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

Home

The proposed changes we have before you are to remove the requirement to notify persons other than the parties of the contested case hearing, and also to remove the requirement to provide notice to the general public through a publication in the newspaper of the contested case hearing. Also, another change is to remove the requirement for the applicant to serve notice of the contested case hearing on surrounding property owners and lessees of record, and to remove the provision for public testimony during a contested case proceeding. And I just want to make it clear that none of these proposed changes are meant to prevent public testimony on the application. As it shows there, it’s meant to limit public testimony during just the contested case proceeding. The public still has the opportunity at the first hearing and at the last hearing before the commission to provide public testimony. And I kind of already stated the purpose, but I’ll just go through that again, it’s to clarify that the purpose of a contested case proceeding is for the parties, rather than the general public, to state their case. And that’s why I just said a few minutes ago this only applies to the contested case proceeding. The applicant will still be required to notify surrounding property owners and lessees of the Commission’s first meeting on the application as stated in other rules for the various applications, and notice to the general public through publication in the newspaper of the commission’s first meeting will occur. Are there any questions on that before we move on in the contested case rule? Nancy? CARR SMITH: Yeah, I’m just trying to understand. So it seems like in the Proposed Changes it’s not clear what the purpose is; you clarify down in the Purpose area, but up in the Changes it’s not that clear to me. JACKSON: Okay. Well, the main purpose is so that those folks who are notified of the contested case hearing are actually the people who are a party to the contested case hearing, which is the applicant, the intervenor, and the Planning Department. CARR SMITH: Okay, but then you’re saying at the bottom that the applicants still required to notify the surrounding owners, but up above you remove that requirement? JACKSON: Right, so the applicant would still be required to notify the surrounding property owners of the first hearing at the Planning Commission. So the example I used today, if you had a Use Permit before you today, that first hearing would have been notified in the paper, would have been noticed in the paper, and the applicant would have sent out notice to surrounding property owners. And then if you had granted standing for intervention in a contested case in a hearing today, then the contested case portion is the portion that’s not noticed. CARR SMITH: I understand. So we’re talking about a Planning Commission meeting versus a contested case hearing. JACKSON: Correct. That’s correct. CHURCH: I just want to make a comment, and don’t misconstrue my comments as to whether I am for or against an applicant notifying surrounding owners. However, in any situation where a contested case can arise, or any situation where a Special Permit is issued and an amendment is requested to the Commission and notification has to be made to surrounding owners, depending 3 EXHIBIT A