Laserfiche WebLink
Revised: 07/06/97 Minutes-June 26-27, 1997 Page 31 <br /> application review process for the majority of applications received". Clearly, this Amendment <br /> application is very typical of the type of applications they receive. Nor has the Division had to <br /> enlist experts outside the Division to evaluate the application beyond what is typically done, such as <br /> the SEO. <br /> CRS 34-32.5-115(2), in part states, "In the event of complex application, serious unforeseen <br /> circumstances, or significant snow cover on the affected land that prevents a necessary on-site <br /> inspection, the Board may reasonably extend the tie in which a initial decision must be made by 60 <br /> days". Again, none of the criteria stated in CRS 34-32.5-115(2) that would be necessary for the <br /> Board to extend the Hearing up to an additional 60 days, exist. <br /> Therefore, the Division believes the Board must act upon this application today. According to CRS <br /> 34-32.5-115(2), "A final decision on the application shall be made within 120 days after the receipt <br /> of the application.". This application was "filed" with the Division on March 6, 1997. The <br /> Division's recommendation was due on June 6, 1997. The 120a' day for a final decision, since it is <br /> not a complex application, is July 7, 1997. If the Board does not act on the application today, the <br /> application will be automatically approved on July 7, 1997 per the provision of CRS 34-32.51 l5(2). <br /> Finally, if the Board decides that the berm must be included in this Amendment Application, the <br /> Board cannot approve this application today. hi that event, the Board would have to deny the <br /> Application, or the applicant could either withdraw the application or ask the Board to continue the <br /> matter by waiving his right to a decision by the 120d' day. <br /> Whether proposed changes to the berm,which have been styled as a TR and are not now included in <br /> that Amendment Application, properly constitute pan of the Amendment is being considered today. <br /> Allen Sorenson will address the technical issues as to why the berm, in the Divisions' opinion, does <br /> not have to be considered part of this Amendment Application. Mr. Humphries will address the <br /> administrative decision as to why the Division considers the berm to be a TR. <br /> An amendment, by definition, is any change that "increases the acreage to be affected or otherwise <br /> revised the Reclamation Plan" (CRS 34-32-112(7)(a)). The proposed TR does not satisfy either <br /> amendment triggering criteria. Second, the proposed TR does not request a change in the post <br /> mining land use nor does it propose a change in the Reclamation Plan. Since no modification to the <br /> Reclamation Plan nor the affected area was proposed by the TR, the Division did not err in its <br /> decision to process the proposed revision to the berm as a TR. Third, according to the Division <br />