1980's Aerobic Instructor Outfit

with the duty I have almost finished. Now it's up to the pleasure. "Given that the project could be subject to EIA, why do not you investigate further?

As some of you know, when there is an ongoing EIA, the Environmental Impact Study , in addition to the City on which it is expected that the project should be presented to the population even in common and would be interested in genre as the municipality concerned means a municipality within 2 km from the project and within 5 km downstream when it comes to landfills.
For this reason, the former Environmental Recovery FALSE Cava Siberia, which is a real dump, nothing would permit, as the town of Villafranca is less than 5 km downstream of the former Quarry Siberia ... (But this does not sommapop.orgini you have ever said) has never been interested in the process of EIA

.

.
As stated above, if you submit a draft of expansion with a existing sinking of a quarry, that is, for example, 761 meters from the border Municipal Sommacampagna such as Cava Casona of TMG Biondi SpA, if that Quarry expansion project is sought to EIA and / or perlomento that project is subjected to a screening procedure ... should have submitted the EIA and SIA in the town of Sona, which is only 500 meters, which in City Sommacampagna, which is 761 meters.
.
.
And if today I write about gravel pits ... is because this morning reading the Arena I found an article, which states that the former Councillor for the Environment: Giancarlo Conta Arch (now only Regional Adviser and Adviser to the Board of Directors Airport Catullo) has found the time and desire to offer an amendment that would allow - who has a quarry in place and / or terminated after 2000 - to dig a 30% higher than will be allowed to extract the PRAC (Regional Plan Activities Cava)
.

.
The strange coincidence of this article ... is that at the side of this, there is an intervention of a representative of a company that ... coincidentally is the name of the owner of the quarry above highlighted and re- coincidentally is the name of the owner of another quarry in respect of which I understand is still open - on my report - a public prosecutor to file in number 11007/10 RGNR (General Registry Crime News). And since the article published today, and since the desired objectives by Councilor Counts, the question arises: " If this amendment is approved, the quarry that could be expanded 30% (from 451,500 square meters. To 586,950 sqm.) and this time would be submitted to the EIA YES or NO? "
.
.


