2017-04-06 Hearing Transcript - PC Rule Amendments (Public Comments Only)

Home

HO: Yeah, that's correct. CLARKSON: And the public would not be even allowed to observe? I can see not participating in or being notified of the contested case, but the contested case hearings are not observable by the public? HO: I believe that's up to the hearings officer. If you guys are hearing the case and allow other people in the room also if stipulated by the parties as well, it'd also be. JACKSON: Okay. I'll move further into Rule 4. A few other changes that we are proposing is to add provisions for multiple intervenors, opposition to intervention and mediation by the parties prior to a contested case proceeding. Also requesting adding provisions to clarify purposes of a pre -hearing conference with the presiding officer, and clarify that the Commission does not have to incorporate in its decision a ruling upon each of the parties proposed findings of fact. And, are there any questions on those three changes? If you think of anything later, let me know. Okay, so Rule 2 which is petition for adoption, amendment, and appeal of your rules. And, Rule 12, that's for the Geothermal Asset Fund. For those two rules, we're proposing to change the appeal language to clarify that appeals should be made to the Third Circuit Court rather than the County Board of Appeals. Any decision of the Commission is appealable to Third Circuit Court, and decisions of the Planning Director are appealable to the Board of Appeals, so we're just trying to clarify that. This change would make Rules 2 and 12 consistent with all other Planning Commission rules regarding appeals. Those other rules all state that appeals go to Third Circuit Court. And, then we have three other changes we're suggesting to various rules. One of the main changes is to clarify that any appeal that somebody would file would need to done within 30 days after the person desiring to appeal is notified of the Commission's decision. I believe currently, it doesn't reference a time in our rules, so because 30 days is such a limited period of time, what usually happens is by the time somebody wanting to appeal contacts Planning and asks how do I appeal this, they are right up against that 30 -day deadline, so we just want to include that in our rule. We are also requesting to add revocation language to allow the Commission to revoke Special Permits, Shoreline Setback Variances, and Planned Unit Development permits. We're suggesting changing existing revocation language for Use Permits and SMA Permits to be consistent with the language in the other permits. And, I can just real briefly go over that. So, let's see. If you look at Rule 6-11, the new language says that the, a Special Permit may be revoked by the Commission. Number one is basically if the applicant writes in to the Commission requesting that the permit be revoked because they don't want to do the use that was approved under the Special Permit. Number two says that the Commission can revoke a EXHIBIT C 4