Minutes 05-27-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

no distractions. But, in the last 30 minutes or so, it's become more difficult to hear your questions, and for us to answer when there is noise from the audience. So, I would ask the Chair if you could just remind the audience of your rules of decorum, please. Pete Hallenbeck: I believe you did that, and I agree. Even though it's late, we should all try to be civil and do our best to help everybody communicate. Do we have other questions? Commissioner Gordon: I just have a procedural question for the attorney. So, you mentioned that if we wanted to have sworn testimony we could continue the hearing. What would be your recommendation in terms of if we wanted to do that? To what date certain would we continue it? How would we go about that? James Bryan: If you wanted to have more sworn testimony, you will want to allow both attorneys there to cross examine them. You will want to continue this with both boards, because this is a joint hearing. So, you would continue to the next quarterly public hearing would be my recommendation. Commissioner Gordon: Because I was just making kind of a list of all the things that we said we wanted, and some of it would require getting sworn testimony and then giving a person the chance to then cross examine, if we really wanted that. So I think that that would mean we would then continue the public hearing. The date certain would be the next quarterly public hearing, which is in September. James Bryan: I believe so. Commissioner Gordon: Okay. Well I would suggest that we consider that, because we've got — I've just got a list of a number of things here that we said we wanted and I can't see how we'd get it reliably unless we had sworn testimony and a chance to cross examine. Pete Hallenbeck: Commissioner Jacobs. Oh, sorry. Commissioner Jacobs: I'll go after Commissioner Rich. Pete Hallenbeck: Commissioner Rich. Commissioner Rich: So, I'm going to actually follow up with Alice. I think that we should also continue the hearing. I don't' think that we should end it. I think there is too much information out there that we don't have. But I have another procedural question, and that is - I don't quite understand — I mean there were a couple of statements tonight that were that the applicant had been involved with this process for quite some time, yet the neighbors have only been involved with it for about 2 weeks or 10 days. And I'm just wondering if— I'm just wondering if that's fair. I'm wondering if it's a way that we move forward with all of our procedures, and if—with these hearings —and if it is, I would down the road petition the Board to change it. Because I don't think that making people, our citizens of Orange County, who have lived here and paid taxes for 25, 30 years to only have 2 weeks to gather themselves together, while the applicant has months to talk to you and use your knowledge of the UDO and everything else. I just don't know that that's fair and balanced.