Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
20 <br /> 1 Commissioner Dorosin: Excellent. I wish it had come up first, but thank you. I know there is <br /> 2 some discussion about this. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Michael Harvey: And again, without belaboring the point, we have a staff recommendation. <br /> 5 We wanted to provide you with an additional recommendation if you felt it may be necessary to <br /> 6 continue this public hearing to allow any additional public comment. So, we wanted to give you <br /> 7 both concepts of what you would like to do. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Commissioner Rich: I'll be quick. I wasn't criticizing. I actually think it's important to see the <br /> 10 different options that— I mean often we don't see the different options, and I think it's important <br /> 11 to see that. I wasn't criticizing. <br /> 12 <br /> 13 Michael Harvey: And I didn't take it that way. I just wanted to make sure you understood why, <br /> 14 all of a sudden, you are seeing it here instead of also in the staff report. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 Commissioner Gordon: So staff doesn't have a recommendation. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Michael Harvey: Staff's recommendation is that you send this to the planning board, adjourn <br /> 19 this to May 8th. If you believe additional testimony is necessary, you cannot adjourn the public <br /> 20 hearing until May 8th, because no additional testimony will be accepted. If you believe additional <br /> 21 public comment is necessary then our recommendation then will be that you adjourn this public <br /> 22 hearing until the March 18th regular meeting where you reconvene the public hearing to accept <br /> 23 additional public comment. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Commissioner Gordon: Otherwise, it goes to the planning board and people can write their <br /> 26 comments. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Michael Harvey: Yes, ma'am. <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Commissioner Dorosin: So, I just wanted to ask, could we, instead of—Could we do some <br /> 31 combination of this? In other words, couldn't we potentially amend the motion on the floor to <br /> 32 allow for additional public comment when it comes back on May 8th? You just described it as <br /> 33 saying, if we wanted more public comment we should set it for March 8th, and then presumably <br /> 34 at that point we would adopt the proposal that's on the floor. And I'm just wondering if— <br /> 35 Couldn't we do them both at the same? <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Michael Harvey: My concern would be that the planning board would then begin deliberations <br /> 38 with comments made this evening. Any additional comments, this would be a reconvening of <br /> 39 the public hearing with just the County Commissioners. So, the planning board would begin <br /> 40 deliberation on this item based on everything they've received here this evening, and I wouldn't <br /> 41 advise the planning board to make a recommendation until after the March 18th if you do <br /> 42 continue this. Because, obviously they're basing their decisions on matters entered this <br /> 43 hearing, but they aren't going to have comments from March 18th until afterwards. So, if you <br /> 44 forward this to the planning board for the March regular meeting, they can discuss the merits of <br /> 45 the application based on the testimony they've received, but they can't make a decision if there <br /> 46 is going to be an extended public hearing; which is why it is just more appropriate, if you're <br /> 47 going to extend the public hearing, to do that, and then submit this to the planning board for <br /> 48 their April regular meeting, where they have all the facts to deliberate on. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 Commissioner McKee: I realize and also agree that the process is a bit cumbersome. My <br /> 51 concern is that we not change up the process in the middle of a project, that we move this <br />