Laserfiche WebLink
matter of inconvenience to continue tracking themdown. He would <br /> recommend that the board make her come in and pay for a permit on the <br /> work that was already done. since this was her first they could issue a <br /> written warning for her file. They could issue a fine because it was still <br /> considered a Title V variance. He thought that they could ultimately fine <br /> up to $1000,00, They also had the ability to revoke the license for some <br /> period of time. They were corning up to the end of the licensing year. They <br /> could hold her license for some period of time for the 2004 calendar year. <br /> They had several options. But, by revoking a license for sic months as a <br /> recommended time period would force her to take the test again. It would <br /> place her beyond the June timeline. It was something else that could be <br /> kept in mind for her to come back into compliance. She would obviously <br /> have the ability to conte back and request a hearing to appeal the board's <br /> decision. They obviously have several options. <br /> Mr. Santos recommended the following, send Ms, Zylinski a certified <br /> letter instructing her that she had one week from receipt of the certified <br /> letter to come in and pull the permit* This letter would serve as her first <br /> written warning of the unacceptability of her actions. if she did not come <br /> in within one week to pull the permit. They would issue a $300.00 fine and <br /> her installer's permit would be suspended for six months. <br /> Mr. Santos made a motion to advise Ms. Zylinski by certified mail that she <br /> would have to pull a permit for 94 Redbrook Road within in one week. If <br /> she failed to complete this task then she would be issued a $300.00 fine <br /> and a license suspension of six-months. IIs. Grady seconded the motion. <br /> Motion passed. <br /> . Proposed outside smoking enclosure - ache 's" <br /> Mr. Santos was going to call IVIS. Grady after he heard Mr. Halpern <br /> discussing his intentions at the selectmen's Meeting, The customers <br /> would be able to set their drinks outside while they smoke. They would <br /> not be served outside. His concern was based on the smoking regulation <br /> stating that the smoking areas could not be entirely enclosed. One of the <br /> problems with the current regulation is that they did not define the word <br /> "enclosure". If, Mr. Halpern was going to have his own security with <br /> people corning out of the parking lot and unable to gain entrance through <br /> that door. He was concerned about access to that enclosure. It couldn't <br /> come from a doorway out of the building, windows, ventilation or anything <br /> like that. People are going to have to cone out of the building, which he <br /> didn't think was legal, and then go in to an enclosure that was ten feet <br /> away. The new state regulations say the same thing. He hadn't spoken to <br /> Mr,, Harrington, But, he didn't want this to set a precedent for every other <br /> outside seating area in town. But, the outside seating area at Bobby <br /> B rn 's and Dino's have food being seared there. However, if food is being <br /> 9 <br />