Source: Vermont Economic Development Dept. 9.9.9. The Douglas Administration is reminding people who may want to apply for an Act 250 permit that they can reduce the risk and upfront costs associated with the process by seeking to have the most problematic aspects of a project reviewed first. Rule 21 of Act 250, which allows a District Commission to conduct a review of less than all of a project’s Act 250 criteria in exchange for a minimum filing fee, has been on the books a long time, but is rarely used, officials said.“The economy is showing some signs of recovery, but in these uncertain times nobody wants to unnecessarily invest scarce capital without knowing the magnitude of risk involved in obtaining a reasonable return,” said Tayt Brooks, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Economic, Housing and Community Development.“With this in mind, we’d like to remind anyone who is considering applying for an Act 250 permit that there is a rule in place to provide for partial reviews of proposed projects, thereby reducing the cost associated with risk,” he said.Under Act 250, the state’s development control law, proposed development projects must satisfy 10 criteria including impacts on the environment; traffic; local schools and services; and aesthetics.The fee for such projects generally is $4.75 per $1,000 construction cost, meaning a $100,000 project would cost $475, while a $1 million project would cost $4,750.But under Rule 21, an applicant can ask a District Commission to review a project against a particularly uncertain or potentially contentious criterion by paying only $150 instead of the standard fee.“This allows an applicant to avoid the risk – and cost – of preparing and submitting an entire permit application only to find out that one aspect of the project is going to be an insurmountable obstacle,” Brooks said.If project receives approval under the criterion or criteria, the rest of the proposal could be heard and the full application fee paid later, at which time the less contentious criteria would be reviewed. This would also allow developers to lay the groundwork for projects now, and then begin construction when the economic situation has become more favorable and financing more available.The partial findings and conclusions are valid for a period of time (usually up to five years) and are binding unless appealed within 30 days. “If the District Commission rules against an applicant, they can appeal the decision; modify the project; or decide the project was not worth investing any more funds, having lost only a minimal Act 250 fee and the cost of preparing a partial application,” Brooks said.For questions pertaining to Rule 21, interested parties may contact their local District Coordinator or Brooks at (802) 828-5218 or at firstname.lastname@example.org(link sends e-mail) -30-
71 Robertson Place, Fig Tree Pocket has great water views. Picture: realestate.com.auThere’s nothing quite as soothing as staring out across a water vista.Whether that’s the ocean, a lake or the river, water views are pretty hard to beat. We’ve found three of the best water views currently on the market. Jason Adcock from Adcock Prestige has a four-bedroom Brisbane riverfront home at 71 Robertson Place, Fig Tree Pocket, listed for sale. The water views at 55 Lather Rd, Bellbowrie are very impressive. Picture: realestate.com.auThe five-bedroom home is listed through Mark Shorrock from RE/MAX – Profile Real Estate.It sits on 1.04ha of land and comes complete with 50m of river frontage. The home offers four living areas, a lounge, family, dining and rumpus room.The property also has a championship tennis court and a practice wall, as well as a professional golf putting and chipping green. The Brisbane River view at 71 Robertson Place, Fig Tree Pocket. Picture: realestate.com.auThe home sits on an elevated 3535sq m site, which includes a tennis court and swimming pool. It has 45m of south-facing river frontage.The two-level home was designed by award-winning architect Denis Mullins.Amenities include an outdoor terrace with an in-built barbecue, while inside is a games/media room and a bar with industrial washers and fridges.More from newsMould, age, not enough to stop 17 bidders fighting for this home5 hours agoBuyers ‘crazy’ not to take govt freebies, says 28-yr-old investor5 hours agoThere is a seven-car garage and the home is surrounded by sub-tropical gardens with water features. The home is at the end of a cul-de-sac.If being surrounded by water appeals, then a property at 8 Cowry Close, Tangalooma, could be the perfect one for you.Listed for $1.165 million, the eight-bedroom home is being marketed through Julie Vines from Queensland Sotheby’s International Realty. Plenty of water views from 8 Cowry Close at Tangalooma. Picture: realestate.com.auThe property is within the separate private estate attached to the Tangalooma Wild Dolphin Resort.From its hilltop position, the home has views over the beach. The deal includes a diesel Pajero 4WD and an electric golf buggy.It already returns an average $90,000 a year net.Alternatively, if it is lots of land and absolute riverfront you are after, a home at 55 Lather Rd, Bellbowrie, will be auctioned today at 3.30pm.
