In Re Application No. 5189-3 to Extend Time

I respectfully dissent on Issue III reversing the determination by the Board that exigent circumstances existed.

As the majority holds, the Board’s definition of the term “exigent circumstances” was in harmony with legislative intent and within the realm of its authority. The majority goes on to specifically hold that the Board’s factual findings supporting its conclusion that exigent circumstances existed are not clearly erroneous BUT then holds that because “mixed law-fact” questions exist, we review de novo. I disagree!

I do not see a “mixed law-fact” question. The facts support the Board’s…