Laserfiche WebLink
First, as to the letter of objection, the fact that <br /> the letter was sent on February 16th, two weeks prior to the <br /> Board meeting, indicating objection to the application, cannot <br /> satisfy the notice requirements of the statute or the constitu- <br /> tion, nor can it prove actual notice to the Trust. Said letter <br /> demonstrates merely that on February 16th, Mr. Stemwedel felt <br /> there were deficiencies in the Nottingham application. The <br /> letter was drawn at the last minute by an attorney uncertain of <br /> his position with regard to the Trust in order to attempt to <br /> preserve the rights of the Trust (Stemwedel Affidavit) . That <br /> Mr. Stemwedel chose to act in this fashion is laudible, but <br /> to construe this act as a demonstration that statutory or actual, <br /> adequate and timely notice requirements were met by the Defendant <br /> is absurd. The Trust itself in fact never retained Mr. <br /> Stemwedel (Stemwedel and Goldman Affidavits) , nor did the <br /> Trust in fact receive notice of the application (Stemwedel and <br /> Goldman Affidavits) . Clearly, the seven week notice, containing <br /> among other things the location of the operation, and the date <br /> by which written objections were required to be submitted and <br /> information regarding the application was not affected on the <br /> Trust. The letter by Stemwedel , an unauthorized representative <br /> of the Trust, and any subsequent conversation with the Board <br /> indicate, at the most, that Mr. Stemwedel had some information <br /> regarding the application on February 16th. Plaintiff Trust <br /> was never noticed as to the time of the hearing, nor was the <br /> Trust able to scrutinize the lengthy application of Nottingham (e .g . <br /> transcript pages 18-19) , as Plaintiff Trust counsel Goldstein only <br /> had a matter of days prior to the hearing, and in that time had <br /> to hurriedly review the application and prepare objections <br /> (e.g. transcript page 18) . Any notice which may have been provided, <br /> or which attorney Stemwedel may have attained was not adequate <br /> notice to the Trust. It would not be adequate notice even if <br /> -16- <br />