Laserfiche WebLink
20 <br /> • • <br /> 1 that the prehearing order be established as presented <br /> th <br />b <br />= <br />F <br />k <br />h <br />i <br />h <br />h <br />i <br /> 2 ere w <br />e correct <br />ons on <br />e num <br />er <br />_ as <br />ran <br />t <br />t <br /> 3 pointed out, and also with the e;:ceptioz~ that the <br /> 4 motion by Castle to hold a separate, later hearing be <br />1 th <br />t' <br />t <br />h <br />d <br />d <br />' <br />k <br />h <br />b <br /> 5 a <br />s no <br />t <br />e <br />grante <br />. I <br />on <br />t <br />now <br />ow, may <br />e <br /> 6 proper way to say that, but what I mean to say is <br /> 7 that the hearing on the alleged violaticn followed <br /> B th <br />di <br />th <br />it <br /> e procee <br />ng on <br />e perm <br />. <br />' 9 CHAIRMAN DANIELSON: Okay. <br /> 10 MR. O'CONNOR: I will second that <br />' 11 motion <br /> . <br /> 12 CHAIRMAN PAT?IELSON: Okay. Yes. <br /> 13 MP.. NUSSBAUM: May I speab: to this <br />i 14 issue? <br /> <br /> 15 CHAIRMAN DANIELSON: Yes. <br /> 16 MR. NUSSBAUM: My name is Marty <br />~.-•~ 1T Nussbaum. I re,pr•.esent the-Cedar-Heights.Lende.r.s,.. We , <br />' 1B are neighbors to this development. There are two <br /> 19 motions that were filed simultaneously by Castle <br /> 20 Concrete. One requests a delay in consideration of <br />' 21 the violation. The other requests a delay in <br /> 22 consideration of the permit itself. We feel that <br /> 23 both motions must be considered together precisely <br />' 24 because both of these motions were delayed because of <br /> 25 the impact they would '.lave Lpon the legislative <br /> <br /> MIDYETT P.EPOP.TINC SERVICE <br />(303) 424-2217 <br /> <br />