EFTA00914706.pdf

From: Darren Indyke < To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Little St. James Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:46:44 +0000 Attachments: CZM Mmor_permit_for_Parcel_A_with_all_signatures.pdf I sent this to Maria, so she has Oriol's status report to the Barnes which is part of the email chain below. Oriol is basically saying that CZM will only send Army Corps. notice of the CZM's grant of permission for the moorings, and not the dock structures, so Oriol does not see that as a problem, but Oriol also says that CZM will only send that to Army Corps after the revised submerged land fees are negotiated and agreed to. Maria had mentioned in her email to us the need to negotiate with CZM re increased or additional submerged land fees. As to the application for permit modification for the spa, Oriol correctly points out that we have ignored the requests in his March letter, and also says that we have not developed a plan for habitat restoration with the staff which is one of the special conditions in the permit that we are asking to modify to include the spa. However, there is no time frame in the language of the special condition provided in the permit for developing the plan. The permit merely says that "The Permittee will develop a plan to address concerns regarding habitat rehabilitation and restoration with Department staff." Moreover, the permit containing this special condition was signed in December 2010, and almost immediately thereafter we applied to modify that permit to include the spa, so there has been no time to really address the plan. I am not sure that Cecile will make any progress without you in this matter. In his March letter, Oriol is essentially asking for a list of every structure on the island and a designation of what particular permit covers that structure. Oriol is also asking for status on all permits for which the scope of work has not been completed. We did not respond to either request on the theory that they had no right to ask for this information as the applications were already deemed complete, so they could not ask for more application materials. Moreover, even though they asked for more info (to which they were not then entitled) before the end of the 60 day period after the application was deemed complete, since CZM did not actually disapprove of the application within that 60 day period, then the application should be deemed approved. We did not have Maria press this issue while we worked through the dock structure and mooring issues. So does Maria take the strong position now, or should you and Cecile first meet with Barnes? I believe the latter approach would be better. I have attached a copy of the permit, as well as the March 2011 letter from Oriol for your reference. Darren K. Indyke Darren K. Indyke, PLLC 301 East 66th Street, 10B New York, New York 10065 Telephone: Direct: Fax: email: EFTA00914706 **** The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Darren K. Indyke, PLLC. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. Copyright of Darren K. Indyke, PLLC - m 2011 Darren K. Indyke, PLLC — All rights reserved. Begin forwarded message: From: Cecile de Jongh sc Date: July 12, 2011 3:42:57 PM EDT To: Darren Indyke scl Subject: Fw: Little St. James Reply-To: Cecile de Jongh ,rnt > Should I share this with Maria as well? With warm regards, Cecile DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this e-mail may be privileged,confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies. Forwarded Message - From: Alicia V. Barnes To: 'Cecile de Jongh' Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 3:23 PM Subject: RE: Little St. James Hi Cecile: So happy that we are in agreement. I would love to meet sooner, but am preparing for the department's budget hearing. Please advise of your availability on either July 26th, nth, or 28th. Also, kindly see the below e-mail from JP to me. Thx, AB Original Message From: Jean-Pierre Oriol [- Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:15 PM To: Subject: Isj, Ilc status commissioner- EFTA00914707 per your request, the following is an update for where we stand with some of the Isj, Ilc permits and requests- with respect to the dock and moorings- in June 2011, the modification of major czm permit no. czt-5-99(w) was approved by the stt czm committee, allowing for the construction of two pavilions on the ends of the dock, as well as the installation of two mooring buoys. as there are new submerged lands being occupied (mooring buoys) the permit must be approved by the governor, as well as the legislature. prior to that happening, Isj, Ilc and the department must negotiate the fees. when permit no. czt-5-99(w) was issued on march 30, 2000, the fees associated with the permit were for $2500, and covered the dock, the water area around the dock, and the floating swim platform. section 9(c) of the permit further stated that on the first 5th year anniversary, the permit fees would be adjusted, and that failure of the permittee to re-negotiate the fees would result in the automatic increase of the fees by 25%. subsequent five year anniversaries also would require adjustments. to date, no fee adjustments have ever occurred under this permit. further, additional structures have been added to the dock and shoreline area, and the fees do not reflect these additions. therefore, with the upcoming negotiation of fees, all of these things will be taken into consideration and a new fee will be assessed. it is customary for the department to forward to the corps of engineers a consistency determination following approval by either the commissioner or committee on a project involving submerged lands; however, this determination is not sent prior to the fees being negotiated because the fees are required under section 911 of the act, and thus part of the "consistency." once we have agreed to a new annual fee with the permittee, the determination will be sent to the corps, and a new permit document will be drafted and forwarded to the office of the governor. again, just like the application that was sent to the army corps, the consistency determination will only reference the installation of the mooring buoys as this is the only new action regarding submerged lands; the pavilions will not be referenced. with respect to the spa- in december 2010, czm permit nos czt-25, czt-26 and czt-27 were issued to Isj, Ilc. the process of approving these was long and drawn out because the department felt that there were some conditions of other permits that were not being complied with, whereas the permittee felt that construction under said permits had not taken place within a year, therefore were null and void and that they should not be subject to those conditions. it really boils down to the fact that there are too many ongoing permits for this area, and with the cumulative impacts fo all these smaller permits, the activity should be covered under one major czm permit. notwithstading this issue, within a week of being issued the above-mentioned permits, Isj, Ilc came in to the department for a modification of one of the permits for the construction of a spa. in a letter dated march 16, 2011, a response was sent to the permittee stating that before any more development would be approved on the island, a detailed inventory of all existing structures with corresponding permit numbers must be submitted to the department, and that a status report of all permits issued to Isj, Ilc for which the scope of work has not been completed must be submitted to the department. this, in addition to the special condition on the last permits, which required the permittee to develop a plan to address the concerns regarding habitat rehabilitation and restoration with department staff, would allow for the department to have an accurate, up to date picture of everthing that is ongoing on little st. james island. the permittee has neither complied with thhe permit condition, nor submitted any of the status reports requested by the department. to that end, the modification request is on hold by the department. we have recently submitted for your approval a certificate of occupancy. you should see it in your stt office the next time you are here. EFTA00914708 that concludes the status of where we are with regards to Isj, Ilc requests Regards, Jean-Pierre L. Oriol Director VICZMP DPNR-Division of Coastal Zone Management 8100 Lindberg Bay, Suite 61 St. Thomas, VI 00802 www.czm.dpnr.gov.vi From: Cecile de Jongh [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 4:20 AM To: Alicia V. Barnes Subject: Re: Little St. James Good morning Alicia, I agree that we probably need to meet. When would you like to do so? With warm regards, Cecile Sent from my iPhone On Jul 11, 2011, at 8:01 PM, "Alicia V. Barnes" < > wrote: Hi Cecile: The dock portion of project was never submitted to the ACOE. Also, the mooring permit also has a legislative level of approval, due to a change in the code. I really think we need to meet to clarify the overall procedure(s) and next steps in this regard. Thx, AB Sent from my iPad On Jul 11, 2011, at 4:23 PM, Cecile de Jongh < > wrote: Good afternoon Alicia, I wanted to follow up with you on the approval for the dock and mooring. After speaking with Mr. Epstein and Atty Hodge, they would really like to be able to get an apporved mooring letter from DPNR separate from the dock approval. They understand that everything (dock and mooring) was approved as one approval but EFTA00914709 that will cause problems with the Army Corp of Engineers due to the previously recognized mooring issue which the ACE has determined can stay as is. I would like to speak to you about this, if possible. With warm regards, Cecile DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this e-mail may be privileged,confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies. EFTA00914710