1A <br />On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Becky Dorsey <rdorsey~uoregon.edu> wrote: <br />Dear Nick, <br />1 would like to second Tom Bruno's request for information about this process. The new lengthy delay in <br />the hearing date does not appear to serve the community very well, and we are increasingly concerned about <br />the review process. Many of us have invested a large amount of time and cost trying to understand the <br />constantly shifting parameters of the proposed Capital Hill PUD that, if approved, would have major <br />negative impacts on our neighborhood that we believe are unacceptable. <br />Can the applicant keep delaying a hearing every time they get close to a review date? Are they allowed an <br />unspecified number and length of delays? What are the rules on this? Do the rules not define a point at <br />which the applicant must either appear for a hearing on a given date, or start over and submit a new <br />application? <br />We are concerned about this timeline, and will appreciate an explanation. <br />thank you, <br />Becky Dorsey <br />On Oct 2, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Tom Bruno <brunoassoc(a]aol.com> wrote: <br />Thank you for the quick response, I am a little confused about the city PUD time frame. I thought <br />the applicant deemed the PUD complete in late September and the time frame clock started. It <br />appears the applicant has requested a total of 100 days in delay. <br />Did the applicant give a reason for the two delays totaling about 100 days. <br />Can the applicant now add new or change his application? If so, it appears the application was <br />not complete in late September and the city should ask the applicant to resubmit a new <br />application. <br />Thank you for your timely updates. <br />Tom Bruno <br />Co-chair Laurel Hill Valley Response Team with the other Co-Chait, Sheryl Kelly. <br />Sent from my Phone <br />On Oct 2, 2017, at 9:01 AM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello(c-)-ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: <br />Cathy, <br />