My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Appeal Materials
>
OnTrack
>
CU
>
2002
>
CU 02-4
>
Appeal Materials
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/6/2017 2:41:35 PM
Creation date
8/12/2016 9:57:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CU
File Year
2
File Sequence Number
4
Application Name
Cathedral Park
Document Type
Appeal Materials
Document_Date
8/11/2016
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I Opinion by Bassharn. <br />2 NATURE OF THE DECISION <br />3 Petitioners appeal a hearings officer's decision dmying petitioners' request to modify an <br />4 existing conditional use permit <br />5 MOTION TO INTERVENE <br />6 Thomas G. Eagan, Diana K. Eagan, David Berg, Judith Berg, Linda Roe, Tom Roe, <br />7 Richard Steers, Sheila Steers, Milce Curtis, Fran Curtis, John C. Sihler, Dene H. Sihler, John <br />8 Bennington and Allison Hassler (intervenors) move to intervene on the side of respondent. There is <br />9 no opposition to the motion, and it is allowed. <br />10 MOTION TO FILE REPLY BRIEF <br />11 On April 20, 2004, two days prior to oral argument, petitioners filed an 11-page reply brief, <br />12 to address alleged "new matters" raised in intervenors' response brief, which was filed April 9, <br />13 2004. Intervenors oppose the reply brief, on the grounds that it (1) is not limited to "new matters," <br />14 (2) exceeds the five page limit authorized by OAR 661-010-0039, and (3) was not filed "as soon <br />15 as possible" after the response brief was filed, as required by OAR 661-010-0039.' Petitioners <br />16 respond to intervenors' objection, arguing that the reply brief is limited to "new matters," and the <br />17 inadvertent failure to request permission to file an 11-page reply brief and the timing of filing the brief <br />18 caused no prejudice and should not wan-ant denial of the reply brief. <br />19 We agree with petitioners that the reply brief is properly limited to "new matters." <br />20 However, the matters addressed in the reply brief have little bearing on the issues we find to be <br />21 dispositive in this appeal. Given that, we do not see that resolution of the parties' remaining disputes <br />1 OAR 661-010-0039 provides, in relevant part: <br />"A reply brief may not be filed unless permission is obtained from the Board. A request to file <br />a reply brief shall be filed with the proposed reply brief together with four copies as soon as <br />possible after respondent's brief is filed. A reply brief shall be confined solely to new matters <br />raised in the respondent's brief. A reply brief shall not exceed five pages, exclusive of <br />appendices, unless permission for a longer reply brief is given by the Board. * * <br />Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.