Laserfiche WebLink
' r r <br /> cooperate with hirme He was going to be forced into spending $300,000.00 <br /> in a treatment plant. Everything would end up in litigation at that point. He <br /> felt that this session was well worth it and met the requirements for an <br /> executive session* Mr. Haijar had already mentioned that this would be <br /> tied up in court. Attorney Dalton came in and provided him with the same <br /> letter that he had,presented at previous meeting. He reviewed the entire <br /> matter and the positions of Ir. Hai jar, the restaurant owners and the <br /> board of health. Mr. Hajjar has the option of trying the nitrogen loading <br /> calculations. The enforcement from the board of health was originally <br /> seat to him. so everything started with Mr. Hajjar purchasing the property. <br /> There was money lett from the sale, which relieved Mr. carbonneau of any <br /> exposure. He purchased the properties with the restaurants at their <br /> existing flows. He basically bought it as is; knowing ghat was there and <br /> ghat the restaurants had;-lir. Hajjar requesting the seats to be reduced <br /> after the fact was a secondary point. Whatever potential mistakes the <br /> previous beard members had crude was secondary to the enforcement <br /> order that was originally issued to Mr. Hajjar. Again something Mr. Hajjar <br /> was told by Merrill Associates, which was also mentioned in Attorney <br /> Dalton's letter in the file. Merrill Associates stated to Mr. Najjar that the <br /> property could be put into the discharge permit program because of the- <br /> existing flows on the property, Mr. Hajjar knew that before It was <br /> discovered that the board of health hadpotentially made mistakes in <br /> previous permitting. so for hire to request the board to reduce their <br /> numbers is secondary, Will it be a significant point later on in court? <br /> Maybe He didn't know? As far as their intent to get him to comply should <br /> still lie with him.,, In the DEVs denial letter it stated that Deer crossing as <br /> a condominium in 1995 eras given an exemption of the aggregate and the <br /> aggregation of Title V. They were not considered as far as being over the <br /> limit of 1 O,000 GPD. They were still treated as individual properties, But, <br /> the DEP's letter stated that because of the board's ruling to increase the <br /> flow after the March of 1995 deadline. It basically kicked him out of the <br /> exemption because there was the basic,increase in flow-over the 10,000 <br /> GPD limit, When they opened up other.reserve areas, the other two pits to <br /> the different buildings. He couldn't find anywhere in Title V that says that <br /> if you increase flog you lose that aggregation. He needed that have that <br /> explained to him because he did not understand that. But, he did not feel <br /> it was up to hire or the board to pursue that avenue. It was up to Mr& <br /> McGrath as the engineer representative of Mr. Haljar to question that. He <br /> thought Mrs Ha <br />