Laserfiche WebLink
CARR SMITH: Go ahead. <br /> DARROW: Commissioner Vitousek, you're referring to the automatic approval language? <br /> VITOUSEK: Yeah. <br /> DARROW: So, what happens is, if an applicant is amendable to a continuance, then this <br /> automatic approval does not apply because they're being willing to continue the hearing beyond <br /> the deadline from that point. This is a situation that has only occurred once in my career as a <br /> planner, where an applicant was not willing to defer, and the Planning Commission could not <br /> come to an agreement or a motion one way or another. There was lack of quorum for each vote <br /> that was brought up and the time, the maximum timeframe had come to that point. We had <br /> additionally had received the written objection at that time, and the public had made a statement <br /> that, "look a written objection had been submitted, doesn't that change the process?" And the <br /> Council that we were getting at that time was exactly what Tracie had mentioned, is that a <br /> written objection does not defer or change the time process. Only a contested case. So they <br /> clarified that the written objection was specifically to the submittal of a contested case - - -. But <br /> again, back to your question, if an applicant is amenable to a continuance, then the application <br /> can be continued, no problem. <br /> VITOUSEK: And you don't think that that needs to be clarified in this language in any way? <br /> DARROW: I believe it is in the rule. I don't have that; hold on I might have it with me right <br /> here. I apologize for the delay. <br /> VITOUSEK: While we wait, bacon is cooked, cookies are baked, discuss. [Jokingly] <br /> DARROW: Yeah, I don't see it here, unfortunately, but maybe if we can continue with <br /> discussion, let me look for that and then, cause there's other issues regarding this bill that may be <br /> talked about. I think J's talking. <br /> CARR SMITH: Yeah, go ahead, J. <br /> YOSHIMOTO: Jeff, are you looking at, or looking for 6-8? <br /> DARROW: That would be under special permits. This would be under 7. <br /> YOSHIMOTO: Seven. Okay. <br /> DARROW: Thank you. <br /> CARR SMITH: So, you have cookies Mike? I want a cookie. [Jokingly] Does anyone else have <br /> any comments? Max? Barbara? Nothing right now? Perry? Max, go for it. Go ahead. <br /> NEWBERG: Just wanted to make mention that as the language goes into legalese, I get a little <br /> bit lost. Maybe towards the end Mr. Vitousek has a good question there, but I guess under my <br /> 3 <br /> EXHIBIT F <br />