Laserfiche WebLink
Revised: 07/30/97 Minutes-July 23, 1997 • Page 21 <br /> Mr. Cattany then asked the parties attending if they felt it was within the Board's jurisdiction. Ms. <br /> Harrison responded that she would like the Board to put off their decision for a month and allow <br /> them to come back and address the issue at that time. Ms. Andrews stated that her concern was that <br /> it was out of her scope of appeal and the issue before the Board is whether or not to grant or reject <br /> their appeal which is an amendment, not a TR. Mr. Schwarz stated that Western Mobile had put a <br /> lot of work into the berm as an operator and it is not in their interest to take liberties with the <br /> Board's Statutes and Rules. They originally sought guidance on how to handle the berm and were <br /> guided into obtaining a TR. Mr. Packard responded that CU stands behind Western Mobile in <br /> agreement with their statement. Mr. Bender stated that the applicant is seeking approval for <br /> something that is not normally approved by the Board, but approved by others. It should rightfully <br /> be approved by local government. <br /> Mr. Cattany then asked Western Mobile that aside from the berm, when they would complete <br /> reclamation. Mr. Plummer responded that contingent upon final inspection they feel it will be three <br /> years before the grasses fill in and grow. If the decision on the berm is postponed, then that will <br /> delay reseeding. <br /> The Board then closed the Hearing and resumed Board deliberation on a Motion which is to decline <br /> jurisdiction altogether. The Board noted their frustration on lack of legal council as they have had <br /> numerous legal questions raised. Mr. Cattany stated that he felt it was an ongoing issue between the <br /> City and County, the affected homeowners and the landowner and he wanted to highlight the <br /> comment that Mr. Schwarz made which was Western Mobile is trying to do what they were told to <br /> do and they sought advise, Staff gave them advise and didn't challenge it and they are doing what <br /> the Staff recommended. Not Approved (For: Kraeger-Rovey and Paulin) and (Opposed: Green, <br /> Ernst and Cattany). <br /> The Board then Moved to notice this Item as a TR with a broader scope requiring Staff to solicit the <br /> input of the interested parties and make that decision on the TR within their time restraint which <br /> was Seconded. Mr. Cattany Amended the Motion by stating that in addition to soliciting the input, <br /> prepare a document that summarizes the public input for rationale in TR (30 days from application <br /> completeness) which was Seconded. Both the original Motion and the Amended Motion were <br /> Unanimously Approved (Green, Kraeger-Rovey, Paulin, Ernst and Cattany) (Cooley and Cohan <br /> were not present for any vote(s)on this Item). <br />