Laserfiche WebLink
which the Commission has power and, <br />authority. <br />She cited the example of hardship, <br />stating that she had defined what <br />constitutes a hardship and the <br />procedures for declaring hardship. She <br />also clarified the appeal process. <br />Mr. Oxian stated that he had suggested <br />to Ms. DeRose that the term be extended <br />from 30 days for the entire process to <br />45 days, allowing the Commission time <br />to act upon an application after it has <br />been tabled. <br />Ms. DeRose stated that she did not list <br />anything under notice given by the <br />Commission because she was not certain <br />what policies the Commission followed. <br />Mrs. Dixon stated that the Commission <br />follows the Open Door law for the State <br />of Indiana, which requires notice of <br />two business days prior to the meeting. <br />Mr. Oxian asked the Commission to look <br />the proposal over and notify either the <br />staff or Ms. DeRose within two weeks if <br />there are any questions or changes to <br />be made. <br />Mrs. Sporleder asked who must prove <br />hardship in a "hardship case". Ms. <br />DeRose stated that the applicant must <br />be able to clearly demonstrate <br />hardship. <br />Mrs. Sporleder then asked whether the <br />process was strictly procedural, <br />strictly legal, or some of both. Ms. <br />DeRose explained that it was both_ It <br />is procedural, but it complies with and <br />clarifies the law(s) which allow for <br />the Certificate of Appropriateness <br />process. It forms the law which the <br />Commission must follow. If the <br />Commission fails to follow the <br />procedures, their decisions could be <br />considered arbitrary and would not hold <br />up in court. If they follow the <br />procedures, they are able to <br />demonstrate the basis for their <br />decisions. <br />Mr. Oxian reminded the Commission that <br />