Laserfiche WebLink
0128 '00 00:51 ID:LANIERFAk380D <br />Mr. Routten <br />June 4, 1997 <br />Page 2 <br />FAX: <br />PACE 2 <br />the professional certification. If some guy's "reasonable" <br />suggestion is going to be a guideline for permit review by a <br />person without professional certification, it should be <br />included in your rege. Whether I win or lose on this <br />question, I believe that this is a principle that should be <br />looked at seriously. <br />98. The Division asked for another copy of an Exhibit in our <br /> permit application. I sent it in the same condition as the <br /> original submission to the Division and it was not accepted. <br /> To begin with certification of ever non-written submission <br />~' <br />~ in the permit ap~ica£en is a w <br />e of time and effort. It <br />ae <br />t <br />~~ _ <br />_ <br />_ <br />is to~unnecessary. The rege should be changed to <br />pv''~' ~ include design items and leave out infor,nation items and <br />~bi`~1~"~ other non-critical items. In the case of this exhibit, I <br />'~t ~, did not do the original design and I did not chafe <br />~, aythin°~I_ do nabbelieve that T have to professionally <br />~!~ certifLr it. This is also similar to the issue that came up <br /> with certifying roads. <br />102. This has to do with diversion of a small area above a refuse <br /> <br />/ •i~,~{'O <br />~//~ pile. What is the expression about straining a gnat but <br />swallowing a camel? There are some limits to many of the <br />regulations and i believe that this is one of them. Then to <br />1-~yb ~~' <br />~ 7 my surprise, the suggestion was to install a diversion for <br />the small area by building it on refuse, which does not meet <br />~ <br />~ the guidelines. <br />103. a. - This has to do with dr~~nage design for roads. The <br /> roads in question are small dirt roads which are seldom used <br /> and are primarily existing roads that we have acquired <br /> permission to use. i do not believe that detailed drainage <br /> design is neceaea The r,Qads inn cuestion are Light use <br />road 1 and ccess road 3.~"The'~eT~~wo roads have been a <br /> problem as far as duty designation because the rege do not ? <br /> e~ecifically allow leaving lightallow leaving li4ht duty roads and surfacing ie <br /> required on access roads. They are someone else's roads <br /> which need to be Left in place and surfacing and major <br /> drainage control are not feasible. I would consider <br /> <br />