addressed the impact offsite sediment would have on wildlife in nearby creeks and streams.
Surface Water Quality (Denial Criteria d(3))
Comments were provided that addressed soil erosion and surface water contamination. There were comments that
stated that sediment leaving the site would damage creeks and the quality of the surface waters. It was noted that
some of the creeks in the area are listed as impaired water quality and that and further sedimentation would
exacerbate the problem. Comments also addressed the E&SC plan that was provided to the Department within the
mining application and questioned why the application could continue given the comments of the Asheville
Regional Office on the mining application.
Page 1 of 3

Air Quality (Denial Criteria dQD
Comments were provided that addressed the dust and other air pollutants from blasting activities, crushing activities,
and other mining activities. There were concerns about silicates in the air that would contribute to air pollution and
potentially cause silicosis. There were also comments that addressed the concern of dust leaving the property and
becoming a nuisance and health issue to adjoining property.
Blasting And Impacts To Nei _ hb�oring Structures (Denial Criteria d(4))
Comments were provided that addressed the affect blasting would have on neighboring houses, schools, and
churches. Comments addressed the dust from blasting, vibrations damaging property and wells, and the potential
for flyrock. Experiences from previous operations have caused concerns with flyrock damaging neighboring
properties and flyrock landing in the roadways outside of the permit area.
Notice Of Violation For Mining Without Permit (Denial Criteria d(7
Comments were provided that addressed the Notice of Violation that was issued to the operator for mining without
a permit. Comments questioned the likelihood the operator would abide by the laws if they were already violating
the laws and starting the operation before acquiring a mining permit. Comments addressed the dirt and sediment
that were present in the road from the work that was being completed without a mining permit.
Comments were provided that addressed the previous activity at this location and questioned whether they were
permitted. There were questions raised as to why the previous activity was not regulated and how, if this site was
already used as a single use borrow pit, it could be used again as a mine.
Noise
Comments were provided that addressed the noise coming from the mining equipment as well as the blasting
operations. There were comments that stated that noise alone is considered a pollutant and that it would impact
animal habitat.
Blame For Previous Operations
Comments were provided by the applicant that addressed the problems from past operations at this location. It was
noted that many of the issues raised during the public hearing could be attributed to the previous operation and
should not be associated with the new mining permit application and proposed operation.
Property Value
Comments were provided that addressed the impact the mining operation would have on property values. It was
noted that there is already an existing landfill in the area and a second industrial activity would severely impact
property values. Comments were made that addressed current high end housing developments in the area and how
the remote, serene environment would be ruined by the mining operation, thus creating an undesirable situation,
and decreasing value to the planned developments.
Page 2 of 3

Traffic And HeM Equipment
Comments were provided that addressed the impact heavy equipment and truck traffic would have on local roads.
It was noted that many of the roads in the area are not wide enough for the increase in truck traffic. It was a concern
that the current infrastructure could not support the increase in truck traffic. There were also concerns that a school
bus would not have enough room to pass any heavy equipment or truck traffic on the nearby roads.
Environmental Justice
Comments were provided that addressed the socioeconomic status of the community and the other industrial actives
in the area. Questions were raised as to whether mining, as another industrial activity, would be allowed under
environmental justice standards. There were concerns about the 645-acre landfill currently in operation and the
nuisance it has already created in the community. There were concerns that this area was being unjustly targeted
for use of industrial activities because it is an impoverished area.
Public Hearing
Comments were provided that addressed the format of the public hearing and questioned why the hearing was held
virtually rather than in person. Comments were provided that addressed the limited internet access and cell phone
service in the community, which made it difficult to attend the virtual hearing. It was noted that during the hearing
the technical issues made it difficult to access the hearing and understand all the speakers once the hearing began.
Zoning Ordinances
Comments were provided that addressed local zoning and required buffers for residential zoning in the City of
Lenoir ETJ. It was noted that approximately 39 acres of the 84-acre parcel are zoned rural residential and currently
do not allow mining as an activity, and that it was unlikely that the property would be up zoned.
Page 3 of 3

