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

Home

HO: Actually, either — CARR SMITH: — hearings officer have incorporated the findings of fact? HO: Yeah, so it can actually happen in either case, where either, because sometimes you guys could select the committee of, of, or you guys could hear the case yourselves. So, either way, I mean in that sense you guys would be developing your own findings of fact, so I guess then it would be null and void. But, yeah, when it goes to the hearing officer, they would get their proposed from each party, and then they would have their own, you know, findings of fact and conclusions of law. And so, but you guys would be able to see all. So you could see from the parties and the hearings officer, but this just kind of says that you don’t have to go through every single one and explain them all what your justifications are and such. CARR SMITH: Thank you. JACKSON: Commissioner Clarkson, did you have a question on that? Okay. All right, so moving on to Rule 2, or moving back to Rule 2, and to Rule, I think that says Rule 10. Those are related to the petition for adoption, amendment, and repeal of your rules, which we’re doing right now, and the geothermal asset fund. So for those two rules, they currently both state under the appeal language that any appeal should be made to the County Board of Appeals. We’re suggesting changing that appeal language to clarify that appeals should be made to the Third Circuit Court. And the reason for that is all decisions of the Commission are appealable to Third Circuit Court and decisions of the Director are appealable to the Board of Appeals. So this change would make Rule 2 and 12 consistent with all other Planning Commission rules in regards to appeals. I think those were old references to the Board of Appeals. Are there any questions on that? Okay. And then we also have additional changes to various rules. And again going back to the appeals, I’ll just show you, if you can turn to Rule 6-10 on Page 6-5. So Section 6-10 on Page 6-5, that shows the new appeal language that we’re proposing. Currently most of the rules say the Commission’s decision is appealable to the Third Circuit Court, and we’re wanting to just add a little bit more language there to say, “Any decision of the Commission so made within the context of this article shall be appealable to the Third Circuit Court. The notice of appeal shall be filed in a Third Circuit Court within 30 days after the person desiring to appeal is notified of the decision or order, or of the action taken in a manner provided by statute.” And, the reason we’re proposing to do that is because since the rule currently doesn’t specifically say a timeline that they have to appeal, a lot of folks call the Department and ask if they can appeal the decision. And, by the time they do that, they’re coming right up against that 30-day appeal timeline, so we just want to put it in writing so that they are aware well in advance of how long that they have to appeal. And, then, other language we’re proposing is to add language to allow for the Commission to revoke Special Permits, Shoreline Setback Variances, and Planned Unit Development Permits, and to change existing revocation language for Use Permits and SMA Permits to be consistent with the language in other permits. And if you again look on Page 6-5, right below the appeal language, we have the proposed revocation language. It basically says, “A Special Permit may 9 EXHIBIT A