2017-04-10 Joint Meeting Exh A (Amend Commission Rules)

Home

applicant’s ready to submit Building Permit plans, just prior to that, they come into Planning again, they submit a plan that shows all of their proposed uses that were approved under the Special Permit, where the buildings are situated, where parking, landscaping is situated on the plan. And then the Planning Department approves that, and then the applicant can submit for their Building Permits. So, what, what this is saying, what the County Code language says is that once you approve a P.U.D. permit, the applicant does not have to do a follow-up Plan Approval. So, we’ve, we’ve added additional application requirements where we’re requesting a lot of the information that we would normally request when we review a Plan Approval application. We’re requesting that the applicant submit that as part of the P.U.D. application so everything is done essentially at one time. Are there any questions on that before I move on? Okay. And, let’s see, we added sections on notice of filing and action on a P.U.D., as well as sign postings, and those sections are consistent with your other permits that you review. And then the process of a continued hearing. Also, we added another section in there for that just to make it consistent with your other applications that you approve. Basically to say that if the applicant requests to continue a hearing, there’s an additional 250-dollar filing fee, and that’s standard for all of your applications. And, then, we included the same appeals language as the other permits that I read to you earlier today, as well as the same revocation language that was read to you earlier today. Okay, wow, I think we’re done. So — CLARKSON: I’d like to go back to Rule 4, please. JACKSON: Rule 4, okay. CLARKSON: I’d like to recommend that Part 2, which is items 4-27 – you have not suggested any changes to these except for numbering, but it seems to me to be very much out of place – 4-27 through 4-31 to me should go between 4-20 and 4-21. In other words, after the close of the hearing, then you would have post-hearing procedures. And then after the post-hearing procedures, you go back to examination of evidence by the Commission. I wouldn’t be recommending any language changes but just numbering changes. JACKSON: Okay. I apologize, but could you just briefly explain to me again where you want to move things around to? You said — CLARKSON: Part 2. Part 2, which consists of Sections 4-27 — HO: Okay, wait, can I interject one second? You’re, you’re move the, okay, so, I think the confusion is that it says examination of evidence by the Commission. I think we should probably just take out “by the Commission” because that’s actually referencing the hearing officer. Correct? JACKSON: Okay. 15 EXHIBIT A