Appendix A
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF ENERGY, MIFNERAL, AND LAND RESOURCES
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held by the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality concerning Hood Creek Soils Company LLC's application for Mining Permit No. 14-14 (Pending)
for a Soil and Rock mining operation located off SR 1307, Hood's Creek Rd, near the town of Lenoir, in
Caldwell County.
AUTHORITY:
PLACE, TIME, DATE:
NC General Statute (G.S.) §74-51 and NCAC Title 15, Chapter 5
Subchapter 513, Section .0011
Session Law 2020-3, section 4.31 PUBLIC BODIES/REMOTE
MEETINGS DURING DECLARED EMERGENCIES allows a public
body to conduct public hearings by remote meetings.
Remote Meeting due to COVID-19 Declared Emergency
Date and Time: Thursday, August 26.7-9 pm
Participants can join the meeting at 6:45 pm.
ONLINE:
Cisco WebEx Link:
https:Hncdenrits.webex.com/ncdenrits/i.php?MTID=m3l8Oed57eeca
35d9ada661d6be222470
Event Password: NCDEMLR
Meeting Number (Access Code): 161494 8819
By Phone: English Audio: US TOLL 1-415-655-0003
Meeting Number (Access Code): 161494 8819
Internet access is not required to participate in the meeting. To comment by phone, when your name is
called, press *3 so the moderator can identify and open your line. Once you have made your comment,
please press *3 to end your comment.
PURPOSE:
To receive comments related to the application for a mining permit for a Soil and Rock mining operation
located off SR 1307, Hood's Creek Rd, near the town of Lenoir, in Caldwell County.
Page 1 of 4

Appendix A
Comments shall be limited to those that relate directly to the seven (7) denial criteria listed under G.S. §74-
51 of The Mining Act of 1971 that the Department considers in making its decision to grant or deny a new
mining permit application or a modification to an existing mining permit. These criteria are as follows:
The Department may deny such permit upon finding:
That any requirement of this Article or any rule promulgated hereunder will be
violated by the proposed operation;
2. That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable ground water
supplies, wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries;
3. That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water quality, or
ground water quality which have been promulgated by the Department;
4. That the operation will constitute a direct and substantial physical hazard to public
health and safety or to a neighboring dwelling house, school, church, hospital,
commercial or industrial building, public road or other public property, excluding
matters relating to use of a public road;
5. That the operation will have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes of a
publicly -owned park, forest or recreation area;
6. That previous experience with similar operations indicates a substantial possibility
that the operation will result in substantial deposits of sediment in stream beds or
lakes, landslides, or acid water pollution; or
7. That the applicant or any parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of the applicant or
parent has not been in substantial compliance with this Article, rules adopted under
this Article, or other laws or rules of this State for the protection of the environment
or has not corrected all violations that the applicant or any parent, subsidiary, or
other affiliate of the applicant or parent may have committed under this Article or
rules adopted under this Article and that result in:
a. Revocation of his permit,
b. Forfeiture of part or all of his bond or other security,
c. Conviction of a misdemeanor under G.S. §74-64, or
d. Any other court order issued under G.S. §74-64, or
e. Final assessment of a civil penalty under G.S. §74-64.
In the absence of any findings set out above or if adverse effects are mitigated by the applicant as determined
necessary by the Department, a permit shall be granted.
Page 2 of 4

Appendix A
COMMENT PROCEDURE:
All persons interested in this matter are invited to attend. The hearing will be conducted in the following
manner:
1. Explanation of the action for which the permit is required by the hearing officer.
2. Explanation of the permit procedures as set forth in The Mining Act of 1971 by
the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources.
3. Description of the proposed mining operation as applied for by the applicant.
4. Public Comment — Comments, statements, data, and other information may be
submitted in writing prior to the hearing or may be presented orally at the hearing.
Persons desiring to speak must follow the procedure outlined below. So that all
persons desiring to speak may do so, lengthy statements may be limited at the
discretion of the hearing officer. Oral presentations must not exceed the time limit
established by the hearing officer. Any oral presentation that exceeds three (3)
minutes must be submitted as directed by the hearing officer.
5. If you wish to speak at the digital public hearing, you must register, provide the
required information, and follow instructions on ways to join the public hearing.
Registration must be completed by 12:00 PM on Thursday, August 26. To register,
please click the following link: h!Ws://fortns.office.com/ /sg vaBgWM7ik
6. If you have technical difficulties, an automated voicemail will be set up from
August 26 until September 5 to receive your verbal comments: 919-707-9207
(Please state your name before commenting.)
7. Cross examination of persons presenting testimony will not be allowed; however,
the hearing officer may ask questions for clarification.
8. (Optional) The applicant may make a short presentation at the end of the hearing
and may be available for individual/group discussion after the hearing is
adjourned.
9. The proceedings will remain open for a period of ten (10) days following the
hearing for additional written arguments or statements.
Page 3 of 4

Appendix A
INFORMATION:
A copy of the mining permit application and corresponding maps are on file with the Asheville Regional,
Raleigh Central Office, and online at our webpage, for the public's information and review prior to the date
of the public hearing. To submit comments or for additional information concerning this hearing contact
by writing or calling:
Adam Parr
Assistant State Mining Engineer
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Telephone: [phone]
Comments can be submitted via email to [e-mail] with the subject line
"Hood Creek Soils Mine".
Page 4 of 4

