Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />10 <br />Perdita Holtz said it might be helpful to designate public hearing dates for planning <br />related issues. She said this does not limit public hearings for other issues. <br />Commissioner Gordon said this is not clear, and there is nothing that states that the <br />schedule would be proposed as part of the calendar. <br />Perdita Holtz said this is not in the legal advertisement, but it is in the proposed <br />amendment. <br />Commissioner Gordon asked where the designation of meeting "for planning related <br />issues" should be placed. <br />Perdita Holtz said this could go at the end of the first sentence. She read the text. <br />John Roberts said the Board may want to discuss revamping the entire public hearing <br />process, including how the public hearings are conducted. He suggested using as broad a <br />language as possible. He suggested some specific wording for this. <br />Commissioner Gordon said the point was to limit it to a certain topic so the people would <br />know. She suggested altering the language as Perdita Holtz suggested, to say "the proposed <br />amendments would replace the existing joint Board of County Commissioners /Planning Board <br />public hearings with a minimum of 8 BOCC only public hearing dates for planning related <br />issues." <br />Chair Jacobs said this is different than the attorney's suggestion. He asked if there was <br />a second. <br />The motion died for lack of a second. <br />Commissioner Dorosin said he does not agree with the narrower scope being described. <br />He said this is not just about changing the quarterly hearing to an alternative schedule or <br />changing the meetings to Commissioner's only. He said there is more to it that just that. He <br />said he agreed with the attorney's description of looking at the whole process. He said this is <br />just an announcement of the public hearing about public hearings, and it should be as broad as <br />possible. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price that <br />the proposed amendment would replace the existing joint Board of County Commissioners <br />/Planning Board quarterly public hearings regarding land use and planning, as well as the <br />scope, conduct and organization and administration of public hearings generally. <br />Chair Jacobs said there was some discussion of this at agenda review. He said there <br />was discussion of having nomenclature to suggest the nature of the public hearing in order to <br />avoid misleading the public. <br />Commissioner Gordon said she still thinks it should be designated that the planning <br />board would make its recommendations for land use and planning issues to the Board of <br />County Commissioners after the quarterly public hearing, but a quorum would no longer be <br />necessary to hold a public hearing. <br />Commissioner Dorosin said the whole structure is on the table, so this is to be decided. <br />He said he has questioned where the appropriate time is in the process for the planning board <br />to give input. He thinks his broader motion will encompass those questions. <br />VOTE: Ayes, 6 — Nays, 1(Commissioner Gordon) <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich, to <br />approve the legal advertisement for items to be presented at the joint Board of County <br />Commissioners /Planning Board Quarterly Public Hearing scheduled for May 27, 2014. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />