Laserfiche WebLink
Revised: 07/30/97 • Minutes-July 23, 1997 • Page 15 <br /> Division's understanding that the proposed change was simply to allow certification to allow <br /> sufficient free board for certification by FEMA as a flood control structure. The overall intent of the <br /> proposed change was to add material to certify the berm which would not affect the reclamation <br /> plan. Their concern was whether or not the change would result in an stable or unstable structure or <br /> if could be reclaimed properly. For those reasons they decided it should be a TR. In terms of public <br /> comment and review, they don't believe that is jeopardized because even though a TR doesn't <br /> require notification to the public of the change, this particular change has been well noticed and <br /> publicized. Therefore, if someone objects to the Division's decision in terms of modification to the <br /> berm, then they can bring it before the Board as an appeal to the Division's decision and the Board <br /> can hear that objection in a full public hearing. <br /> Actions by the Board could be that the Board could deny the approval to increase the height of the <br /> berm and that would then require the operator to deal with other agencies in terms of certification of <br /> the structure. Mr. Long stated that the Board needed to decide on the gray area that has been <br /> alluded to by Ms. Harrison which is whether or not the berm is or is not or ever was, a specifically <br /> permitted part of the operation or was it a feature that was there and by virtue of the operation was <br /> just included in the permitted area. That will be a basic detemunation of whether it is a TR or an <br /> amendment. The berm is within the Permit boundary by virtue of the map because there was <br /> activity on each side of it, however according to the letter sent out by the Division in 1982, the <br /> Division specifically stated that they did not consider it to be a permitted feature. The Division <br /> confers with other agencies in regards to issues that may relate to them and they cooperate in any <br /> means they can to ensure that adequate measures are covered. <br /> Jeff Schwarz, representative for Western Mobile, introduced himself and David M. Packard, <br /> Hutchinson, Black and Cook who is the agent for CU and whom is also involved with Flatiron (the <br /> prior owner of the property). Mr. Schwarz went on to state that Mr. Packard has a lot of history <br /> with the berm and will be taking the lead. Mr. Packard asked for Larry Lang to speak before the <br /> Board. <br /> Mr. Lang explained that he has been involved with the South Boulder flood issues since 1969 and <br /> knows a lot of history. He was questioned by FEMA in response to the Joint Budget Committee as <br /> to the flood hazard and their concern is what is the risk to others,either with or without a levee. Mr. <br /> Lang has issued two letters in October on the subject site and has had meetings with both the <br />