Appendix B
July 26, 2021
PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT
I. Call to Order:
Good evening and welcome. My name is Zahid Khan, and I am the
hearing officer for this public hearing. My responsibility is to provide a
record of this hearing and written comments for the Director of the
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources. I would like to
emphasize that absolutely no decisions will be made this evening on this
permit application.
Please refer to a copy of the Mining Act of 1971 for reference during the
hearing.
Introduce DENR staff.-
David Miller, State Mining Engineer
Adam Parr, Assistant State Mining Engineer
Shawna Riddle, Environmental Senior Specialist, Asheville
Regional Office
II. COVID-19 —Executive Order 224, Virtual Hearing Protocol
In accordance with the state's Executive Order 224 and federal guidance,
this and other DEQ-led public hearings are being held virtually to
minimize the potential spread of COVID-19 and to protect both the public
and staff. Please keep in mind that this hearing is part of a public comment
period for this project that runs through September 5`h, 2021, and that both
comments given this evening and those submitted through writing, email,
and phone through September 5`h, 2021, are all given equal consideration
as the Mining Program reviews this application.
III. State the Purpose for Hearing:
The purpose of this hearing is to receive public comment related to the
mining permit application for the operation of a soil and rock mining
operation located off SR 1307, Hood's Creek Rd., near the town of Lenoir
in Caldwell County.
The hearing will be conducted in the following manner:
Pagel of 5 Rev. 3/2021

Appendix B
July 26, 2021
1. Explanation of the action for which the permit is required by the
hearing officer.
2. Explanation of the permit procedures as set forth in The Mining Act
of 1971 by the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources,
Land Quality Section.
3. Presentation that provides a description of the proposed mining
operation.
4. Public Comment - Comments, statements, data, and other information
may be submitted in writing prior to or during the hearing or may be
presented orally at the hearing. Persons desiring to speak have
indicated their intent prior to this evening by registering on the
website. So that all persons desiring to speak may do so, lengthy
statements may be limited at the discretion of the hearing officer. Oral
presentations which exceed three (3) minutes must be accompanied by
a written copy.
5. Cross examination of persons presenting testimony will not be
allowed; however, the hearing officer may ask questions for
clarification.
6. The proceedings will remain open for a period of ten (10) days
following the hearing for additional written arguments or statements.
IV. Explanation of the Action for which a Mining Permit is Required:
The applicant proposes to operate a soil and rock mining operation located
off SR 1307, Hood's Creek Rd., near the town of Lenoir in Caldwell
County. The applicant has submitted an erosion and sedimentation control
plan for the mine site intended to protect surrounding areas and
watercourses. A reclamation plan has also been submitted to the
Department for review concerning restoration of this area to a useful land
use once mining has terminated. A copy of this information may be
viewed at the Mining Program website. Copies of the application
materials may also be viewed upon request after tonight at the Land
Quality Section's Asheville Regional Office and the Raleigh Central
Office.
V. LQS Presentation:
Now I would like to defer to Adam Parr, Assistant State Mining Engineer,
with the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, for a brief
Page 2 of 5 Rev. 3/2021

Appendix B
July 26, 2021
explanation of the mining permit procedures as set forth in the Mining Act
of 1971 and a brief description of the proposed sand mining operation.
(See attached "Land Quality Section Public Hearing Presentation')
VI. Comment Procedure:
Comments shall be limited to those that relate directly to the seven (7)
denial criteria listed under G.S. §74-51 of The Mining Act of 1971 that the
Department considers in making its decision to grant or deny a mining
permit application. These criteria are the ones that were explained in detail
to you a few minutes ago by the Mining Program staff.
In light of the number of people who have indicated their desire to present
comments on this application, I will limit oral comments to 5 minutes per
person in order to give everyone desiring to speak adequate time. If time
allows at the end of the hearing, we will open the floor to those who did
not register and would like to provide a comment.
If in the course of the hearing you decide that you do not need to speak or
feel that a speaker has already raised your concerns, you can opt to abstain
from speaking but submit your written comments to the Division for
consideration. The Division does consider the written comments with the
same gravity as any of the comments raised orally tonight.
You will be called to speak in the order in which you registered. Please
state your name and your affiliation such as local resident or local
government official. This hearing is being recorded through the WebEx
application and through a digital audio recorder. It is important that you
speak into your computer microphone or phone in a clear manner and in a
location with minimal background noise so that we can get an accurate
recording of your comments.
If you are using the WebEx application, our WebEx administrator will
unmute your microphone when it is your time to speak. A timer will be
displayed on the screen to indicate the amount of time remaining in your
speaking slot. The administrator will also provide a verbal alert when you
have 30 seconds remaining and when your time is up. At the end of your
Page 3 of 5 Rev. 3/2021

