Laserfiche WebLink
MR. SCHUTTE: That was my only question, could <br /> we consolidate, It <br /> Do you see any problem other than that. . . <br /> MR. FUKE: If there are any problems behind <br /> giving the commission the authority to review? I guess the <br /> only question that. I would have is that when and if the <br /> commission makes a decision on a variance that is not act <br /> =:ivated by the Planning Director, and if the guy is upset and <br /> wants to appeal, who would he appeal it to? Would he appeal <br /> to the Board of Appeals, Planning Board of Appeals,or would <br /> that person take it directly to the court. <br /> What has been suggested earlier is, I guess, <br /> that the decisions that the Planning Director made would be <br /> appealed to the Planning Commission and not to the Planning <br /> Board of Appeals. Yet, the question I am raising is that <br /> when the Planning Commission makes a decision, you know, who <br /> would the appellant for the grieved person appeal to?:-Would it <br /> be directly to the courts or the Planning Board of Appeals. <br /> MR. SCHUTTE: Tell me something, in your past <br /> experience, with regards to the Board of Appeals, how many <br /> people that have appealed a decision, how has the board ruled? <br /> MR. FUKE: Just recently, the Planning Board of <br /> Appeals remanded or returned a variance application which was <br /> denied by the Planning Commission and the guy appealed to the <br /> Planning Board of Appeals. The Planning Board of Appeals heard <br /> it and they found some discrepancies and returned the entire <br /> application back to the Planning Commission for further <br /> consideration. <br /> MR. SCHUTTE: Within the last two years how many? <br /> MR. FUKE: Within the last two years, I 'd say, <br /> maybe about half a dozen. No, no, I'm sorry, within the last <br /> two years there were probably about six applications which <br /> were heard by the Planning Board of Appeals of which roughly <br /> like about three and three, yes. 50% were in behalf of either <br /> the commission or the Planning Director and the other 50% in <br /> behalf of the appellant. <br /> So, going back to what I made as an earlier <br /> comment, I think it was about two months ago. . .I think that <br /> there is a definite need for a Planning Board of Appeals, to <br /> serve as a safety valve. Maybe having a limited authority to <br /> review variances which are delegated by the Planning Commission <br /> for the director to consider. But maybe as an alternative, <br /> what may -be conceivable is to expand the scope of the Planning <br /> Board of Appeals so that the Planning Board of Appeals would not <br /> only look at procedural matters or arbitrary, capricious kind of <br /> issues, but maybe they may get involved in some of the substantive <br /> issues. <br /> -13- <br />