|
's
<br /> 1
<br /> i
<br /> CARR SMITH: Yeah, I support the recommendation. I don't necessarily support the motion.
<br /> z
<br /> Anybody else?Mike, go ahead. Oh, sorry Max. Go ahead Mike. I
<br /> VITOUSEK: Sure, I just want to indicate that I also support clarifying this and that my intention r
<br /> is not to hinder the Department's ability to make this changes, but to help them remove any
<br /> potential ambiguity. You know, their stated reasoning for doing this amendment is to remove
<br /> ambiguity, and I think that there's still a little bit of ambiguity there that we can take one month
<br /> to address and then we're going to have to live with the rule for, you know, potentially the rest of
<br /> our lives. So if we can do that and, and take one month to address any potential ambiguity, in the t
<br /> rule, in the wording that clearly defines medical facility as stated by Jeff, I think that would make
<br /> it very clear and remove any ambiguity, make it much more easy to enforce and to follow. I'm
<br /> also agreement with Commissioner DeFranco about in not limiting things. I, I don't support,you
<br /> know, additional requirements for special use permits for these practices. I think as it is its good,
<br /> I just want to see it clarified and, you know, if we can do that today great, without deferring it if
<br /> you guys think we can do that now, otherwise next month we can get it done.
<br /> CARR SMITH: And so your clarification that you want, Mike, is you want it stated that it
<br /> includes doctors and nurses?
<br /> VITOUSEK: I, I just think that there's still some ambiguity in the definition of medical services
<br /> as it compares to related health industries.Because we're not explicitly saying that medical,
<br /> medical clinics is for doctors and nurses. I think that if we included that specific language, that
<br /> would be eliminating any confusion on it.
<br /> CARR SMITH: But I'd, I'd personally push back on that because a chiropractor will argue with
<br /> you that he is a doctor of chiropractiy [sic]. And there may be some doctors there may be some
<br /> doctors that are licensed doctors that are licensed doctors in acupuncture. I mean, I just, I don't
<br /> know why we have to limit that.
<br /> VITOUSEK: That's exactly why we need to clarify this. If someone can say, "hey, I'm, I'm a
<br /> doctor, I'm a doctor of physical therapy, I'm a doctor of chiropractic medicine, how come I'm
<br /> not a medical service." We're saying that,you know, this is for medical doctors, MD, DO, RN,
<br /> nurse practitioner. We can establish specific certifications that meet the definition of medical
<br /> office and those that don't, they fall into this other health services category, so that it's clear on
<br /> who goes where. You know, it's not, I don't see this as being controversial. It's just a clarity
<br /> thing. It's just removing any ambiguity so that we know what's what. That there's no argument
<br /> about who's who, what's what, where do I fit within this, this bigger picture.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Okay, hold on Barbara. Go ahead Max.
<br /> NEWBERG: So, originally looking at this, I think I was,you know, maybe looking at it simply.
<br /> I agree with Commissioner DeFranco. It seems pretty much here, I'm also curious, if I may ask,
<br /> Mr. Vitousek are you concerned that it's not specific enough because of your concern about
<br /> somebody may use a space or facility within zoning that may be a practitioner outside of it? Or is
<br /> it like you're not seeing enough clarity in perhaps mobile, or-
<br /> 11
<br /> EXHIBIT G
<br />
|