Agenda - 09-04-2014 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

67 1 Michael Harvey: My only response, Commissioner is going to be that that is the process as 2 embodied in the unified development ordinance, and that is the process that has been in place 3 during my tenure with Orange County. There's only two exceptions to that; when you have a 4 telecommunications tower, reviewed either as a Class B or a Class A special use permit, the 5 applicant is required to notify everybody of a balloon test, which is typically conducted 14 weeks 6 or so prior to the public hearing. There are also major subdivisions where we are required to 7 hold a neighborhood information meeting. And in those instances where a major subdivision 8 qualifies as a Class A special use permit, being more than 20 lots of proposed development, we 9 hold a neighborhood information meeting. But, those are the only two exceptions to the rule. 10 So class A special use permits, from schools, to solar facilities, to quarry operation, would follow 11 the same procedure. 12 13 Commissioner Rich: And how does one go about petitioning the Board to change that 14 procedure? 15 16 Michael Harvey: Well the current Board policy is, obviously you can petition the Board during a 17 work session to study, particularly request or ask the Chair/Vice Chair to respond to a particular 18 petition. I would, at risk of maybe annoying one of my colleagues, suggest that your next item 19 this evening is discussing the revision to the quarterly public hearing process, and while I don't 20 think this falls into that category, it conceivably would be a point of discussion during that item 21 as well. 22 23 Commissioner Rich: I daresay, with the number of people still to speak and the hour, we are 24 not going to be considering the public hearing item tonight. The next public hearing's date is 25 September 8th, just for information. And also, for information, we found in the siting of satellite 26 facilities for fire departments, that there was no public notification process, and we changed the 27 UDO to require a public information meeting. So, it would certainly be consistent with even 28 what this Board has done within the last year to do no less for items like this. 29 30 My question is for our attorney though. A point was made when the second appraiser 31 for the neighborhood spoke, that he had — he was only making verbal comments, and he had 32 not submitted anything in writing. What is the—We're getting a lot of material. I understand 33 people are submitting writing —writings. What is the effect of testifying without having a written 34 report? Does that make it lesser testimony, not admissible testimony, equivalent testimony? 35 What's that about? 36 37 James Bryan: Oh, I could go on for so long. This is great. So the shortest answer, I think, is 38 nothing. That what you want is the oral testimony. The written is just for ease of looking at it 39 afterward. The only thing that truly matters is what they are saying and what they are testifying 40 to. And there is going to be—when they give something written, they may refer you to it. So, 41 you have an appraiser that says "look at this chart." So they don't have to read every numeral 42 out there. But that's what matters. Written statements, if they've got an affidavit, if somebody 43 has to leave, that's not competent evidence. It has to be competent material and substantial 44 evidence. Competent evidence is somebody here testifying before you, that the opposition gets 45 to cross examine. Pieces of paper offer very little for that. 46 47 Pete Hallenbeck: Any other questions for the Commissioners? Okay, next are planning board 48 questions. Indulgence to my colleagues, I have a few questions. I'll read them, and then we'll 49 see if we have any more. 50