Laserfiche WebLink
days, well \Mthin the February 15th window mandated by DWF and within the time <br /> frame that the proponents have to line up a contractor. <br /> Bob gave his thoughts as follows: <br /> a He is uncomfortable with the request because the matter could have been <br /> reconciled already if the proponents had followed repeated suggestions to appeal our <br /> original decision for the one4ime dredging and use the established appeal and/or <br /> variance procedures to attempt to secure a more favorable outcome to them. <br /> b Point 2 above gives him great concern. The statute clearly talks to the emergency <br /> (emphasis his), the connotation being a current one. He believes that to equate an <br /> emergency that is likely to occur four months from now for the situation that now exists, <br /> is tantamount to creating new law. That-is not our prerogative. He believes such <br /> decisions more properly belong tit the net level of issuing authority, the DEP. <br /> c Nonetheless, if this Commission decides to grant an emergency certificate: Bob will <br /> not oppose it, but he recommends the following conditions if it is approved: <br /> This emergency work be contingent upon our receipt of a copy of the Array Corps <br /> of Engineers' approval. <br /> 4 <br /> 0 Any further dredging beyond this one-time emergency approval be subject to a new <br /> IOI filing and a final Order of Conditions or a DEQ' variance, because the one-time <br /> permission to dredge is enshrined in law right now, and he can't see us getting <br /> another emergency request next year for the same thing. If they make another <br /> request, we'll have to consider it, and if they don't like our decision at that point, <br /> i t low the rocedure �rhich he recommended t� ears o. <br /> they should fol g <br /> i Elliot Rosenberg said after listening to everybody's opinions that he agrees that we <br /> have to do our best, thought it may not be complete, to solve the problem. Therefore <br /> he made a motion that we grant an emergency certificate to allow the dredging, subject <br /> to that certificate being issued upon our receipt of a permit for the dredging from the <br /> Army Corps of Engineers in light of the fact that we have a letter from there dated <br /> February 5, 2002 which says that they would not permit any further dredging until <br /> certain things were done. Elliot said he didn't have to go into the details of these things <br /> becauso he assumes that everyone present knows what they were. The Corps} <br /> statement was this was a one-time dredging and would not be done again. He agrees <br /> that the permit should specifically state that it is a one-time permit and any further <br /> dredging beyond this emergency approval will be subject to a new Notice of Intent, an <br /> Order of Conditions or a DEP variance. <br /> Michael Talbot said he echoes Bob's statement about being uncomfortable with this <br /> request. It was clear when the previous dredging was permitted that we were expecting <br /> that alternatives would be presented, and the very point that we made, which is that this <br /> particular situation with the spit and with the creek is not viable to continuing dredging, <br /> 4 ' <br /> c <br />