10/12/1978 - 4:30 PM
'; ~ . : .
. ~L ~........-..-"W"" ....... ....~... W!:~":.i..., '~..."t'
:-.....~~:~ ...~
.j,.t
i'.', " ..: ,~ >',.. -; " ,./ ...
. ~"~ .-
':%\' .
, ~
.\\,.~J" r:~":.:: ~~:.
@,
,\ r~..
.~~~~.:-
e
'. '.
. ')
\, "
.' ~~,
I ,
'\
. ...............4 '.'"~'''~:'''J., :"':.,I~'::..-..... i "~. ...... ;..
.,.
;17CJ-J3
Mr. Nichols stated he agreed he would not want to sit on the
Board if there were no appeal process and in that connection
stated that he felt that, in time, if there were no appeal pro-
cess the Board members would find themselves placed under extreme
pressure from special interest groups of one sort or another. If
this were to happen it would tend to make their decisions less
objective then they are today, so he very much opposes a no-appeal
process. He stated he does feel that whatever fee is necessary
to cover the cost of a lengthy transcript should be imposed on
the applicant. He further stated it would be necessary to make
clear when a case has been denied, that the applicant could be
present at the appeal to answer any questions that there might
be, but neither he nor anyone else could present any new facts.
Mr. Healey stated he didn't know what the legal requirement
might be, but it was his feeling that the language of the ordi-
nance could probably be structured to bring the item under the
city Manager, not as an advertised public hearing, but in the
public forum with the public having the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Nichols stated he felt it would help if the Commission
would announce that, they have a transcript and they did not wish
to hear material which had been presented to the Board. He
questioned what should be done about citizens who might not like
the decision of the Board.
Mr. Healey stated he would feel the same principle should
apply. The Commission would have a record of why you made your
decision and if they, on that record, chose to overturn it, fine;
if they they thought there were new facts (and I like Mr. Donnell's
suggestion very much) that rather than for them to attempt to
weigh whether it is new or different or what should be considered
and what not, remand it, or send it back to the Board with the
direction to consider this if they had not previously.' I think
that would provide ample opportunity for anyone to be heard.
Mr. House stated he was surprised to learn, some time ago,
that the Commission starts from scratch on appeals and thinks
they should review the proceedings of the Board.
Mr. Morris stated that he was of .the impression they did
review the Board's actions and agreed that if not they should.
Mr. Healey stated the Board puts a lot o"f time and 'energy
into the h~ngs, their decisions are reasonable, whether he
happens to agree with them or not, and to have the whole thing
heard over again without any reference to what happened before
the Board, makes no sense to him.
_ The Board consensus was that an effort should be made to
change this procedure.
". . , ,
ij%F'iD~;i);'/;:.: .,..
, ~. . ~ \',.' ,
10/12/78
3.
. ;,:.....
, \: .
, "
: ".
)\
,~. .
....... ..
"l:'-~ '". .
,,' :./.,,-
.... "7""P ..........'...-...--:-:........................ ......-"fI'I1W"'.....'r:---:'"4 f,.'"'i;" ~..~.....:..............,.~"l':
~ ~. ....,...--. ~ ,.......~ ... .... '
4.,..............t~~~~.
~ , ',' .
"
.""1
Co....,!. t.--