Laserfiche WebLink
for example, and they also discussed the unpermitted work that was done from the applicant’s <br />access road onto the highway. So I wonder if you could address those issues, please. <br />DARROW: I can try to answer that question. The violation that they’re referring to <br />actually was listed as within our notice of violation. But this is actually an area that Department <br />of Transportation needs to work with the applicant on securing a permit for the driveway. In <br />regards to the trigger of Chapter 343, they’re saying that this project involves future use. So at <br />such time that they end up triggering Chapter 343 they may be required to submit an <br />environmental assessment for that particular use. So such time that they come in for this permit <br />driveway for whatever work was done -. The applicant might be able to go into more detail as to <br />what actually happened in regards to the paving of that particular area at the front of the <br />property. At this point we are looking at it as any type of law, regulation, rule that is required to <br />be complied with by the applicant. It’s covered under No. 9 of our condition which is our basic <br />condition that states that “The applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State, and <br />Federal laws, rules, regulations and requirements.” <br />SIRACUSA: So you’re saying that it’s sort of taken care of under that catchall <br />condition? <br />DARROW: Yes. <br />SIRACUSA: Yes? <br />DARROW: Correct, from our standpoint. It appears the Department of Transportation <br />also needs to take some sort of action for whatever is occurring in violation of their rules. <br />SIRACUSA: Then I hope that the applicant has taken due notice of this and that he has <br />a copy of those letters from the State Department of Transportation and will not let that slide <br />under the radar. <br />WATANABE: Do we have -? Yes, Mr. Rho. <br />th <br />RHO: On November 5 there’s a letter that the Planning Commission or the <br />Department received. It’s from Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP. It’s actually a letter of complaint, I <br />guess. It’s addressed to former Chairman Graham. And it outlines on page 2 a number of what <br />they consider violations. That’s 1, 2, 3, that’s up to number 6, 6 concerns that they had. And my <br />question is whether or not the Department responded in writing to this letter. <br />DARROW: If you can give me one second. This letter would have been part of <br />Agenda Item No. 1, is that correct? <br />RHO: I believe so. <br />WATANABE: Mr. Darrow, I believe that same letter is also in the materials for Agenda <br />Item 2. <br />DARROW: Okay, thank you. <br /> EXHIBIT A 3 <br /> <br /> <br />