Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> fi <br /> 1 <br /> 4 <br /> Mr. Harrington interjected that when Mr. earbonneau carne and <br /> requested this from the board there was a reversal of numbers here. At <br /> that point and still even with his calculations have It as 2460 that were <br /> available when they figured for these outside seats* This was done when <br /> Mr. carbonneau had requested the outside seating. Unfortunately Mr, <br /> carbonneau used 2640 rather than 2460. That gave therm 200 extra GPD, <br /> which ended up providing there more seats. Just the reversal of those <br /> to numbers ended up with an increase in the seating. They were <br /> looking at having too many seats. The 61 seats at 35 GPD, they were <br /> over by approximately 150 GPD when the board made this approval over <br /> what was actually for leaching unknown to the board. The board <br /> approved this in not finding the error in the reversal of those numbers. <br /> But, it gave them some additional seats. <br /> Mr. Dalton asked Mr. Harrington if he had the same page two of that <br /> document with the calculations. It showed 70-seats x 35 GILD would be <br /> 2450, which would 10 GPD below. That would be the correct figure <br /> making TO seats the appropriate number there with the correct <br /> calculations. It would be devastating to his client;if they had to drop it to <br /> 51 or 58 seats. To have him bear the entire burden of the loss of seats <br /> with the summer season for a restaurant down here would b <br /> devastating to him. To lose that number of seats and drop below the 70. <br /> The whole idea was that if they could have the additional seating outside <br /> urea they would give up seams inside. The entire burden of this reduction <br /> was attempting to be dropped on carbo's without any justification. <br /> Mr. Harrington interjected that an two other occasions though Mr. <br /> Richardi exceeded the number of seats even at TO or 72. They had <br /> f <br /> documentation to support that it was a considerable number of seats in <br /> the facility. <br /> 4 - <br /> Mr. Ball asked if he was issued a warning. <br /> Mr. Harrington replied that he was not sure as far what enforcement they <br /> took at that time, But, they did document the increase in the seating-. He <br /> believed he was seat a notice. He would have to dig out the actual <br /> wording in the notice. <br /> Mr, Dalton agreed that there may have been one notice but he would fully <br /> comply with the 70 seats that were approved, They also had the actual <br /> flows not the design flows, but the actual flows from the water <br /> department,. Those show that since he had been separately metered his <br /> actual use of water had gone down. He was using less water. <br /> Mr* Ball asked if he knew what that number was. <br />