3 4 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Miss - Planning Tribunal

6
1 only infer the same thing.
2
3 MS. DILLON: I don't wish to interrupt my friend but that the factual basis
4 for that proposition is incorrect for this reason, is that Mr. Mahony and Mr.
5 Fox's lands were never the subject matter of a proposed change in the first
6 display and therefore any representations that were received in relation to the
7 first display could not relate to Mr. Fox's and Mr. Mahony's lands. It must be
8 remembered that they were zoned agriculture and B and G until the draft plan
9 that went on display and therefore the fundamental premises that Mr. Hogan is
10 suggesting, that these representations relate to an an earlier display, cannot
11 be correct because Mr. Fox's and Mr. Mahony's lands only went on display on one
12 occasion and one occasion only and that was in July and August of 1993 after
13 the first vote.
14
15 Q 35 MR. HOGAN: Well, if that is -- if Miss Dillon is correct, Mr. McGlynn,
16 doesn't it suggest further that's these 2,530 representations didn't relate to
17 either the Fox and Mahony lands at all?
18 A No, they would have related to the Mahony lands. Which was the lands which
19 were rezoned in the 1993 plan and the proposal was to rezone those lands.
20 Q 36 Yes, but I come back to this, Mr. McGlynn, if as you said the vast majority of
21 these representations had to be generated originally before April of 1993, as
22 you fairly agreed, the first vote?
23 A No, I am sorry, we are talking about the second display of the plan and the
24 representations in respect of these lands would have come in in the summer of
25 1993, not April.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: They don't necessarily include any of the earlier 24,000 as I
28 understand it.
29 A No, they wouldn't.
30