Appendix B
July 26, 2021
5 minutes, the administrator will mute your microphone and the next
speaker will be called. Please be respectful to the other speakers by
adhering to the allotted time limit.
For speakers using the call -in number, please place your phones on mute
when you are not speaking to reduce background noise and electronic
interference. When your name is called, please dial *3, and the
administrator will unmute your line to speak. When you are speaking, the
administrator will provide a verbal alert when you have 30 seconds
remaining and when your time is up.
Non -speaking participants' microphones and phones should be muted at
all times. Please note that chat comments are considered public record. We
encourage you to minimize use of the chat option on the WebEx
application unless you are having technical difficulties or have a pressing
question. Our administrator will attempt to help you with technical issues.
Should you have technical difficulties with the WebEx application that
cannot be resolved, please call into the conference number provided with
the hearing invitation.
The mining applicant will provide the final comments of the night if they
so choose. Now, I will proceed calling on those who have indicated that
they wish to speak.
Please speak when I call your name. Make sure you are being heard.
(Call on each person who wishes to speak and take notes on their comments, concerns, etc)
LQS staff will address questions concerning the Act.
After all of the individuals that have indicated that they wish to speak have finished their
presentations, ask if anyone else wishes to speak. Ask them to raise their hand in the WebEx
application.
Now, we will open the floor up to any last minute comments the public
would like to make. If you would like to make a comment, please raise
your digital hand, press *3 if you are calling on the phone or indicate it in
the chat.
After all comments are done
Page 4 of 5 Rev. 3/2021

Appendix B
July 26, 2021
Is there anyone else?
At this time, would the applicant wish to make some brief comments?
We would like to thank everyone for attending this public hearing tonight
and for the important comments and questions raised. The Department
will review the items presented tonight as they relate to G.S. §74-51 of the
Mining Act of 1971.
The proceedings of this public hearing will remain open for a period of 10
days from tonight or until September 5th for the filing of additional
written comments to be included in the official hearing summary.
The proceedings from the hearing will be summarized in a hearing
officer's report I will prepare for the Director of the Division of Energy,
Mineral, and Land Resources.
Please send any written comments to the following address:
Zahid Khan
Regional Engineer
Mooresville Regional Office, DEQ
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
zahid.khan(d,ncdenr. gov
or
[e-mail]
Please note that even though the public hearing summary will close on
September 5th, the Department will continue to accept written public
comments on this application throughout the application review process
until a decision is made.
Are there any final questions? If not, this public hearing is now adjourned.
Page 5 of 5 Rev. 3/2021

Appendix C
July 26, 2021
MINING PROGRAM PUBLIC HEARING PRESENTATION
As Zahid Khan stated, my name is Adam Parr. My title is Assistant State
Mining Engineer with the Department of Environmental Quality, Division
of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources, Mining Program.
My job, and that of the other members of the staff, is to review all
applications for a mining permit as they relate to The Mining Act of 1971.
The Mining Act can be found on the Mining Program web page. Copies
of the Act were also mailed to those who provided written comments.
I would like to take a moment and briefly review a few specific areas of
the Act. If you would refer to G.S. §74-47, Findings, on the first page of
the Mining Act:
"The General Assembly finds that the extraction of minerals by mining is a basic and
essential activity making an important contribution to the economic well-being of North
Carolina and the Nation. Furthermore, it is not practical to extract minerals required by
our society without disturbing the surface of the earth and producing waste materials, and
the very character of certain surface mining operations precludes complete restoration of
the land to its original condition. However, it is possible to conduct mining in such a way
as to minimize its effects on the surrounding environment. Furthermore, proper
reclamation of mined land is necessary to prevent undesirable land and water conditions
that would be detrimental to the general welfare, health, safety, beauty, and property rights
of the citizens of the State. The General Assembly finds that the conduct of mining and
reclamation of mined lands as provided by this Article will allow the mining of valuable
minerals and will provide for the protection of the State's environment and for the
subsequent beneficial use of the mined and reclaimed land. "
On page 4 of the Mining Act, under G.S. §74-51, Permits - Application,
granting, conditions, the Act states, under subsection (b) that:
"The Department shall grant or deny the permit requested as expeditiously as possible,
but in no event later than 60 days after the application form and any relevant and material
supplemental information reasonably required shall have been filed with the Department,
or if a public hearing is held, within 30 days following the hearing and the filing of any
relevant and material supplemental information reasonably required by the Department.
On page 5 of the Act, under subsection (c), the Act goes on to state:
Pagel of 5 Rev. 2021

