04/24/2008 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

hand, he felt it was critical that we follow our policy because if we mix and match our policies we will end up with more lawsuits. Commissioner O'Bryan felt the issue of jurisdiction comes down to when the applicants were truly notified, and when the 21 -day clock started ticking. He addressed the matter of notification to residents, and believed that at that time, the applicants were notified of their due process and of the timeframe and procedures under Section 902.07 (based on a letter to the applicants from Attorney Collins dated October 17, 2006 regarding the appeal timeframes). He understood that the proper form was delivered to the Planning Division on November 1 and that a check in good standing was delivered on November 7, which was within the 21 -days appeal period. Therefore, in his opinion, and based upon those facts, and upholding our policy strictly to the ordinance, he believed official notice did not occur until October 17. The appeal was therefore timely, he held; it was on the appropriate form; funds were in good order; and he supported the Motion to hear the appeal. Vice Chairman Davis surmised that we are victims of an inadequate policy and it is the policy that was in place. He deemed the two days were significant, and believed that is where we should draw the line, and it should be a bright line. He was not in favor of the Motion. THE MOTION The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the Motion carried 4-1 (Vice Chairman Davis opposed). The Board determined that it has jurisdiction, and approved to hear the appeal. April 24, 2008 17 Special Call Meeting (The Source)