Laserfiche WebLink
Memorandum <br />September 9, 1980 <br />Pege Two <br />5. What Flatiron has done represents a variance from the requirements of <br />the Act, end a departure from the terms of their permit. Although this <br />Division may have approved such a variance (possibly w(th some changes) <br />had we been notified, the fact remains that prior approval is required. <br />This point panda to be strongly made. <br />In conclusion, than, although Flatiron acted to good faith, and apparently <br />did not understand what was expected of them, nevertheless a violation did <br />occur. Although tnfortnation presented by Flatiron is sufficient to Justify <br />a substantial reduction of the penalty, It is not sufficient to Justify vacating <br />the violation. <br />CP/Jm <br />