Agenda - 09-08-2014 - C5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

M Approved 2/5/14 54 55 Pete Hallenbeck: I also like the quicker review and more meetings and less time for the public to get something 56 through. That is certainly the number one point of all of this. 57 58 Perdita Holtz: I should mention that it is probably not going to be less time from application deadline to decision but 59 there will be more opportunities for someone to submit an application. If they miss a deadline, they don't have to 60 wait as long until the next application deadline. 61 62 Paul Guthrie: On page 19, in the new language, Planning Board shall make a recommendation based on 63 information entered into the record at the public hearing but not make the finding required in section 5.3.2A. Does 64 that mean that it is going to be the individual duty of the Planning Board member to look at all the documentation 65 put in the public record at the time of the hearing in order to justify its decision? 66 67 Perdita Holtz: No, this is for Special Use Permits. They don't come along that often but for Class A Special Use 68 Permits there is a 15 page form of yes /no answers that staff fills out for the Planning Board on whether it meets the 69 requirements of various sections such as if they have enough landscaping, if they have enough buffer, etc. and we 70 check yes or no in staff's opinion and then the Planning Board either concurs with that opinion or dissents from that 71 opinion. On that form there are four questions that staff does not make a recommendation on and those are things 72 that the Planning Board has to come to its own conclusion about and the BOCC has to come to its own conclusion 73 as well. Those are the section referenced here and if you were not at the hearing it would be legally murky to make 74 those findings if you weren't in attendance so that is what this is in reference to. I should also mention that on page 75 17, the language of 2.3.10b needs to be revised a little bit before it goes to public hearing so that will be changing 76 from what you see in front of you here. 77 78 Paul Guthrie: You have similar language in 2.8.8b. Another question, have you thought about how you would 79 space the 8 mandatory hearing dates? 80 81 Perdita Holtz: It is going to be up to the BOCC to decide that but we as staff are going to recommend to them that 82 they probably do hearings in the months of February, March; April, May, September, October, November. January 83 they only have one meeting per year and it is usually very full and in December those are the last meetings before 84 the break so we don't want to put them there plus the agenda deadlines are different due to the holidays. June is off 85 as it is very budget heavy month when they have to adopt the budget by the end of the month, That is our staff 86 recommendation but the BOCC will stagger them however they want. 87 88 Paul Guthrie: Again in 2.8.8e, which is existing language, do you think that existing language is a little too 89 restrictive given the new format of not having the joint hearings? Essentially, the first time we'll be exposed to 90 testimony will be in the presentation at the Planning Board meeting and does that mean we cut off verbal testimony. 91 92 Perdita Holtz: The reason it was adopted was the BOCC did not want to have oral evidence at the Planning Board 93 meetings that they did not also hear. That is why this language exists. The meeting at the Planning Board is not 94 going to be an official public hearing it is just a regular Planning Board meeting and technically people will not be 95 able to come and speak if they don't also have their comments in writing. If you think that is not desirable, you can 96 make a recommendation to look at that or change the language. 97 98 Paul Guthrie: I would encourage you to think about it because, and I'm wondering if that may even need to be 99 elaborated on a little bit, because if somebody wants to come the Planning Board meeting or only knows about it 100 through the Planning Board then we are advising County Commissioners who have already had a hearing. It 101 bothers me a little bit. 102