Laserfiche WebLink
and asked the board what to do. The board informed hitt at that hearing in <br /> rnido-2 leo that this was a local issue and they should not submit it to the <br /> state. He withdrew the application on Mune ", 2000, from the DEP and <br /> they proceeded from there. Everything else fell into place perfectly. They <br /> did the Title V testing and inspection for the system emery year quarterly <br /> and submitted that to the state. There was also an instance in here that <br /> he had approved plans for submitting a revision for the Brickyard <br /> Marketplace to the southeast region requiring a tight tank with all of the <br /> original plans. Thea cone 2002 the DEP and whoever else was involved <br /> decided that this was not in compliance, They needed to cease and desist <br /> immediately, submit the answers to the revised plans to meet the current <br /> standards, which they did. The state has been dragging their feet for a <br /> whole year. They said they had the plans and then they lost therm. They re- <br /> submitted there. They didn't know what to do. Finally the Brickyard gets a <br /> document basically a complaint against therm for fines of up to <br /> $100,000.00. The DEP still has never approved the revised septic system. <br /> They have allowed them to install. <br /> Mr. Ball asked what was revised on the septic system that you were <br /> looking to get approved. <br /> Mr. Grotzke replied that they were proposing to modify the leaching area <br /> so that it has at least a minimum of five to six-feet of separation to <br /> groundwater. They had designed a pump system that would pump it up <br /> into a leaching area. Those are where they have the grade, <br /> Mr, Ball asked if it was a orae-foot mounded system, <br /> Mr. Grotzke replied that that corner of the property has a grade that <br /> climbs up and they were able to put the system Mn with five-foot of <br /> separation. <br /> Mr. Ball suggested that the board was okay with their concerns. <br /> Mr. Grotzke replied that when the board approved it, it was fine. But, <br /> again it obviously wasn't the state's agenda. He felt that it all boiled down <br /> to one person Steve Coors is not convinced that everything was open, <br /> legitimate and honestly pursued. Mr. Coors felt somehow that they were <br /> trying to do something inappropriate. Mr. Coors has not looked at and not <br /> approved all the technical corrections that he has said were technical <br /> issues. Instead they have chosen to litigate. That is where it currently <br /> stands. His client, Steve Berish is of course very upsets He was willing to <br /> do whatever it took as far as upgrading the system. He was willing to pay <br /> a $25,000.00 fine which was a negotiated fee and was willing to spend <br /> whatever it took upgrade the system not only changing the leaching area <br /> 18 ' <br />