2007-02-15 tmartinage-nunn - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

using his land and he has multiple income streams, and we are doing the same thing with ours. We just want the same opportunity that he is, not to do as he says, but to do as he does. GRAHAM: All right. I think we are finished with the public testimony because we’ve heard more than three or four minutes on each side. If that’s all right -. Sir, do you have something that needs to be said as a result of what you heard from the testifiers before? CONVENTZ: Absolutely. GRAHAM: And would you restrain it to that, please? CONVENTZ: I sure will. And certainly can I rebut the Intervenor? GRAHAM: Excuse me? CONVENTZ: Can I rebut what the Intervenor just said, just that? GRAHAM: I would prefer that you didn’t. Our motion was to respond only to those who came and gave public testimony and -. CONVENTZ: Okay. What I have here made up looks big, but it is all related to the testimony before of the five, and that is just the backup information for your information also. And I believe that my client, Mr. Martinage, was not wrong when he addressed the three and half-acre by the Tax Office, because one of the testifiers today addressed that, too, that had gone up from half an acre pasture or fallow land to three and half and four acres actual, accepted agriculture under the Property Tax Office. So that was – what I’m saying is – strictly related to that one. And as the noise of concern, you know, I see the problem here is in the past – and that comes from the testimony – there was no problem of the predecessor with neighbor and the Intervenor Farwell, neither the other way around. Obviously not, because both said since they are good neighbors, and they are saying now they are good neighbors today. The key issue here is that Mr. Farwell has the problem that noise in the future on his property may cause, if you approve bed and breakfast that but not otherwise -. GRAHAM: Sir, we heard all this before at the first thing. I would like to move forward, and keep the spirit of what the motion was for reopening. If you have anything in response to what the people came and testified, I’m not meaning to be antagonistic or close you off; it’s just we need to stay focused on what we are trying to do. CONVENTZ: Yeah, I apologize, but I believe that I really addressed what was addressed by the testifier today. As far as noise is concerned, what my client did to improve it that they actually bent over backwards to improve the agricultural activity and that they are not replacing the agricultural activity; they are enhancing it. And that was part of the testimony unless I’m mistaken. GRAHAM: That’s true. Well, thank you for your testimony then. CONVENTZ: And what I have here is a complete backup of what those five testifiers testified to. That’s just documentation for what the testifier said and what I’m saying. EXHIBIT D 11