Appendix C
July 26, 2021
"The public hearing shall be held within 60 days of the end of the 30-day period within any
requests for the public hearing shall be made. "
The most important information that I can present to you tonight is found
under subsection (d) beginning at the bottom of page 5 of the Act. It states:
"The Department may deny the permit [or modification to the existing permit] upon finding
[only one of the seven criteria listed on pages 7 and 8 of the Act]:
1. That any requirement of this Article or any rule promulgated hereunder will be violated by the
proposed operation; This means that the very nature of the activity proposed in the application
will immediately violate any of the basic requirements of the Act and corresponding
Administrative Rules.
2. That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable groundwater supplies, wildlife,
or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries;
The application was routed to NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
on June 7, 2021, for their review and comment. WRC provided the
statement that they had no comments on July 21, 2021. The application
was routed to US Fish and Wildlife (USFW) on June 7, 2021. USFW
provided no comments. In addition, the Division of Water Recourses
(DWR) provided comments on July 10, 2021, regarding impacts to ground
water supplies. Their comments included the following: The Hood Creek
Soils mine located in Caldwell County_does not appear to have an iygtuly
adverse effect on ground water supplies since_there is no dewaterin�
ro osed on site.
3. That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water quality, or ground water
quality that have been promulgated by the Department:
The application was routed to the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) and
DWR for review and comment. Comments were received from these
agencies on June 17, 2021, and July 19, 2021, respectively and noted the
following: DAQ commented that the facility must ensure compliance with
New Source Performance Standards ONSPS) 40_CFR_Subpart 000 and
noti fy_ DAQ_ if_ the status of the crusher_changed�rom temporary_ to
permanent_ Thefacility will need to ensure that they _com lv withfugiftc
dust rule 2D_ 0540._DWR commented that surface waters maybe impacted
Page 2 of 5 Rev. 2021

Appendix C
July 26, 2021
by the location of the proposed sediment_basin._ DWR requests that the
applicant_provide additional information on the�otential blue line stream
and a statement that -no wetlands or streams will be disturbed for this
project_ -if disturbance_isroposed the applicant will need to discuss
404/401ermittingwith United States Army Co of Egineers (USACE)
and DWR_
4. That the operation will constitute a direct and substantial physical hazard to public health and
safety or to a neighboring dwelling house, school, church, hospital, commercial or industrial
building, public road, or other public property, excluding matters relating to the use of a public
road;
The application contained information regarding active and final slopes at
the site. It also contained information on the blasting practices and the
procedures that will be utilized in the area covered by the application.
Mining permits contain specific blasting conditions for any sites where
blasting is to occur.
S. That the operation will have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes of a publicly owned
park, forest, or recreation area;
The application was routed to the Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR)
for review and comment. Comments were received from DPR on July 23,
2021 and stated the following: Based on_the project as proposedZ the
North Carolina Division Parks and Recreation has no objections and
there ore no comments_
6. That the previous experience with similar operations indicates a substantial possibility that the
operation will result in substantial deposits of sediment in stream beds or lakes, landslides, or
acid water pollution;
A detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan was submitted with the
application and was evaluated by both the Land Quality Section's
Asheville Regional Office staff and the Raleigh Central Office staff. The
Asheville Regional Office has requested that the applicant provide
calculations for their E&SC measures and clearly indicate the measures on
the map.
Page 3 of 5 Rev. 2021

Appendix C
July 26, 2021
Ism
7. That the applicant or any parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of the applicant or parent has not
been in substantial compliance with this Article, rules adopted under this Article, or other laws
or rules of this State for the protection of the environment or has not corrected all violations that
the applicant or any parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of the applicant or parent may have
committed under this Article or rules adopted under this Article and that resulted in:
a. Revocation of a permit,
b. Forfeiture of part or all of a bond or other security,
c. Conviction of a misdemeanor under G.S. §74-64,
d. Any other court order issued under G.S. §74-64, or
e. Final assessment of a civil penalty under G.S. §74-64.
This pertains to the applicant's prior operating record with the Mining
Program and the Department of Environmental Quality as a whole.
The Act goes on to clearly state that:
"In the absence of any findings set out in subsection (d) of this section, or if adverse effects
are mitigated by the applicant as determined necessary by the Department, a permit shall
be granted. "
Please be advised that offsite truck traffic on public roads, noise, and
potentially negative impacts on property values are not within the
jurisdiction of The Mining Act of 1971. These items are more properly
addressed through local zoning ordinances. I also would like to draw your
attention to G.S. §74-65, Effect of local zoning regulations, on page 12 of
the Act. The Act states that the issuance of a state mining permit, and any
transfer or modification to it, does not supersede any duly adopted local
zoning ordinance. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the local
authority, not the Department, to enforce any such ordinance that may be
in effect covering the project area.
The decision on the issuance of a mining permit will not be made tonight.
The authority to issue or deny a permit lies with the Director of the
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources, Mr. Brian Wrenn.
Any permit issued shall be expressly conditioned upon compliance with
all requirements of the approved reclamation plan for the operation and
Page 4 of 5 Rev. 2021

