DCPCUP-0000-00987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• May 26, 1992 Page 2 6. Too frequent, too vague (what is being inspected exactly?) ; what makes a PE any more qualified to judge DNR standards, zoning, CUP requirements? Some things can only be done by a PE but zoning and CUP requirements are not among them. PE inspection should be limited to physical integrity of the facility and rest should be left to the staff we hire to do this work . 7 . DNR says not necessary and does not recommend in this case; this could be very costly to the applicant; if using existing wells , each should be established as being up to code prior to inclusion in the network. 8 . If the committee adopts this recommendation, there should be language along the following lines : "Applicant shall execute a contract in which he agrees to undertake any remediation, including contruction of a new structure or modification of an existing physical structure, which may be necessary due to any pollution which WisDNR or a hydrological engineer designated by the County identifies as coming from applicant ' s operations. Applicant shall furnish a bond in sum of $50, 000 as security for such undertaking. " The entity for determining the source of pollution should not be restricted to the DNR since there is no guarantee that the DNR will undertake this role and further, assuming it does, DNR as a government agency is subject to a complex set of regulations and court reviews which might -- - unduly hamper our ability to cure any pxoblem. 9 . The town should understand that it is still the committee ' s discretion on whether changes in the CUP will be granted. Further, to make sure that we have retained the ability to make changes, the CUP should be limited in term. ( "This CUP is for a two-year term which can be renewed on such terms and conditions as the County shall then determine to be in the public interest. " ) ZON904a