Laserfiche WebLink
facility and have 10,000 GPD themselves. That was true in the condominium <br /> statutes up to the 10,00 0 GP1; .because it was still considered one ownership under <br /> the condominium association. So it was considered one owner so that it did have t <br /> he aggregated once they reached that 10,000 GPD threshold. Their situation did not <br /> change. It was just that those properties could be treated individually but it would be <br /> up to that 10,000 GPD limit. He investigated the same thing to see if the properties <br /> themselves could have more than 10,000. They could not because the ownership is <br /> the definition for the facility. It was still under a single ownership. It was still the <br /> 1 OYOOO GPD threshold that the proponent would have to meet. <br /> Mr. Dalton n had three people that wanted to respond a little to what was said. He <br /> granted to address the issue of due diligence regarding Mr. Rich rdi. There were two <br /> key factors �h n he decided to Purchase the stock ire Planet Restaurant. The first <br /> was that they had decided last.Tune that they were not going to cut seats in the <br /> restaurants. The second was an option to purchase Michelle's Kitchen at the time. <br /> The option to.purchase would have eliminated 65 seats, which would have brought <br /> the total seats of the facility do below the 10,000 GPI . <br /> Ms. Grady recommended that they make a notion to close the meeting to public <br /> comment at this time. <br /> Mr. Ball made a notion to close the meeting to public comment. Ms. Grady <br /> seconded the motion. M tion passed. <br /> i Mr. Ball continued by stated that Mr. McGrath was here tonight to discuss the septic <br /> system plans. The plan was here and was it under 10,000 GPI . <br /> Mr. McGrath confirmed that the plans were present and under 10,000 GPD. <br /> Mr. Ball asked if they had a denitrification system. <br /> Mr. McGrath stated that they included a denitrification system. <br /> Mr. Ball stated that this was 2005 arra they already had an application in for 2005. <br /> At this time they were legal applications. They had reviewed the plans. <br /> Ms. Grady stated that there. as a little discrepancy on the seats. <br /> Mr. Ball interrupted IVIS. Grady and stated that he didn't want to get into.that right <br /> now. At this time he made a motion to approve the plans for 10,000 GPD for the <br /> complete facility not individually. IVIS. Grady seconded the motion. Motion passed. <br /> Nis. Warden interjected that this was pending the DEP concurrence. <br /> Mr. Harrington confirmed that that was correct as fear as the issuance ofthe <br /> installation permit. It had to have the IEP concurrence. <br />