|
<br />AU: Thank you. Any questions for the person, petitioner? The attorney for the County
<br />Planning Department and our Planning Director, would you guys like to add to Mr. Gomes’s
<br />request or petition?
<br />SELF: On to state that the Planning Director has no objections to the intervention of either of the
<br />applicants, either of the petitions to intervene. We have no problem with that.
<br />AU: Okay, well, from a procedure standpoint and our rules, as our Commission attorney has
<br />stated that, you know, it doesn’t make it, it doesn’t meet the criteria. So what I’m looking at is to
<br />deny, to not grant standing.
<br />TORIGOE: It would have to be a Commission decision.
<br />AU: Yeah, that’s what I recommend. And, you know, it would have to be a Commission
<br />decision. And, Planning Director, would you like add something?
<br />LEITHEAD TODD: I may not have an accurate memory, but I believe that, in the past, prior
<br />th
<br />Planning Commissions have allowed people to intervene, even at, you know, the 11 hour, so to
<br />speak, as opposed to enforcing the seven-day requirement. That’s entirely within your call.
<br />However, just as stated by the representatives for the applicant in an abundance of caution, I
<br />would hate to go through a contested case, deny standing, go through a contested case with
<br />Connections, then end up having an appeal, go to court, and have the court say that despite the
<br />rules we should have given standing, given the convoluted and confusing manner in which all of
<br />this has played out. And so it’s kind of like what harm does it have to the applicant if you allow
<br />Mr. Gomes to intervene. Because if you deny, given this strange procedural history that we have
<br />here, and we end up in Circuit Court and the Circuit, we go through this and one way or another
<br />we get a decision, cause we haven’t even addressed whether, I think, at least I haven’t heard
<br />conclusively whether you’re hearing it or whether it’s going to a hearings officer -. But you
<br />could go through this whole, deny standing, go through this whole process, and then go to
<br />Circuit Court; and then Circuit Court says, you know, because you’re dealing with pro se,
<br />somebody who’s not represented by counsel, because you’re dealing with something that got
<br />very confusing that we should have erred on the side of caution and allowed him. And I’d hate
<br />to go through all of this and then have a remand to then allow Mr. Gomes to have standing. And
<br />I’m just saying I don’t know what the Court would do; but I’d rather have him in and delete that
<br />as one possibility for appeal, than deny and then have that hanging over my head like a sword.
<br />Thank you.
<br />AU: Okay, Mr. Hong, where is your applicant’s position on Mr. Gomes’s petition?
<br />HONG: You know, I think the Planning Director’s perspective is entirely reasonable but here’s
<br />where I’m coming from. The notary page says, is defective; and it’s defective as a matter of law.
<br />And my suggestion is that maybe the Planning Department in the future take off the requirement
<br />for the notary. But right now, and this is actually a mistake that could affect this individual’s
<br />right to be a notary because this is completely wrong as a matter of law. I mean if the rule
<br />th
<br />requires a notarized petition, I’m sorry, but today is March 7. And this notary can be held
<br />legally responsible for this. But, you know, again I hear what Ms. Leithead Todd is saying. I
<br />think that’s reasonable. I’m just coming from, you know, the procedure and this is inherently
<br />defective. Thank you.
<br />20
<br />
<br />
<br />
|