A continuance would be a great service. On a side note, you have a great location. And i believe that this becomes a problem, i am sure that another business would love to be on the corner of 26th and terevelle. I know that is sounds to me more, or most everyone perhaps, other than myself, is interested in a continuance and i am quite skeptical given the. I think that what is my concern is a continued moving target on what the name of this entity is and at the same time, i do think that there is some sufficient lack of clarity issues being raised in this manner or make me uncomfortable where there isnt. I think that enough opportunity to really understand what we are looking at here. Even though again, i will state again, for the record that i am skeptical that there is going to be sufficient evidence to establish that it will meet or will not require a conditional use but that this entity. Whatever it is. Will not require it. Okay, i move to continue this to madam director, what do yo
R department to whom he went, had he done a site visit would have agreed with the scope of work. I doubt that the Planning Department had they done a site visit would have agreed with the scope of work. They cannot do site visits for everything and i dont blame them. I would also like to point out that my clients for many years have had to go through the troubles of going to the Planning Department for merger applications, it is a lot of time, it is fees, it could take four months and the Planning Commission could decide to turn down a unit merger very easily and because they have a policy of trying to keep every unit no matter how big or how small, but especially the small ones in the rental market. We believe that this was an attempt to go around the Planning Department to go around the Planning Commission, to the Building Department makes the mistakes and the Planning Department makes the mistakes and m sanchez indicated that a mistake was made on the previous case. It is only when