Laserfiche WebLink
1 Trust was infact the owner at the time to permit applica- <br /> 2 tion . . . . <br /> 3MC: Can I insert just one more point? Mr. Goldstein mentioned <br /> 4 that his firm had notice as of February 16. <br /> 5G: No, I didn' t say that . . . . <br /> 6MC: Now, that was my understanding anyway, but that notice was <br /> 7 not provided to the Eagle River Trust, well I guess another <br /> 8 fact that troubles me is that there was no formal writing sub- <br /> 9 mitted to the Board or to Mr. Nottingham or to the Division <br /> 10 regarding this defective notice until this appearance today <br /> 11 and as I understand the rules and regulations of the Board <br /> 12 require that if someone' s going to object to the permit that <br /> 13 that objection must be timely made and it must be made with <br /> 14 some specificity. The Eagle River Trust submitted some objec- <br /> 15 tions as reflected in the February 16 letter and Mr. Stemwedel <br /> 16 was representing the Eagle River Trust at that time according <br /> 17 to his letter and that' s the letter that I think the Notting- <br /> 18 hams have to be able to rely upon. There was no mention what- <br /> 19 ever in that letter of any defect in the notice. Yet, now <br /> 20 we've cone all .this distance and we' re here now before the <br /> 21 Board, and we now have an objection made to the notice. <br /> 22 G: May I interject, we have to deal with first things first. <br /> 23 For this to make sense, the threshhold question has to be <br /> 24 notice, and we were not given notice and not having been <br /> 25 given notice we were under no obligation to supply you with <br /> 26 any objection of that, there was no reason for us to object <br /> 27 because we didn' t know proceedings was actually going before <br /> 28 them but even if notice under any form was given clearly <br /> 29 under the statute and the regulations says that statement of <br /> -29- <br />