04 June 2013 DEP Procedural Order 6: Kelley’s Motion for Extension Denied

denied-customIn a surprise move barely 30 minutes after Paul Kelley reiterated his desire for an extension, DEP issued Procedural Order #6 denying Pleasant Pond Mill LLC’s recent motion for an additional extension to the current comment period. It was sent to the Service list by Mark Margerum in Beth Callahan’s absence.  The order was signed by Heather Parent and includes an updated Service List. To summarize:

“The Department finds that the potential future inspection of the Dam by MEMA or any other dam inspector is not sufficient reason to delay these proceedings. The Department further finds that PPM has not established sufficient justification for a second extension of the comment period.“

This notwithstanding a last-minute desperate attempt (complete with veiled threat) from Paul Kelley, sent by him to the Service list almost exactly 1/2 hour before the release of Procedural Order 6. In his email cover letter addressed to Dawn Hallowell, Kelley states (emphasis mine):

“The June 7 (this Friday) deadline fast approaches for party comments on MEMA’s clearly incomplete/erroneous post-hearing position. PPM respectfully asks for an expeditious answer from you or Ms. Parent, obviating the need for PPM to either comment without relevant data, or to take other immediately available steps to ensure that issues of safety are properly addressed. Thank you.”

Well that sure sounds like a veiled threat to me.  I wonder what “other immediately available steps” are? I’m sure we’ll find out. Anyways here is Kelley’s reply to my objection to his extension request:

Kelley continues his rant about dam safety, pulling out all the stops, and ends with a request for a “timely answer” to his motion for extension. Well he got it, 30 minutes later. I’d call that timely 🙂 Clearly, DEP doesn’t agree with him. I think I may move Kelley’s reply to my objection into a separate post so I can give it more attention.

FYI I separated out the Service List from the Procedural Order and I am making it available here for those of you who with a program and want to stay current 🙂

3 thoughts on “04 June 2013 DEP Procedural Order 6: Kelley’s Motion for Extension Denied”

  2. Claryview

    CORRECTION to PPM reply to Fergusson objection to extension request

    In a footnote to the reply, Paul Kelley accuses George Fergusson of cancelling my efforts to see if PPM would allow CLA to sponsor an engineering study of the dam with the goal to participate in repair of the dam (as any good neighbor would). THIS IS NOT TRUE. In fact, the reason I terminated the discussion was; (1) the discussion to date was preliminary, LIMITED to doing an engineering study of the dam, and had not reached a level where it was appropriate to get CLA involved; (2) Paul Kelly in his request for extension on May 30, 2013 included me as an “intervener” which was clearly out of bounds of our discussion. Because he did that without my knowledge or permission, I decided to end any discussions with him until after the current dam issues are settled.
    David Hodsdon

    1. George Fergusson Post author

      Paul Kelley was a fool to think he could get away with using his talks with you as an excuse for asking for a delay in the processing of the water level petition. Did he forget that you are a petition signer?

Comments are closed.