Laserfiche WebLink
F <br /> i, <br /> Eftl 300 <br /> Pauline: On advise of DEQEq they suggested that we issue a new notice of intent <br /> where it has been one year and six months from the original one. <br /> Kr. I urFph : We have been in contact with DEQE and that is not-the case. <br /> Mr. Reardon: I don't think you have to do that. I can see 'where DEQE would <br /> probably find that desirable because DEQE takes a very conservative approach as <br /> you know. And I am not knocking them, that is their job. The law gives you the <br /> power to impose whatever conditions that you desire to impose. <br /> Paul ine s Do you want to rake a motion? <br /> Charles 3 I would move that we extend this order of condition for a period of more <br /> than one year. I think that would be ample time to finish the building. <br /> a e: Does this warrant a review at this time? Is there just a. black or white yes <br /> or nog do we extend or don't extend? <br /> Mr. Reardon: Let's clarify it again in keeping in mind the fact that if you vote to <br /> extend the present order of conditions that does not give Mr. Ferguson carte blanche <br /> o place fill on wetlands or to do anything beyond the scope of ghat his plan shows. <br /> But he can't put the fill on the beach grass areas which apparently is very obectional <br /> at this point. <br /> wa s And that's ghat I'm saying. should we incorporate this? <br /> t r. Reardon: It might be redundant is what I'm suggesting. I would presume that <br /> r. Ferguson probably wouldn't have any objection t that because if he places these <br /> there he s' In am just as he is now. <br /> Would Asir. Ferguson have any objection to that being added as .a condit .onT There will <br /> be no fill placed on any of the beach gasses in the area* <br /> Mr. MM i certainly not* <br /> Mr. Reardon i - Your- order of conditions does -not. specifically recite that but what I ani <br /> suggesting--to you is- that the fact that it doesn-'t- recite it--doesn't-mean that he can <br /> do it. <br /> Charles t That would be a direct violation of the statute itself. <br /> Mr. Donahue s It is already incorporated in the condition. <br /> Mr Reardon t c`hat's 'why I made the comment it might be-redunda.nt. You can pint it in <br /> there but I don't think it will add or take away anything. It might make it-clearer <br /> and explicit. <br /> Pauline i Charlie had the motion, who will second it <br /> W i I'll second it. <br /> Pauline: All in favor? <br /> All in favor except Pauline. <br /> Mr. Rea rdon: Now that is your first problem. The second problem is to address the <br />