Laserfiche WebLink
Revised: 07/30/97 • Minutes-July 23, 1997 • Page 14 <br /> asked Ms. Harrison about the study that is presently taking place and she replied that they are in the <br /> process of reviewing the contracts. <br /> Mr. Cattany asked what the County's regulatory authority over the quantify and quality of the berm. <br /> Ms. Andrews stated that the berm is located in unincorporated county and the County would have <br /> land use jurisdiction over the uses of the property and has in fact granted a Special Use Permit for <br /> the mining operation. That was granted in 1981/82 and then amended in 1988. She doesn't feel at <br /> liberty to go into the legal issues as they could become relevant between the parties at a later point. <br /> Mr. Cattany then asked if the Board was to continue this item as a Technical Revision (TR) and <br /> therefore there wouldn't be a public hearing before this Board, will it still come before the County <br /> and does the County have the authority to change the specifications of the berm. Ms. Andrews <br /> stated that she couldn't answer that question definitively because of the future legal issues. The <br /> County did issue a and enforcement proceeding last fall on this matter and the County could <br /> conceivably require Western Mobile or CU to come through a land use approval process. After <br /> holding public hearings on that matter, the County learned that Western Mobile was filing an <br /> amendment and they assumed that the berm and the changes to the berm would squarely be a part of <br /> that amendment process. As it turns out,they found that wasn't the case. <br /> Mr. Humphries stated that the Division is not naive about the impact of the berm and the issues <br /> around the berm and the concern of the citizens in that area. However, their job is to enforce the <br /> laws and regulations as they understand them. When the operator contacted the Division and asked <br /> them whether it should be submitted as a TR or an amendment, the Division responded that it <br /> should be submitted as a TR based on the information that they supplied the Division. Mr. <br /> Humphries referred to the definition of an amendment which states the acreage of the affected land. <br /> The Division based it on the original map submitted which shows that the proposed area or changes <br /> to the berm, knowing full well that the berm was there before the mining operation was permitted, <br /> shows the area with modifications to be done on the berm were in the bounds of the affected land. <br /> Based upon that the changes were in the confines of the original affected land that it would fit the <br /> criteria (on that sections of the rules) which would then mean that wasn't in addition to the affected <br /> land and therefore would be a TR. <br /> The next test would be if there was a significant upon the proposed reclamation plan and the berm <br /> was already there. So therefore, it was already a feature and part of the operation and it was the <br />