A court filing discloed Monday shows that Big Ten Conference presidents voted 11-3 to postpone the football season until spring, bringing some clarity to a key question raised in a lawsuit brought by a group of Nebraska football players.The vote breakdown was revealed in the Big Ten’s response to the lawsuit.The court documents did not identify how each school voted, but a person familiar with the outcome told The Associated Press that Iowa, Nebraska and Ohio State voted against postponing the fall football season. The person spoke Monday on condition of anonymity because the Big Ten was not planning on making the specifics of its vote public.The Big Ten announced Aug. 11 it would move its football season from fall to spring because of health risks associated with the coronavirus pandemic. The Pac-12 and other smaller leagues followed suit. The eight football players are seeking the reinstatement of a fall season.Their lawsuit in Lancaster County District Court contends, among other things, the players are losing a chance for development, exposure for a possible pro career and won’t be able to market themselves to eventually capitalize on name, image and likeness revenue opportunities.The Big Ten filing was a response in opposition to the players’ motion for expedited discovery. The filing said the 11-3 vote “far exceeded” the 60% threshold the Big Ten requires. The filing also said the Big Ten based its decision on multiple factors, including the medical advice and counsel of the Big Ten Task Force for Emerging Infectious Diseases and the Big Ten Sports Medicine Committee.Listed as plaintiffs are Brant and Brig Banks, Alante Brown, Noa Pola-Gates, Jackson Hannah, Garrett Nelson, Ethan Piper and Garrett Snodgrass.The players’ attorney, Mike Flood, declined immediate comment, saying he needed to read the filing.The lawsuit says the Big Ten’s decision-making process was “flawed and ambiguous” and called into question whether the league’s Council of Presidents and Chancellors formally voted on the decision. The medical studies used to make the decision, the lawsuit says, were not relevant to the circumstances of college-age athletes and did not take into account school safety measures.The decision not to play fall football has created a firestorm in Big Ten country, fanned by the fact the ACC, Big Ten and SEC are pushing ahead with plans to start their seasons in September.Commissioner Kevin Warren has faced sharp criticism for not clearly laying out how the decision was reached. He has sidestepped questions about the vote breakdown, and his explanations of the medical reasons were panned for not being detailed enough.A group of Nebraska player parents have been most vocal in demanding answers from the commissioner, and parents from other Big Ten schools joined them.The Big Ten said last week the lawsuit “has no merit and we will defend the decision to protect all student-athletes as we navigate through this global pandemic. We are actively considering options to get back to competition and look forward to doing so when it is safe to play.”Flood, in his role representing the Nebraska player parents, previously sent a letter to Warren asking for documents relating to any votes taken, how each school voted, meeting minutes and all audio and video recordings and transcripts of meetings where votes were cast. He also wanted copies of studies, scientific data and medical information or advice considered by the presidents.Flood had threatened a federal lawsuit if the materials weren’t delivered to him. The Big Ten did not respond to the letter.Flood, a former speaker of the Nebraska Legislature, owns five radio stations that broadcast Cornhuskers football games as part of the Husker Sports Network.(Image Credit: AP) LIVE TV WATCH US LIVE Last Updated: 1st September, 2020 06:43 IST Big Ten Presidents Voted 11-3 To Cancel Fall Football Season A court filing discloed Monday shows that Big Ten Conference presidents voted 11-3 to postpone the football season until spring, bringing some clarity to a key question raised in a lawsuit brought by a group of Nebraska football players. First Published: 1st September, 2020 06:43 IST Written By COMMENT SUBSCRIBE TO US Associated Press Television News FOLLOW US