Laserfiche WebLink
• 0 <br /> Revised: 07/30/97 Minutes-July 23, 1997 Page 19 <br /> Mr. Cattany asked Western Mobile if they would be comfortable in participating in a long-term plan <br /> for the berm. Mr. Schwarz responded that they are trying to do what is best very everyone involved <br /> and will accept either a short- or long-term solution, whatever is needed. David Plummer, Vice <br /> President of Western Mobile, spoke up and stated that he concurred with Mr. Schwarz's statements. <br /> Ed McDowell, representative for CU; Scott Patten, Flatiron Sand & Gravel; Mike Hart and Dallas <br /> Glasson of Western Mobile and Jeffrey S. Lipton, University of Colorado were present in the <br /> audience for the Hearing. <br /> The Board then closed the Hearing and opened Board deliberation. The Board then began a lengthy <br /> discussion in regards to this Item. Mr. Paulin Moved for this Item to be handled as a TR which was <br /> Seconded. A discussion ensued and the Board opened the deliberation to ask Staff the difference <br /> between a TR process and an amendment process. Mr. Long responded that from a procedural <br /> perspective it involves notification, publication and time frames. With a TR, the Division will <br /> receive information from the company which they would need to make a determination on either to <br /> approve it, not approve it, or approve it with conditions. At that point, it would come back before <br /> the Board. With an amendment, the process starts all over again with more public involvement and <br /> the ability to receive more expert testimony. Mr. Cattany then asked if one of the conditions could <br /> be that what the operator is proposing is consistent with what would come out of the larger study. <br /> Mr. Long clarified that the revision is approved with the condition that if additional information <br /> comes to light at such and such date, implementation is not completed until such date. Again, that <br /> can be appealed. <br /> Ms. Kraeger-Rovey spoke up and stated that she is of the mind that this is TR rather than an <br /> amendment because Western Mobile had reclaimed this site, graded the road, reseeded and <br /> whatever. After they sell it to CU, why doesn't CU rebuild the berm. Western Mobile is trying to <br /> complete some of this work done early. After reclamation occurs, the Division or the Board does <br /> not have a say in what is done with the site by way of a parking lot or any type of store. So what is <br /> done with the berm now, doesn't matter after reclamation and what is unfortunate is that Western <br /> Mobile has volunteered to do it. <br /> The Board then closed the Hearing and opened Board deliberation. Mr. Ernst proposed to Amend <br /> the previous motion by suggesting that the Board require the Staff to solicit input from all affected <br /> parties that in the Staffs opinion should be consulted prior to making their decision on the TR. Mr. <br />