Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board says post-hearing letters were excluded from decision under municipal planning code
Summary
Board chair and solicitor said letters submitted after the June 15 hearing — including those from the Bent Creek Property Owners Association — were not considered because the municipal planning code bars taking such communications after testimony is closed unless parties may contest them.
Chair Mark Hansen and solicitor Jason Hess told the board that letters and other communications received by the township after the June 15 hearing could not be considered in the board's decision because the parties lacked an opportunity to contest them. Hansen cited the municipal planning code's restriction and said the board "did not take notice of any letters received and has not considered any of their contents in the decision it will be making."
Hess reiterated that the hearing record closed on June 15, that the board is required to render a decision within 45 days, and that he had prepared a draft written decision after conferring with board members. The solicitor named parties present in the June 15 proceeding: the applicant (represented by attorney Kurt Williams) and protestant Matthew Elliott (represented by attorney Melvin Newcomer). The transcript records that letters were received from the Bent Creek Property Owners Association and from individual property owners, but the board stated those communications were excluded from the record under the municipal planning code's procedures.