Appendix C
July 26, 2021
with such further reasonable and appropriate requirements and safeguards
as may be deemed necessary by the Department to assure that the
operation will comply fully with the requirements and objectives of the
Mining Act.
If the Department denies this application for a permit, it shall notify the
operator in writing, stating the reasons for its denial and any modifications
in the application, which would make it acceptable. The operator may
thereupon modify their application or file an appeal to the Office of
Administrative Hearings. In the event that the application for a mining
permit is approved, any aggrieved parties will be notified by the
Department of the permit issuance and its rights to file an appeal
contesting the Department's issuance of the permit.
The hearing record will remain open for a period of up to 10 days from
tonight or the 5th of September. This gives those individuals that were
unable to attend an opportunity to comment. You may also use this time
if you think of something else that you would like to add to your comments
made here tonight. This provides you that opportunity.
Now that a public hearing has been held on this application, the
Department has a 30-day review clock. The 30-day period starts after this
hearing tonight. Should the Department request additional information
from the applicant, the 30-day clock would start over upon the
Department's receipt of all of the requested information. Such a process
would continue until all of the Department's questions have been
answered and a decision is made on the application.
I will now give a brief presentation to highlight some of the details of the
application for the proposed permit.
If there are no questions, I would like to turn the program back over to
Zahid Khan.
Page 5 of 5 Rev. 2021

44F
PL
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality

Appendix D
Site Information
The purpose of this hearing is to receive public comment related to the mining permit application for
the operation of a soil and rock mining operation located off SR 1307, Hood's Creek Rd., near the town
of Lenoir in Caldwell County
• Applicant — Hood Creek Soils Company, LLC.
• Site Specific conditions — Previously used as a single source borrow pit.
• Area - 27.45 Acre permit (27.45 disturbed)
• Mine depth — 20 ft depth max (20 ft average)
• Mining Method — Truck and Shovel for soil. Blasting where necessary when encountering rock.
• No Dewatering proposed
• Reclamation — Reclaimed as forested area
Additional Information has been Requested from the Applicant to Clarify (ADI Sent July 21, 2021):
• Mining Permit Boundary and Affected Acreage Limits
• Erosion and Sediment Control Measures
• Reclamation
• Blasting
4� UE
NORTH CAROLINA
W;
Department of Environmental Quality

Appendix D
Project Location
Proposed Mine Permit Boundary (27.45 acres)
Hood Creek Solis
36.9208,-81.6736
MP 14-14 Hood Creek Soils
Company, LLC
Hood Creek Soils
_ LatRude: 359208
W E Longitude:-81.5736
County: Caldwell
Date: 6/7/21
e:oe D-dwE
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
3

Appendix D
Current Conditions
n 2 ,
arG
Proposed Mine Permit and Affected
Area Boundary (27.45 acres)
-7
tro D-�E %6 ��
NORTH CAROLINA qP
Department of Environmental Quality

Appendix D
Agency Comments
• LQS Asheville RO — Provide additional details/calculations on ESC measures.
• DWR — Clarify location of ESC measures with respect to blue line streams.
Clarify if any disturbance to streams or wetlands.
• DWR Groundwater Management Branch — No concerns, no dewatering.
• NCWRC — No comments.
• Division of Soil &Water Conservation — No impact to Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program (CREP)
• NC Dept. of Natural and Cultural Resources— Unlikely that any archaeological
sites to be eligible for National Register of Historic Places, no archaeological
investigation required.
• Division of Parks and Recreation — No objections and therefore no comments.
e:wxo::fD E
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
5

Adam Parr
Assistant State Mining Engineer
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
ti.
Cell: (919) 441-7.157
FAX: [phone]
Email: adam.panooenr.gov
Physical Address; 512 N Salisbury Street
Mailing Address: 1612 Mail Service Center
0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Mining Program Website:
https://deq.nc.gov/mining-program

Appendix E
WRITTEN COMMENTS
Written Comments can be found at the following link:
https://edocs.deq.nc. gov/EnergyMineralLandResources/Browse.aspx?dbid=0&startid=3611

Appendix F
ID Start
2
time Completion
8/24/2117:46:43
time Email Name
8/24/2117:47:20 anonymous
First Name
Mark
Last Name
Parsons
Emai12 Position on the
[e-mail]
issue ..
Yes
.. you require languag:
No
3
8/24/2117:48:01
8/24/2117:48:34 anonymous
Kristie
Parsons
[e-mail] Against
Yes
No
4
8/25/2110:04:19
8/25/2110:05:14 anonymous
Jimmie
Bryant
[e-mail] Against
Yes
No
5
8/25/2110:05:19
8/25/2110:05:52 anonymous
Sharon
Bryant
[e-mail] Against
Yes
No
6
8/25/2115:16:40
8/25/2115:17:02 anonymous
Joyce
McCormick
[e-mail] Against
Yes
No
7
8/25/2115:17:05
8/25/2115:18:06 anonymous
Ronny
Hendrix
828-612-2271 Against
Yes
No
8
8/25/2115:23:12
8/25/2115:23:56 anonymous
Bobby
Miller
millerbobby704@yahoo Against
Yes
No
9
8/26/218:25:14
8/26/218:26:06anonymous
Jenny
Wheelock
[e-mail]. NcNeutral
Yes
No
10
8/26/218:37:02
8/26/218:37:57 anonymous
Raymond
Hoffman
Rhoffman@hna-enginee For
Yes
No

