My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2020-09-23_REVISION - M1977211
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977211
>
2020-09-23_REVISION - M1977211
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/28/2024 4:45:57 AM
Creation date
9/24/2020 8:32:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977211
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
9/23/2020
Doc Name
Warren Dean's Petition for Reconsideration of the MLRB's Findings...
From
Continental Materials Corp.
To
DRMS
Email Name
TC1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
As explained above, CMC has repeatedly changed its position regarding the location and <br /> availability of needed fill, and has done this merely to avoid bonding for that expense, something it <br /> is required to do. CMC has never produced any core borings or other data to demonstrate the needed <br /> structural fill material was actually available in the quantity and of the quality needed to provide the <br /> required structural fill. <br /> The new evidence makes it clear that most of the 139.1 acres from which CMC indicated it could <br /> take fill are now not available, and only 9.315 acres can be disturbed. Obtaining, handling and <br /> transporting of any fill is the most significant cost item of a project. To fulfill its statutory obligation <br /> to protect the state and its taxpayers, the CDRMS Staff and ultimately the Board should have <br /> required CMC to demonstrate with credible evidence the availability of that structural fill. In light <br /> of this new evidence, it would be irresponsible to accept the past representations of CMC that it can <br /> get all of its needed structural fill on site and at no expense, and the Board should require CMC to <br /> provide credible evidence and real cost estimates to obtain that needed fill. The Board must protect <br /> the State and its taxpayers and require more. <br /> V. CONCLUSION <br /> The Board should reverse its approval and deny Amendment No. 4 as an unacceptable plan. <br /> That is not unfair, as CMC previously promised to complete Amendment No. 3. Alternatively, the <br /> Board should require CMC to produce records that demonstrate that the previously deposited fill in <br /> Area H was all structural fill and properly compacted at one-foot intervals as required to support <br /> adoption of Amendment No. 4. Additionally, the Board should require CMC to provide credible <br /> evidence of the availability on site of the needed structural fill and real cost estimates as to the costs <br /> to obtain, process and handle that fill and calculate the bond required based on the conclusions <br /> reached after examination of that evidence. <br /> 'J10 <br /> Respectively submitted this of September 2020. <br /> MULLIKEN WEINER BERG &: JOLIVET P.C. <br /> (A duly signed original on file at office of undersigned.) <br /> 'J� - - N A" - 6�� <br /> By: /s/Steven K. Midliken <br /> Steven K. Mulliken, 916709 <br /> Hilary A. Roland, #51574 <br /> Attorneys for Objector TVarren Dean <br /> 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.