Laserfiche WebLink
-- <br />,lanuazy 6, 1999 <br />__. _. __ __. ~ _. .~.,, n.. ., i r raao rHUC <br />~• <br />To the Mined Land Reclamation Board, <br />According to Rule #2.9, we as parties, have the right to ask for <br />reconsideration of the Boazd's decision concerning an approval of a ] 12 <br />permit application, made on December 16, 1998 concerning the Tellier <br />gravel pit operation here in Steamboat Springs. <br />At this time, we aze asking for reconsideration of that decision. <br />We formally made an objection to this application through the Division of <br />Minerals and Geology on September 21, 1998. The informal conference <br />was then scheduled for October 20, 1998. At that time there were several <br />additional concerns that were brought up by us and by Erica Crosby of the <br />DMG. Our concerns were put in writing and forwarded to Erica Crosby. <br />The applicant's consultant then responded to those concerns, but never again <br />were we, representing the opposition, able to respond to the "answers" <br />given.. ,that is until "testimony" at the Formal Board Hearing. At the Pre- <br />hearing Conference, no new testimony can be given. <br />After many conversations with Erica Crosby end Carl Mount of the DMG, <br />they indicated to us that we could submit a letter and it could be read during <br />the time that was allotted to us, as parties, for testimony during the Formal <br />Board Hearing. We were not able to attend the Boazd Hearing, since it was <br />a week before Christmas and our three children had many holiday activities <br />going on with the church and school. <br />Our entire letter was not allowed to be read during testimony because it <br />included new information, according to the applicant's consultant, Erica <br />Crosby informed us. It was read during the Public Comment Period, which <br />gives the letter absolutely NO "power" at all! Yes, we did include some <br />different information in our testimony letter because we were not awaze of <br />this information prior to the informal conference. It did include information <br />that was in contrast to the Reclamation Plan that had been submitted and we <br />felt that it would be of importance to the Board. The majority of the letter <br />included information that was still not resolved from the on in 1 concerns. <br />(See attached.) <br />