Appendix G
HEARING RECORDING
A recording of the public hearing can be found at the following link:
https://edocs.deq.nc. gov/EnergyMineralLandResources/Browse.aspx?dbid=0&startid=3634

Appendix H
town of Len OIL in Caldwell Mlnin
County. Sion
itu-TOOEmc: Land
NC Gainers] Statute (G.S.) §74- 3. De
51 and NCAC Title is, Chapter mining
8 Subchaplor 59, Section ,0011 by th
2LACt5 i1ME,DAIEt 4. P
Session Law 2020-3, section ment
4.31 PUBLIC BODIESIRF- other
MOTE MEETINGS DURING mitts
DECLARED EMERGENCIES heart
9flaws a public body 10 conduct Orally
public hearings by remits Per
meetings. tallow
Remote Meeting due to COV- halo
ID•19 Declared Emergency shin
Date and Time: Thursday. Ac- length
gust 26. 7.9 pm ited
Participants can join the meet- heart
Ing at GAS pm. Bans
ONUNE; - limit
Cisco Wei Link: ofnc
hapsWilcdamtts.we tax.0hr1rc that
dandirlJ,php7MT1D=m3100ed5 mug
7eoca by 1
35dpada661d6boM470 5.11
Event Meeting NumberrD(Access hallil
Code): 161 494 8819 lnlor
By phone: English Audio: US flan
TOLL 1.415.855-0003 boo
Meeting Number
(Access Cade): 1614949819 plot
Internal acirese, I$ not required Thu
to partidpale In the ths9ting. To 9191
ooalment by phase, when your Ing
name Is called, press'3 so the hitp
moderator can identify end aB
Open
your line. Once you have 6. I
made your comment, please cult
press'3 to end your comment. mal
POROSE: 25
To resolve comments related to you
the application for a mining par- 70
mit for a Soil and Rock mining no
operello0 located all SR 1307. 7.
Hood's Creek Rd, near the son
town of Lane[r, in Caldwell not
County. he
Comments 043 he Limited to lie
these that caste direct€y to the 3. (
seven (7) denial uitada fisted ma
under G-S. §74.51 of The Min- the
Ing Act of 1971 that the Depart- her
,Mont considers In. making its dis
dpch ril to gram or chi a new all
mining parrs t application or a 9.
modllleation to an existing min- OF
Ing permit. These cnleria are as 000
lollcws:
The Department may.deny st
such permit upon tlnding:
1. Thal any requkrernerd at this A
Article or ally mis promulgated pll
hereunder will be violated by m
the proposed operator; A
2. That me aperation will have C
unduly adverse attains on pot- w
able ground water supplies, to
wildille, Or 1re5h water, esidw- -
Ina, Of marine fisheries;
3. That the operation will vial -
are slandards of eirquafity, sur-
lace water quality , or ground
water quality, which have boon
promulgated by the Depart-
mont;
4. That the operation will constl-
lute a direct and substantial
physical hazard to pubila health
And safety of to a neighboring
dwelling house. school, church,
hospital, aomnlaroiat of Industri-
al building, public road or other
public pro perty, excluding mat -
lots relating to use of a public
sad;
5. That the operation will have
a signilicanuy adverse affect on
me purposes
of a
publ[dy-owned park, !epos% or
recreation arcs;
a. That pprevlous experience
wllh Bills ter operations India -
area a subslantlal posslblllty
that the operation will result In
suhefantlal deposits of sedi-
ment In abeam bode or lakes.
landslidOS, cr acid water po11u-
bon; or
7. That Ing applicant or any
pere eent Of the appli IN orpaienit
has not been in substantial
compliance with this Article.
ruins adopted under this Article.
or other laws or rules of this
$Into for the protsct[on of Ilia
environment or has not correc.
ted all violations that the applic-
ant or any parent, subsidiary, or
other affiliate of the appkiuent or
parent may have committed on,
der this Adds or rules adopted
under this Article and that res-
ult In:
o. Revocation of his paenR,
b. Forfeiture a1 pad or all of his
bond or other security.
c. Conviction of a misdamean-
or under GS. §74-64. or
d. Any other court order Issued
under G.S. §74-64. Or
e. Final assessment of a civil
NORTH CAROLVNA
NORTH CARO
penalty under G.S. 974.64.
In the absence of any findings
❑ OF
et out above Or if adverse
ENVIRONMENTAL OUAL[rY
act& are mil€gated the p-
DIVISION OF ENERGY,
es-
rted necas-
d a
MINERAL,AND LAND
sots by Ili Department, a por-
sarybt the apart
RESOURCES
MII stall be granted,
PUBLIC NOTICE
OFepub,
C9MMs..on PROCEDURE:
Naftali hereby given
the
All arsons Interested In this
Ilc.heering to he hold by
North Carolina Capertmenl of
ma Set are invited to attend.
The hearing will be conducted
Environmental Coal cancer-
In the following manner:
Ing Hood Creek Solis Com-
I Explanation of the action for
pany LLC's application for Min-
with _ pe-" ie required by
ing Permit NO.14-14 (Pending]
ale hearing Officer.
for a Soil and Rock mining op-
2 Explanauon of the permit
oration located Off SR 1307.
Procedures as soh forth In The
Hood's creek Rd. near the
g Acl of 1971 by me Div(- the da— le o� Ina Public hearing, i
of Energy, Mineral, and To Submit comments or for ad-'
Resources. diticoal Information Concerning ,i
scdptlon 01 the Pro posed this hearing contact by writing NORTH CAROLS%
operalloh as applied }or or calling:
a applicant, Adam Parr CALDWELL COUAj17
ublic Comment - Com- Assistant State
'
s, etatamonls, data, and Mlning Engineer AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Information inwting pdarbtoSub-
the and tend Resp ion of Energy, Mineral,
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said
ng or may be presented Depadment Of County and Slate, dui commissioned, qualified,
al the haring. Environmental Quality { Y
sons desiring to speak must 1512 Mail Service Cemer and authorized by law to administer oaths,
the procedure outllned Raleigh, North Caroline a78g&' personally appeared Dale frlorelfleld who being
w. So that Hit parsons do- 1612 pe g
g to speak may do sa, Telephone: [phone] just duly sworn, de
gihy statements may be rim- Comments can he submitted poses and says: that he is
at the discretion of the via small to Publisher of the News -Topic Inc., engaged in the
rig OffIcar. Oral presents- ncminingprogrem®ncdenr.gov
mast net exceed the time with the subject line 'Hood publ cation of a newspaper known as News -Topic,
established by the hearing Creak Sells Mina'. published, issued, and entered as second class
or. Any oral presentation Aug.53, i021
exceeds lives, 13) minutes mail in the City of Lenoir, in said County and State;
l he SUIT fed as directed. that he is authorized to make this affidavit and
he hearing o}licer.
you Wish to speak at the cil sworn statement; that the notice or other legal
public hearing, you Must
star. provide the required advertisement, a true copy of which is attached
meflan, and follow Instruc- hereto, was published in Lenoir New9Topic on the
s on ways to join the public
Ing. following dates
19lratkon must be earn -
act by 12:00 PM oa
raday, August 28. To re-
ar, piease click the follow- August 13, 2021
link:
s:1Porma.off Ice.ccmlglsv-
gWM71k and that the said newspaper in which such notice,
! You
have technical diftl-
Ies, on automated voice- paper, document, or legal advertisement was
I illlt be got be from August published was, at the time of each and eve
unlll September 5 is receive � P tjr
r verbut comments: 919- publication, a newspaper meeting all of the
7-9207 (please elate your +
me before commenting.) requirements and qualifications of Section 1.597 of
Cross examination testa of per- the General Statutes of North Carolina and was a
s presenting testimony will
he allowed: however, the qualified newspaper within the meaning of Section
has
officer may ask ques-
ns for deification. 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina.
Optionai} The applicant may
ke a shaft presentation at
end of the hadng and may This is the A h Lw fgu5 2021
available for Individuallgroup
cuaslcn after the hearing Is
ournad. 4 I1.1A�1a
The proceedings will remain
"' ;'""---
an for a period of ter (10) Sworn to and subs cri�atl re'111[I,$�}i
ys following the hearing for -,
dlllonal wdll9n arguments or day of AUt2f)a%emants.,.y. copining permit ep- ......... .......... :.x ..... �... _
cation and corresponding '&story Pu�}tc
apt era on file with Ins �,^ r�n5,,
ehe4LlVe Regenal, Raleigh, ply Commissic "?�' ' iNi'�%P42Z ZU�^
CO
office, and online at our'
.
obpago, for the public's in-- r G�K ••••• -�•,`�
rmation and review Prior to rrrri F COL1N
-------- ----- rt rrrtttl++,+