AgdaPkt 2002-05-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

the matter is to be resolved. The State then set forth three alternative ways in which local jurisdictions could regulate large daycare facilities as follows: 1. Determine that permits would be issued as a matter of right. The applicant comes in and gets the permit with no questions asked. 2. A non-discretionary permit that comes before the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator makes the dete..ination as to whether or not the permit should issue. 3, Set a use permit process by which the application would be made. The Zoning Administrator would be required to give notice, the Zoning Administrator would be required to conduct a headng, and an appeal right is specifically, referred to in State statute. In the year 2000, the Council determined that they wanted to use a non- discretionary permit process and also, provide for an opportunity for neighbors to be notified, and if a protest evolved, provide the right to come to Council. That was built into the existing ordinance. The difficulty with that is when you look at the State Law, the State Law makes absolutely no reference to the ability of the local jurisdiction to require notice and allow for an appeal to the City Council under the non-distretionary permit. Council questions and discussion ensued, including clarification from the City Attorney as to the implications at the current time. City Attorney Yamamoto stated that from a legal perspective at this time, prior to the Council opening the public hearing, the Zoning Administrator has approved the permit. To that extent, the City is in conformance with the State Law. Although there was a mediation process, a hearing and an appeal filed, that the decision would revert back to the Zoning Administrator who has already determined that the permit should be issued. Consensus by Council was to hear public commen~, ~, ~J Council questions. Mayor Claire reiterated to the audience that given the circumstances, the Zoning Administrator's ruling prevails. Public Comment: Robert J. Hoffman, the appellant, thanked Council Member Hartnett for his comments, but disagreed with his conclusion. He referred to a certified copy of the ordinance passed on February 28, 2000 received from the City Clerk. He stated paragraph 8 of the ordinance is almost a duplicate of the State Law, option no. 3 relative to large family day care homes. Mr. Hoffman stated, that it allows for notification within 100 feet, right of a hearing and right of appeal. He distributed copies of the State Law to Council and staff. Mr. Hoffman further stated that the public, published staff report is absolutely erroneous. He stated that the ordinance and the State Law are identical and stated his disagreement with Council not having jurisdiction or a right to judge on the appeal. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2002 MINUTES PAGE 6