|
could not agree to that. So the next step was to ask the Applicant to agree to extending the
<br />th
<br />processing deadline to November 15 so that they could go to the site again. Is that all correct?
<br />SULLIVAN: That’s correct.
<br />th
<br />RHO: That’s my interpretation of it. And that November 9 date, they saw a
<br />puddle in the middle of the road, and I’m saying the middle. I’m not sure where the puddle
<br />exactly was. That was approximately 29 feet from the front property line. And somewhere I
<br />read that that water was certified or determined to be rain water. So, my question is if you stop
<br />at that point and don’t read further, what would have been the outcome or the decision made by
<br />the Department? And I’m asking you to speculate, but -.
<br />YUEN: I believe we would have exempted the construction of the house on the
<br />site with certain and protective conditions for the environment. Had, and I said this a minute
<br />ago, if there had not been the, if we had continued, if there were not the ability to get a certified
<br />shoreline, we wouldn’t have made him, told him to get one; and we would have had to make a
<br />decision based on the information that we had in front of us. And that information, I don’t know
<br />if it would have included, and I can’t tell you right now whether it would have included a 15-foot
<br />front yard setback or a 20-foot front yard sideback.
<br />RHO: Well, what would require a 20 foot if, in fact, let’s say the puddle was sea
<br />water and it was 29 feet. So you add 29 feet plus another 15 would still give you 40 or more
<br />than 40, right? Is my addition correct?
<br />YUEN: Right. The rules do allow the, the setback is a minimum, and the rules do
<br />allow the Department to require a larger than minimum shoreline setback. And I’m sorry, I
<br />can’t -.
<br />th
<br />RHO: Well, I understand that, but I guess it’s like something happens on the 15,
<br />ththththth
<br />16, 17, 18 or 19 or 20 or whatever, that impacts a decision that should have been made on
<br />ththththththth
<br />the 14 – 15, 14, 13, 11, 10, and including the 9. And if the decision had been made on
<br />ththth
<br />the 9 or 10 or 11, and the letter written, I mean, it would just be speculation on my part that it
<br />would be that you could have your 15-foot setback, it’ll meet the 40, in fact, it’s a little bit over
<br />40, go with it. I don’t know. I’m just saying that the way this thing is written, if you stopped at
<br />that point, then, I would speculate that they, the Applicant would have received approval.
<br />YUEN: Yes, I do think that the, there would have been an approval. I’m not sure
<br />what the exact conditions would have been for, would have been for the house. And so I can’t
<br />tell you if it would have been approved with a pod and a bridge. I can’t tell you if it was
<br />approved with a 15 or the 20. There would have been, there would have been an aerobic system.
<br />I’m not sure that that’s a Department of Health requirement. We have been putting it in into the
<br />approvals that we have. But, yes, that is. And I said this much not that long ago that if we, if the
<br />opportunity had not been there to get a certified shoreline, we would have had to, we would have
<br />made a decision based on the survey that was given to us. And rather than saying, no, you can’t
<br />build a house or, actually we couldn’t have said, no, you can’t build a house, rather than send it
<br />to the Commission as a Major Permit, I believe we would have issued an exempt determination
<br />with some conditions to protect the environment.
<br />28
<br />
<br />
|