Prior to the Planning Commission’s deliberations on the appeal, the applicant requested an <br />additional 60-day time extension to allow the Planning Commission more time for deliberations <br />prior to the deadline for a final local decision. The Planning Commission subsequently deliberated <br />on the appeal issues at its meetings on January 28 and February 18, 2025, and reached a final <br />decision to reverse and modify portions of the Hearings Official’s decision resulting in approval of <br />the subject applications with conditions, as reflected in this Final Order. The Planning <br />Commission’s decision is further detailed below, with findings addressing each of the appellant’s <br />10 assignments of error. <br />II.RECORD BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />The entire record was provided to the Planning Commission for consideration in reaching its final <br />decision on the appeal. The record before the Planning Commission consists of all the items that <br />were placed before, and not rejected by, the Planning Commission prior to its final decision. This <br />includes all application and appeal materials, evidence, recordings, and written testimony <br />submitted and accepted prior to the close of the record which occurred immediately following <br />Planning Commission’s public hearing, on January 14, 2025. <br />Under EC 9.7655, appeals to the Planning Commission are “on the record,” that is, the Planning <br />Commission is limited to consideration of the record before the Hearings Official and may not <br />consider new evidence provided during the appeal process. In addition, appeals to the Planning <br />Commission are “limited to issues raised in the record that are set out in the filed statement of <br />issues.” The Planning Commission’s decision on the appeal is therefore limited to the issues raised <br />by the appellant and the relevant evidence and argument within the record. New evidence not <br />provided to the Hearings Official and testimony regarding issues not raised by the appellant was <br />rejected by the Commission as discussed in more detail below. <br />III.PROCEDURAL ISSUES <br />Bias/Ex Parte Contacts <br />None of the Planning Commissioners disclosed potential bias or ex parte contacts, and no bias or <br />ex parte contact challenges were asserted. <br />Rejection of Testimony <br />The Planning Commission has limited its consideration to evidence available to the Hearings <br />Official and to the appeal issues identified by the applicant. At the Planning Commission meeting <br />on January 28, 2025, the Planning Commission reviewed and retained various written testimony <br />submitted prior to the close of the hearing and record. The Planning Commission also reviewed <br />and rejected the following written testimony (or portions thereof) submitted prior to the close of <br />the hearing and record: <br />1.The Planning Commission rejected Elaine Hanks’ October 13, 2024, email because the <br />Planning Commission determined that the testimony included in the email was entirely <br />unrelated to the appeal issues raised by the applicant. Because the Planning Commission is <br />limited to consideration of the issues raised in the appeal, the Planning Commission cannot <br />consider Ms. Hanks’ testimony. <br />Planning Commission Agenda 01/28/2025 Page 9 of 42