Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant says 60‑day deadline means rezoning is 'approved by operation of law'; county counsel urges rehearing route
Summary
Applicant counsel told the commission the application should be "approved by operation of law" under the new 60‑day statute, while county civil counsel said procedural recusal claims are for the State Ethics Commission and that the appropriate remedy for prejudice would be a rehearing.
During the public hearing on MA0012026, applicant counsel Michael Carty told commissioners the filing deadline under the new statute (referred to in the hearing as 8a‑13‑2) expired that day and that, in his view, the application "has been approved by operation of law." Carty asked the commission to note a planning commission procedural concern (a commissioner who spoke without leaving the room) and said the applicant was preserving that argument for the record.
County civil counsel Bader Gegenbach responded that procedural defects over recusal and participation are matters for the State Ethics Commission and that the typical remedy for prejudicial procedural defects is to re‑hold the hearing. Gegenbach cautioned that parties should not expect to obtain automatic relief from a procedural defect while simultaneously claiming the benefit of a timing statute. He told the commission, "if it was prejudicial, then the remedy is a rehearing."
