Laserfiche WebLink
simply follow those obligations, which should be enough <br />insurance as far as their lenders are concerned. He did not <br />see why we have to go out on a limb with some proposed rate. <br />Attorney Micale then cross examined Mr. Duynslager as <br />to his qualifications for designing a wastewater treatment <br />plant and as to whether the plant he proposed would conform <br />to County and DER requirements. <br />Mr. Duynslager stated that the plant proposed would <br />meet all county, state and federal requirements, and gave <br />his background in detail, noting that he -has a civil <br />engineering degree and has been responsible for building <br />over 300 million dollars worth of wastewater plants although <br />he has not actually signed the plans. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked Mr. Duynslager if he felt the <br />proposed plant could fit on the property and meet setback <br />requirements at the present site. <br />Mr. Duynslager stated that it has been his experience <br />that the setback requirements are a requirement of the <br />development and not necessarily the requirement of every <br />individual ownership within that development. He noted that <br />if you have a condo complex, one doesn't have side yards <br />from another. In addition, you will find package treatment <br />plants in many condo projects on their properties, and the <br />plant itself was generally considered part of the <br />development and not a separate entity. He, therefore, did <br />believe the plants would comply with any setbacks. <br />Intervener White asked Mr. Duynslager what are normal <br />rates for a wastewater plant to charge its users. <br />Attorney Micale stated that he would have to object <br />because rates differ as to geographical areas and different <br />types of operations. <br />Intervener White believed the point is that the rates <br />proposed are far in excess of anything this state has <br />experienced so far. <br />54 <br />JAN 18 1984 BOOK 55 mrL--859 <br />