Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />The following is an informal summary of topics discussed during the <br />Informal Conference held in Rm. 215, 1313 Sherman Street, Denver, CO, <br />at 10:30 AM on October 2, 1996. <br />Those attending were: <br />Greg Norwick; L.G. Everist, Inc. <br />Dennis Fields; L.G. Everist, Inc. <br />Dennis Staebell; L.G. Everist, Inc. <br />Rick Everist; L.G. Everist, Inc. <br />Christina Kamnikar; Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) <br />Carl B. Mount; DMG <br />H. Bruce Humphries; DMG, Minerals Program Supervisor <br />Gary Tuttle; Tuttle Applegate, Inc. (consultant for L.G. Everist) <br />Jim Curnutte; Summit County Commissioners <br />The only other party to this Informal Conference, who was not in <br />attendance, was Robert Wyler, who owns land adjacent to the proposed <br />site. His written comments were read into the record in summarized <br />form. <br />Mr. Humphries began by explaining the objection process for a permit <br />application under the Construction Materials Rules and Regulations, and <br />by stating that the purpose of the Informal Conference is to clarify <br />what issues are being raised by the objectors. He also stated that <br />parties to the Conference have up to five days after the Conference is <br />held to enter new written comments and objections to the Division which <br />they wish brought to the attention of the Board during the Board <br />Hearing. He then read the definition of "party" and "party rights" <br />from the Rules (Rule 1.4 and 2.7 of the Construction Materials Rules <br />and Regulations) and then referred to the list on page 2 of this <br />presentation form for the issues under discussion during the Informal <br />Conference. The attendees went down the list, with Mr. Humphries giving <br />his opinion on the likely reaction of the Board to each issue. He <br />stressed that simply because the Board was unlikely to agree with an <br />objector's opinion on an issue did not mean that the issue could not be <br />raised during the Hearing. <br />The conclusions of Mr. Humphries were as follows. <br />Mr. Wyler's objections: <br />1. This issue is being dealt with under Permit #M-82-164, and has no <br />bearing on Permit Application ~M-96-049 at this time. It is likely that <br />the Board would refuse to consider this issue's impact on the new <br />permit. <br />2. The Board might agree to consider this issue during the Hearing, <br />since it is a technical issue. Sloping requirements are determined by <br />the regulations and the designated end land-use. <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />