|
going to extend the public hearing, to do that, and then submit this to the planning board for
<br />their April regular meeting, where they have all the facts to deliberate on.
<br />Commissioner McKee: I realize and also agree that the process is a bit cumbersome. My
<br />concern is that we not change up the process in the middle of a project, that we move this
<br />forward under the process that we've got; and then that we, either later in this when we talk
<br />about it, or in a later meeting we discuss what process we need to go to, if we need to go to
<br />another one. But, I would prefer to go ahead with the process we've got in place, and move this
<br />project forward.
<br />Commissioner Gordon: I have a procedural question for the attorney or somebody, and that
<br />is, some people just came in who wanted to speak. We haven't actually closed the public
<br />hearing yet. We've got a motion on the floor and a second, but we haven't voted on it. If people
<br />wanted to withdraw those motions and let people speak, could they?
<br />James Bryan: Yes.
<br />Commissioner Gordon: Well that's what I would suggest.
<br />Commissioner Pelissier: Well that was also one of the things that I wanted to say is that we
<br />should accept additional public comment, and I do want to make another comment about the
<br />public hearing. I thought, and I can't remember at the last meeting, that when we make such
<br />motions that we adjourn the public hearing to receive the planning board comments, when it
<br />comes back, it's not really a public hearing; so I wouldn't call it a fake public hearing. And I think
<br />we have to make sure we have the correct title so that we are not misleading anybody in the
<br />public about what we're doing, and this is our public hearing, tonight.
<br />Commissioner Dorosin: So, we are the body that makes the decision on the CUP, right, not
<br />the planning board? So, I don't understand why their deliberations would necessarily have to be
<br />subject to testimony under oath or anything else. And I think if we are going to receive the
<br />planning board's comments as part of the record, then the public hearing is not over. So, either
<br />that becomes part of the record of the public hearing, and so then there's opportunity for more
<br />comment; so again I think it's either, if we're taking more evidence, which is what I think the
<br />planning board recommendation would be considered, then the public hearing is still open; and
<br />if it's still open, then anybody should be allowed to comment; and if it's closed, then there
<br />shouldn't be any evidence added to the record, which is why the planning board's
<br />recommendation should come at the front end.
<br />Chair Jacobs: Let me suggest two things — one is that I think there is sentiment on the board, if
<br />the motion maker and the seconder are comfortable, to table consideration of the motion to
<br />entertain whether there is any additional public comment at this time — secondly, as far as your
<br />point, as Mr. Harvey pointed out, we have a whole discussion of process, and I think some of
<br />your points relate directly to that process and are well taken in regard to calling something a
<br />public hearing when it's not, or else actually having a public hearing, if that's what we're going to
<br />call it. But, I would suggest that, while your points are well made and well taken, that looking at
<br />all the people who are here for other items, and the fact that we are going to discuss this toward
<br />the end of the meeting, that we just at this point table the motion for consideration until we see if
<br />there additional public comments and then have this discussion of process; and we could
<br />always talk about how it may relate to other items. But, at this point, move forward and see if
<br />there are people who had comments about this proposal. If you do, you need to come identify
<br />
|