Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedure Rulemaking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission takes colocation disputes under advisement, flags need for clearer adjacency rules and a public registry
Summary
Commissioners signaled they will deliberate further on how to define adjacency and whether to pursue rulemaking or improved public project-queue transparency after hearing staff, PPRP and developer arguments in two colocation disputes.
After extended exchanges with staff, PPRP and applicants in two separate colocation disputes (Harkins Lane and Telegraph Road), the commission said it would take both matters under advisement rather than issue immediate rulings.
Commissioners and staff discussed the tension between applying the pilot-program definition that treated parcels across a road as adjacent and the commission's earlier Ameresco decision that treated a public road as a separating feature. Several commissioners expressed concern that ad hoc rulings could create difficult precedents. Staff said it is open to improving public-facing queue tools so developers can identify potential adjacency earlier and avoid late-stage conflicts. Lloyd Spivak and other senior staff emphasized the need for a deliberate, rulemaking-based approach to defining adjacency (potentially distance- or sight-line-based) to avoid inconsistent outcomes.
The commission did not issue show-cause orders at the administrative meeting but asked staff to return with options for a transparent registry and to consider whether RM56 or other rulemaking venues should address adjacency definitions and queue transparency.
