r <br />FLOCK Gabriel <br />From: <br />DAVIES Anne C <br />Sent: <br />Monday, September 14, 2015 3:15 PM <br />To: <br />William Kabeiseman <br />Cc: <br />FLOCK Gabriel <br />Subject: <br />RE; Oakleigh Meadows <br />FYI <br />From: DAVIES Anne C <br />Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 2:59 PM <br />To: 'William Kabeiseman' <br />Cc: FLOCK Gabriel <br />Subject: RE: Oakleigh Meadows <br />Bill, If you and your clients misunderstood my e-mail, then you will probably want to submit another letter as soon as <br />possible requesting that the record be re-opened and including rebuttal evidence responding onl.iato;tfe?evidErrce <br />applicant submitted on Aug <br />Anne , <br />From: William Kabeiseman [mailto:billkaNbgsblaw.com] <br />Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 10:28 PM <br />To: DAVIES Anne C <br />Cc: FLOCK Gabriel <br />Subject: RE: Oakleigh Meadows <br />Anne, <br />Thanks for the response; I note that in the summary that you sent me on August 21, 2015, you <br />specifically indicated that it was "just a surnmary" and directed me to "watch the webcast to be <br />certain of the scope and deadlines for the re-opening of the record." Based on your e-mail, . <br />that was the direction that we took. Attached is the transcript from that meeting and the <br />motion that was adopted talks o111y about rebuttal - I don't see any indication that new <br />evidence world be coming in on the 2'id submittal period. Based on that discussion, I believe. <br />that the applicant was limited only to rebuttal, as stated in the motion. <br />Again, I'm happy to discuss if you would like. <br />Bill <br />340 <br />460 <br />