Laserfiche WebLink
4L <br /> w <br /> basis to enforce, the owner and the operator, to come into compliance <br /> with Title V. He felt that they should also come into Title V because it <br /> means the "System". They already have enforcement orders against Mr. <br /> Hajjar and Hajjar Management to upgrade the system. He felt that they <br /> could extend this to the operators. For one, the food establishment <br /> license was a board of health license. so they generate waste because of <br /> that license. They wer 'generating through,a board of health permit. They <br /> were also through 15.300 Nur ber 4 they also had the enforcement ability <br /> to extend that enforcement to the operator also, It really didn't matte to <br /> the board because of wham they have cited therm for Regulation 70. What <br /> they care about is having the environment getting better water quality. <br /> Right now he believed that they did have the ability to go after the owner <br /> and the operator for enforcement through Title V but it also extended to <br /> their local regulation, The letter was very clear and concise that there <br /> were already established agreement between the owner and operator as , <br /> far as the master deed. This was good guidance for the board. But, they <br /> did not have to go by this information. It was merely explaining the <br /> agreement between these two parties, That was his interpretation of this <br /> information and application of the enforcement. <br /> Mr. Bail asked for any comments from the board members, (There were no <br /> comments at this point in time.) Mr, Ball thea opened the meeting up to <br /> public comment on this agenda item. <br /> Mr. dalton introduced himself as an attorney representing Ir, iichardi <br /> and carbols Grille and Bar. He-appreciated the opportunity to be here* He <br /> would like to through out their position on the point that was just made. <br /> He didn't really address that issue in the letter that he just gave to the <br /> board because he felt that it was a different section that applied to <br /> condominiums. He would like to point out to the board that if they took a <br /> look at the language of 15.300 section 4, "subsequent any person owning, <br /> operating a facility". if you thea went to the definition section, "an owner <br /> is the person who has legal title to the facility.' They Mate that the legal <br /> title was within the condominium association and not in Mr. l ichardi. H <br /> owns a unit on the premises. But, doesn't have control over the severer. <br /> The definition for operator"is a person who alone or together with <br /> another has charge or control of any system." He doesn't have control or <br /> charge of the system, So based on that reason and the definitions of Title <br /> V he was not an operator either. That was essentially that he would like <br /> o make in addition. Now in the letter that he presented he tried pretty <br /> dearly to state Mrs Richard! position that this was ars issue between Mr. <br /> Richard! and Mr. Hajjar. It was an issue of an assessment within the <br /> condominium as one of the units of the condominium. Building A is served <br /> by a septic system. There were fifteen units on this system. Only one was <br /> of the fifteen was Mr. Richardi's unit, It was a common area at the <br /> At. <br />