1997-08-27_REVISION - M1981302 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Revised: 07/30/97 • Minutes-July 23, 1997 • Page 13 15. FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING WESTERN MOBILE - BOULDER File No. M-81-302 P.O. Box 18570 Boulder, CO 80308 BOULDER COUNTY, Sec. 9 and 16, T1S, R70W, 6`s P.M., 195 acres, 112 open pit, gravel. Operation name: Deepe Farm Pit. Board to hear City and County of Boulder's objections to Division staffs decision to consider the revision filed to increase the height of the berm as a Technical Revision(TR006). The objectors contend that the revision should be an amendment. All persons wishing to testify were sworn. Steve Brown from the Attorney General's Office, representing the Division of Minerals and Geology,was present. Sue Ellen Harrison and Karen Medde (City Engineer) for the City of Boulder (City), introduced themselves to the Board with Ms. Harrison stating that they do not believe the berm is a permitted feature while referring to Exhibit 15A-Volume of Earth Table. Ms. Medde presented Exhibit 15B- Cross Section Map for the Board's review and explained the cross sections on the map. Ms. Harrison stressed that the Board is a public Board and that they should err to the side of the public. Exhibit 15C-Letter from DMG to Hart/Flatiron and Exhibit 15D-Denver Post Article. Barbara Andrews, Assistant County Attorney for the County of Boulder (County), introduced herself and presented Exhibit 15E-Collection of Nine Letters/Memos and Related Documents for the Board's review as she detailed the package. She wanted to show the level of concern regarding this issue from the neighbors and the City and County of Boulder. She referred to the article and stated that she didn't want the media to help make the Board's decision, but she felt it was a larger issue. She asked the Board to exercise their interpretational authority over whether or not this is an amendment in light of the important public policy implications, which are clearly expressed in the documents. Ms. Andrews went on to state that the County felt that the matter is clearly within the Board's jurisdiction and that the berm is a reclamation feature and that it is within the Permitted area and has been substantially altered during the lifetime of the Permit. It poses reclamation issues that may alter the hydrological balance of the area. Should allow public input by placing it as an amendment. Mr. Paulin asked Ms. Andrews what her view was from the issues brought up in the June 1997 Board Meeting and if the County felt that the berm should be removed because of flood control issues. Ms. Harrison answered by saying that they don't know what the answer to that question is. They are in the process of putting together a study that will evaluate that, figure out what the best alternatives are as some experts say to leave the berm and some that say to take it away. Mr. Long