Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews language narrowing municipal appeals by defining 'aggrieved person' and excluding some 'interested persons'
Summary
Staff described draft language intended to limit appeals of municipal decisions to ‘aggrieved persons’ who own or occupy property in the immediate neighborhood and to exclude some categories of ‘interested persons’ from filing appeals; participants flagged possible constitutional concerns and differing Senate and committee positions.
Legislative staff briefed the group on a draft amendment that would change who can appeal municipal decisions by clarifying the definitions of “interested person” and “aggrieved person.” A staff member explained the working language would exclude some categories of “interested persons” while adding the immediate neighborhood to the definition of an aggrieved person.
A staff presenter summarized the draft: “...people who are appealing municipal decisions ... have to be a person aggrieved and they have to own property in the immediate neighborhood,” a staff member said while walking through the circulated text. The staff member noted a late edit that added a new numbered item to the draft’s definition section to avoid duplicative language.
Office of Legislative Council and other Senate reviewers had examined the language, the staff briefing said, and members of the Senate committee raised constitutional concerns during subsequent review. One staff speaker said the Senate’s Natural Resources and Energy committee and Senate counsel had “heard testimony very strongly ... supporting the constitutional concerns” and that the Senate was leaning toward first receiving a report from an appointed board (identified in the session as LERB/LIRB in the draft) rather than immediately changing municipal appeal procedures.
Staff advised the group that the current position was not agreement across all participants; one staff member said, “We may reach agreement. Right. We're not. Okay.” Committee members asked clarifying questions about the constitutional issues and whether the change would leave some parties unable to challenge municipal decisions in court or administrative proceedings.
There was no formal vote or adoption recorded during the session; members indicated they would continue discussions and might defer changes until they had inputs from the appointed board and any further counsel opinions.