In recent months, since I had to take care of the criminal proceedings opened against me because I "procured the false alarm" in respect of work already done and that will be carried out in the coming days on the heads Catullo airport runway, I have not had time to respond and request a response on other requests for access to the file, which is now going on for years, in particular I should stress response to the contents of the last lines of the letter below: " a further memorandum it will also clear about the requirements in Appendix .
.
.
A later note that, to date I have not yet arrived. Appendix note in response to a letter I wrote to the City of Verona, in one of the many attempts to get access to the records, in an appendix, I asked for explanations about what is being said in this report below.
.
.
From which it is evident that the minutes show that the company concerned has already received 30% more expansion in the possibilities of other excavate gravel ... of a quarry, inter alia, that there never had been subjected to EIA
.
.
My request to the City of Verona was made for clarification and answers on this sentence (see below) contained in that report. So that phrase was written in the minutes, but then the text of the resolution that the Municipal Regional ... oddly enough - this question of municipal officials - has disappeared ... They forgot to write it down?.
.
In that my request - still unanswered - I asked for an explanation of why the City of Verona when they wrote this sentence (which by the way is also wrong) then this was not transcribed in the decision.
The exact phrase, even in relation to the Veneto Regional Law No. 10/1999, was supposed to be this: "Since the area concerned extension of 451,500 square meters. more than 15 hectares, and the volumes to be handled in several batches over 350,000 cubic meters a year, the project should be subject to the procedure established by the Environmental Impact Assessment and therefore, this request is unlawful .
Now that I think I've almost finished with the ' Catullo Airport (Criminal Procedure ANCNR No 805/08), the Dial Europe (Criminal Procedure ANCNR 1217/08), with the fake Environmental Recovery of the former Quarry Siberia (Criminal Procedure 887 / ANCNR 08) and the Cava Bertacchini (Criminal Procedure RGNR 11007/10), now after everything I've learned over the past three years, I think it's time to occuparmi anche di Cava Casona, visto che ormai mi manca solo un'ultima dichiarazione.
E se con il DOVERE ho quasi finito.. ora tocca al PIACERE.. considerato che devo occuparmi anche dei miei interessi - a mio avviso violati - dall'utilizzo improprio di una mia idea: " Città M.I.A. - Musica - Immagine - Arte ".
E se posso difendere i miei interessi occupandomi ed interessandomi ancora nell'evidenziare delle possibili violazioni della Valutazione di Impatto Ambientale, perchè non posso farlo con PIACERE a difesa degli interessi generali, e cosi il PIACERE diventa un DOVERE e pertanto domani, visto il tempo trascorso, parte l'ultima lettera al Comune di Verona, sollecitando una risposta: "Visto che avete scritto che il progetto POTEVA essere soggetto alla V.I.A.", perchè non avete APPROFONDITO l'esame di questo aspetto?"
E poi, credo sia doveroso - comunque - di presentare un nuovo Esposto alla Procura della Repubblica che accerti se per questa Cava vi è stata violazione di V.I.A. cosi forse comprendiamo meglio il perchè l'allora Assessore all'Ambiente non si era accorto come mai l'ampliamento della suddetta cava... forse DOVEVA essere sottoposto a V.I.A.
Un ampliamento con sprofondamento di cava che era stato approvato con DGRV n° 469-2007 dal cui Verbale della CTRAE si legge questo:
Quanto riportato al punto No 5) should not be an impact on the ability to obtain extensions volume as a percentage above 30% as provided by art. 44 b) The second paragraph of the LR 44/82 in fact the article itself states that to allow volumetric expansion exceeding 30% is required ... prescription of appropriate measures for the restructuring of the environment on the quarry already cultivated, if what has been done or is not required to be considered adequate within the meaning of Article. 14 ... "And now
rileggetevi Arena article and ask yourself why you must grant the miners ... another 30% increase ... over 30% already has been approved in recent years ... and often without the Environmental Impact Assessment.
forgot to point out how it was proposed the amendment of Count, which provides: " measures aimed at environmental improvement of sites already affected by the production of geo-resources and in support of reality mining .
Who writes Environmental League in his speech that: " SI dig deeper," it said this: On the quarries
Venetian is a serious problem of transparency, "he says - Michele Bertucco Legambiente President of Veneto - commenting on the amendment proposed by the former assessore regionale Giancarlo Conta nell’ambito della legge finanziaria veneta. “Noi – continua Bertucco - non ci abituiamo all'idea che importanti decisioni per il futuro del territorio vengano prese da istituzioni supine agli interessi di fortissime lobby: esiste un problema serio di partecipazione e di legalità nella pianificazione delle cave”.
Ha un titolo accattivante l’emendamento presentato dall’ex assessore Conta, si chiama: “ provvedimenti finalizzati al miglioramento ambientale dei siti già interessati dalla coltivazione di georisorse ed a sostegno delle realtà estrattive ”. In realtà, invece, propone di scavare nelle province di Verona e Vicenza in deroga alla Regional Law 44, 1982 (rules for the discipline of the quarry) beyond the limits of Article 13 which prohibits more than the percentage of 3% (in the case of gravel pits and sand) the excavation of the town and depart from the predictions Article 44 requires that a number of limitations and prohibitions (environmental reconstruction, distance, depth, excavating in pitch, amplitude, etc..), with the proposal that would ultimately favor counts, in particular, the quarrymen have carried out the environmental reconstruction required by law. In this way in Verona could immediately grant permission to extract new, without planning, 8,559,972 cubic meters of sand and gravel and Vicenza 5,096,352 cubic meters. A
when an amendment to Count I have this item: " measures aimed at protecting the environment and public health protection resulting from the environmental and health impacts arising from transport infrastructure .
If you have a measure of this type, the count, he must first resign from the Airport Board?