1997-08-27_REVISION - M1981302 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Revised. 07/30/97 Minutes -July 23, 1997 Page 20 Cattany clarified that the solicitation that the Staff would be doing would be to determine that this action would not be detrimental (nor the solution) to the overall flood control management in the area which was then Seconded and Approved (For: Kraeger-Rovey, Ernst and Cattany) and (Opposed: Green and Paulin) (Cooley and Cohan were not present). The Board then Moved to handles this Item as an amendment which was Seconded and Not Approved(For: Ernst and Paulin) and (Opposed: Green, Kraeger-Rovey and Cattany). Mr. Paulin Moved for the Item to be handled as a pure TR which was Seconded and Not Approved(For: Ernst and Paulin)and (Opposed: Green, Kraeger-Rovey and Cattany). The amended motion failed. A discussion ensued and the Board opened the deliberation to ask Division's Council, Steve Brown, that since the Board voted down both an amendment and a TR, the operator doesn't have to do the berm. Mr. Brown answered that the Board needs to make some sort of decision and offered that this Item is neither a TR nor an amendment so therefore the company doesn't need to do this and can redraw it and that would be a decision. If the company wants to pursue it, the Board needs to decide whether it is a TR or an amendment. The Board then closed the Hearing and opened Board deliberation. The Board then Moved that the Item is neither a TR nor an amendment as it doesn't have anything to do with the Reclamation Plan therefore it is an Item that would not be dealt with by the Board which was Seconded. Mr. Cattany asked if the consequence of that would mean that the operator does not have to complete the berm or cannot do it. In other words, if the landowner still says they think it would be a good idea for the operator to do it, can they move forward to do it. The other members of the Board felt that it would fall into the realm of a Declaratory Order stating that they don't need a Permit. The Board continued their discussion. The Board opened the deliberation to ask the Division if it was in their mind that this Item was not in the jurisdiction of the Board. Mr. Humphries stated that based on the information that they had when they made the decision, the decision was based on an inspection, the operator was adding to the berm and they told the operator that they needed to do this as a TR. So based on the inspection and the information at that time, not knowing the history of what had taken place beforehand, they stated that the operator needed to submit a TR. Mr. Cattany confirmed that it had never entered their mind that this Item was not within the jurisdiction of the Board. Mr. Humphries replied no.