Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
37 <br />but it seems to me that this doesn't seem like the most efficient or expeditious way of doing it. <br />And I have concerns about that. <br />Michael Harvey: If I may add, that subject matter is actually coming up later this evening. <br />Commissioner Dorosin: Excellent. I wish it had come up first, but thank you. I know there is <br />some discussion about this. <br />Michael Harvey: And again, without belaboring the point, we have a staff recommendation. <br />We wanted to provide you with an additional recommendation if you felt it may be necessary to <br />continue this public hearing to allow any additional public comment. So, we wanted to give you <br />both concepts of what you would like to do. <br />Commissioner Rich: I'll be quick. I wasn't criticizing. I actually think it's important to see the <br />different options that — I mean often we don't see the different options, and I think it's important <br />to see that. I wasn't criticizing. <br />Michael Harvey: And I didn't take it that way. I just wanted to make sure you understood why, <br />all of a sudden, you are seeing it here instead of also in the staff report. <br />Commissioner Gordon: So staff doesn't have a recommendation. <br />Michael Harvey: Staff's recommendation is that you send this to the planning board, adjourn <br />this to May 8th. If you believe additional testimony is necessary, you cannot adjourn the public <br />hearing until May 8th, because no additional testimony will be accepted. If you believe additional <br />public comment is necessary then our recommendation then will be that you adjourn this public <br />hearing until the March 18th regular meeting where you reconvene the public hearing to accept <br />additional public comment. <br />Commissioner Gordon: Otherwise, it goes to the planning board and people can write their <br />comments. <br />Michael Harvey: Yes, ma'am. <br />Commissioner Dorosin: So, I just wanted to ask, could we, instead of — Could we do some <br />combination of this? In other words, couldn't we potentially amend the motion on the floor to <br />allow for additional public comment when it comes back on May 8th? You just described it as <br />saying, if we wanted more public comment we should set it for March 8th, and then presumably <br />at that point we would adopt the proposal that's on the floor. And I'm just wondering if — <br />Couldn't we do them both at the same? <br />Michael Harvey: My concern would be that the planning board would then begin deliberations <br />with comments made this evening. Any additional comments, this would be a reconvening of <br />the public hearing with just the County Commissioners. So, the planning board would begin <br />deliberation on this item based on everything they've received here this evening, and I wouldn't <br />advise the planning board to make a recommendation until after the March 18th if you do <br />continue this. Because, obviously they're basing their decisions on matters entered this <br />hearing, but they aren't going to have comments from March 18th until afterwards. So, if you <br />forward this to the planning board for the March regular meeting, they can discuss the merits of <br />the application based on the testimony they've received, but they can't make a decision if there <br />is going to be an extended public hearing; which is why it is just more appropriate, if you're <br />